CHAPTER FOUR: Of Faith, In Which the Apostles' Creed Is Explained (part 2 of 6)
And rightly so, since nothing is more precious to him than his truth, which Jesus Christ says is sealed and approved by believers:
“He who has received his testimony has set his seal that God is true.”
Since this matter admits of little doubt, we conclude in a word that the Sorbonnists speak foolishly when they say that faith is formed when a good affection is joined to assent, seeing that the assent described in Scripture cannot exist without a good affection.
But there is another and much clearer reason. For faith receives Christ as he is offered by the Father, and he is offered not only as righteousness, forgiveness of sins, and peace, but also as sanctification and a fountain of living water. Faith therefore cannot properly acknowledge him without apprehending the sanctification of his Spirit.
Or, if someone wishes to have this stated still more clearly: faith consists in the knowledge of Christ, and Christ cannot be known without the sanctification of his Spirit. It follows that faith must never be separated from a good affection.
Those who customarily allege Saint Paul’s words:
“If anyone had such perfect faith that he could remove mountains, but had no love, he would be nothing.”
—1 Corinthians 13:2 and who use them to construct an unformed faith devoid of love, do not consider what the word “faith” signifies in this passage.
Saint Paul had been discussing the various gifts of the Spirit, among which he had named tongues, powers, and prophecies. He had exhorted Christians to devote themselves to the more excellent and profitable gifts—that is, those from which greater fruit and benefit might come to the whole body of the Church:
“Earnestly desire the more excellent gifts, and I will show you a still more excellent way.”
He then adds that he will show them a still more excellent way: namely, that although all these gifts are excellent in their own nature, they are to be esteemed as nothing unless they serve love. For they are given for the edification of the Church, and if they are not directed toward that end, they lose their beauty and value.
To prove this, he sets forth a division, repeating the same graces he had mentioned before but calling them by different names. Thus, what he had first called “power,” he afterward calls “faith,” signifying by both words the power to perform miracles.
Now, since this power—whether it is called faith or power—is a particular gift of God which a wicked man may possess and abuse, as he may the gift of tongues, prophecy, and other similar gifts, it is no wonder that it can be separated from love.
The whole error of these poor men is that, although the word “faith” has various meanings, they fail to observe this diversity and argue as though it were always used in precisely the same sense. The passage from Saint James that they also cite to confirm their error will be explained elsewhere.
Their fantasy of implicit faith not only buries true faith but utterly destroys it. Is this what it means to believe: to understand nothing, provided that one submits one’s judgment to the Church? Certainly, faith does not consist in ignorance but in knowledge—and that not only of God, but also of his will.
For we do not obtain salvation because we are prepared to receive as true everything the Church may determine, or because we commit to it the responsibility of inquiring and knowing. Rather, we obtain salvation because we know that God is a benevolent Father toward us through the reconciliation accomplished in Christ, and because we receive Christ as given to us for righteousness, sanctification, and life.
It is through this knowledge, and not by submitting our minds to unknown things, that we obtain entrance into the heavenly kingdom. For when the Apostle says:
“With the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.”
he does not mean that it is sufficient for someone implicitly to believe what he does not understand. Rather, he requires a pure and clear knowledge of the goodness of God, in which our righteousness consists.
It is true that I do not deny that, since we are enveloped in ignorance, many things are and will remain hidden from us until, having laid aside this mortal body, we are brought nearer to God. In such matters, I confess that nothing is more fitting than to suspend our judgment and meanwhile remain firmly resolved to continue in unity with the Church.
But it is mockery to bestow the name of faith, under this pretext, upon sheer ignorance. For faith consists in the knowledge of God and Christ, not in reverence for the Church.
Indeed, we see what an abyss they have opened by such implication: the ignorant receive without any discernment everything presented to them under the name of the Church, even the grossest errors that can be offered to them. Although such thoughtless readiness causes a man to stumble into ruin, it is nevertheless excused by them on the ground that he believes nothing definitively, but only with this condition added: “if such is the faith of the Church.”
In this manner they pretend that truth is possessed in error, light in blindness, and knowledge in ignorance. But so that we may not spend too long refuting these follies, we merely admonish readers to compare them with our doctrine, for the very clarity of the truth will furnish arguments enough to confound them.
Because it seemed to me that the nature of faith could not be better explained than by considering the promises upon which it is so firmly founded that, if they are removed, faith is ruined—or rather, vanishes altogether—I have therefore drawn our definition from them. Nevertheless, this definition does not differ from that of the Apostle, when he teaches:
“Faith is the substance of things hoped for and the proof of things not seen.”
For by the word hypostasis, which he uses, he means a support upon which the believer’s soul rests. It is as though he said that faith is a certain and assured possession of the things God has promised us.
Yet to signify that these things are too lofty to be apprehended by our senses, beheld by our eyes, or touched by our hands until the last day, when their full revelation will be made—and that meanwhile we possess them only by surpassing the whole capacity of our minds, raising our understanding above everything in this world, and finally rising above ourselves—he adds that this assurance concerns things that lie in hope and therefore are not seen. As Saint Paul says:
“What is seen is not hope, for we do not hope for what we see.”
When he calls faith the proof or demonstration of things not seen, he speaks as though he were saying that it is evidence of what does not appear, a vision of what is not seen, a clear perception of obscure things, a presence of things absent, and a demonstration of things hidden.
For the mysteries of God, and especially those pertaining to our salvation, cannot be contemplated in their own nature. We behold them only in the word of God, of whose truth we must be so firmly persuaded that we regard everything it declares as already done and accomplished.
How, then, can a heart rise to acknowledge and taste such goodness in God without also being inflamed with love for him? For such an abundance of sweetness as God has laid up for those who fear him cannot be truly understood without moving the heart. Moreover, it cannot move the heart without drawing and raising it to itself.
It is therefore no wonder that this affection never enters a perverse and crooked heart, since it opens our eyes and gives us access to all the treasures of God and the holy mysteries of his kingdom, which must not be polluted by the entrance of an unclean heart.
Now, what the Sorbonnists teach—that love precedes faith and hope —is sheer fantasy, since faith alone first engenders love within us. But this matter and others like it will be treated elsewhere. For now, let it suffice for us to understand what faith is.
Although it is true that the proper nature of faith is most clearly displayed when it is directed toward the Gospel as its goal, we must nevertheless inquire what faith ought principally to behold in that Gospel. We briefly touched upon this when we showed how the sum of the Gospel is contained in Jesus Christ. By this we meant that all the promises are not only comprehended in him but also presented to us in him. But since this matter deserves a clearer explanation, we must now pursue it.
“This is eternal life: to know the only God, and Jesus Christ whom he has sent.”
It is therefore a matter of great importance to possess a right knowledge of the Father and of Christ. What must be understood concerning the Father is seen only in the Son. For the Father dwells in inaccessible light, yet through his Son he sheds upon us the brightness of that light. He is invisible not only to the eye but also to the understanding; nevertheless, in his Son he gives us his living image to contemplate.
Therefore, the Apostle places the illumination of the knowledge of God in the face of Jesus Christ:
“God has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of his glory in the face of Jesus Christ.”
Nor would Christ rightly be called the light of the world unless through him the brightness of divine glory were revealed to men:
“I am the light of the world.”
Thus, not only is what the Apostle says true—namely, that Christ is the brightness of his Father’s glory and the living image of his substance:
“He is the brightness of his glory and the express image of his substance.”
but we must also add that in him the Father’s glory is displayed to us and the image of his substance appears to us. For the Father willed to place in him everything he possessed, so that through him he might communicate himself to us and glorify his name.
If, therefore, we seek access to the Father, we must turn to the one who alone can reveal him to us. When he calls himself the Way, he shows that it belongs to him alone to direct us:
“I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father except through me.”
When he calls himself the Door, he declares that it is his office to grant us entrance:
“I am the door; if anyone enters through me, he shall be saved.”
And, as it is said elsewhere:
“No one knows the Son except the Father, nor does anyone know the Father except the Son and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal him.”
For just as it has been said that we must be drawn by the Spirit of the Father in order to be moved to seek and receive Jesus Christ, so, on the other hand, we must understand that the invisible Father is to be sought nowhere except in Jesus Christ, who is his image.
Now, the true knowledge of Christ consists in receiving him as he is offered to us by the Father: namely, with the whole fullness of heavenly riches, so that he may be to us a treasure of blessedness and every good thing.
Nevertheless, in order to enter into possession of these riches, we must first know the means by which they were acquired for us: namely, the obedience of Christ, which he displayed by doing and accomplishing everything necessary for our salvation according to the eternal counsel of God.
Therefore, just as the Gospel is the object of our faith, and Christ is presented through the Gospel as its particular object, so in Christ faith looks upon what he did and suffered for our salvation. To obtain a complete explanation of faith, therefore, we must keep before our eyes everything in Christ that serves to confirm it. For after we have understood its matter and substance, it will be easy to perceive its whole nature and proper character as in a picture.
The Apostles’ Creed will serve us as such a picture, for in it the whole ordering of our salvation is set forth in all its parts, without a single point being omitted. I call it the Apostles’ Creed without troubling myself greatly about who composed it.
Certainly, the ancients attributed it to the Apostles with broad agreement, whether because they believed it had been written by them collectively, or because they regarded it as a summary of their doctrine arranged by others and wished to give it authority by that title.
However that may be, I do not doubt that, from whatever source it proceeded, it was received from the very beginning of the Church, even from the time of the Apostles, as a public and established confession of faith. Nor is it likely that it was composed by any private individual, since it has always possessed inviolable authority among believers.
The principal matter is beyond dispute: the whole history of our faith is briefly and beautifully arranged within it, and nothing contained in it lacks confirmation by sure testimonies of Scripture. Once this is understood, there is no need to torment ourselves greatly over who composed it or to dispute the matter with others—unless someone is not satisfied to possess the settled truth of the Holy Spirit but also insists upon knowing through whose mouth it was declared or by whose hand it was written.
Before proceeding to its exposition, however, we must consider two points. The first is that when this history is set before us, it is not so that we should stop at a bare knowledge of it, but rather that through it our understanding should rise to the comprehension of something higher.
For since the things recounted in it are of two kinds, some visible and others invisible, what we have said applies to both. The power of God, the Holy Spirit, the forgiveness of sins, and other similar matters are spiritual things that cannot be seen with the eye. When they are recounted to us, it is not enough merely to believe them true unless from that belief we derive confidence and hope.
Thus, we must not merely regard God as almighty but acknowledge him as the one who sustains us by his power. Nor must we merely conceive of the Holy Spirit in our imagination, but receive him together with his power. The same rule must apply to the other similar articles, which we will explain in their proper time and place. For now, we have wished only to give a brief example.
Again, the birth, death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ were events openly visible to men. Yet when they are related to us, the believing soul must not remain fixed upon their outward appearance. Since it knows that all the works of God are done in wisdom, it must consider and understand the reason for which they were done.
Thus, the object upon which our faith looks is the history, while its end and purpose is the contemplation of the invisible and incomprehensible things derived from that history. In this way, our soul conceives from the death of Christ confidence in his satisfaction, and from his resurrection the hope of immortality.
The second point that I said we must observe is the division of the Creed. It contains three parts describing the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, upon whom the whole mystery of our redemption depends. The fourth shows the things in which our salvation consists.
This order must not be neglected. For to arrive at the knowledge of our salvation, we must first consider these three points, which are its foundation and substance.
The first is the great goodness and kindness of the heavenly Father and his love toward the human race, demonstrated in that he did not spare his own Son but delivered him to death for us, that he might restore us to life:
“He who did not spare his own Son, but delivered him up for us all.”
The second is the obedience of the Son, which fulfills the mercy of God for the accomplishment of our salvation.
The third is the power of the Spirit, through whom the fruit of God’s goodness in Jesus Christ is communicated to us.
Saint Paul had these things in view when he wished for the Corinthians the love of God, the grace of Christ, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit:
“The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.”
For every good thing we possess proceeds from the love of God and is given and offered to us in Jesus Christ as the sole fountain of grace. By the power of the Spirit, we are made partakers of all the blessings presented to us by the goodness of God.
From this follows the faith we possess concerning the Church, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the flesh, and eternal life, which form the fourth part of the Creed.
Now, because Satan, desiring to destroy all faith from its root, has always stirred up great disturbances, partly concerning the divinity of Jesus Christ and partly concerning the personal distinction within God, and has in almost every age raised up wicked minds to trouble believers with these disputes, even attempting to overthrow the whole of Scripture, it seems good to me to begin the exposition of the Creed with this point.
Nevertheless, because I have resolved to instruct those who render themselves teachable rather than to contend against the rebellious, I will not engage in as lengthy a disputation as the importance of the matter might require. I will content myself with showing what must be followed and what must be avoided in this matter, yet in such a way that the truth may be defended against the slanders of the wicked. As I have said, my principal endeavor will be to instruct in true and firm doctrine those who willingly submit themselves in obedience to the truth.
First, if we must inquire soberly into all the profound mysteries contained in Scripture, we must above all exercise exceptional sobriety in this matter, taking great care that neither our thoughts nor our words pass beyond the limits of the word of God.
For how can the human understanding reduce the infinite essence of God to its own narrow measure, seeing that it has not yet been able to comprehend the nature of the sun, which is continually visible to the eye? Indeed, how can it investigate the subsistence of God when it does not even understand its own?
Let us therefore leave to God the knowledge of himself. He alone, as Saint Hilary says, can bear competent witness concerning himself, since he is known only through himself. We will leave this knowledge to him when we conceive of him as he manifests himself to us and inquire concerning him only through his word.
There are five excellent homilies by Saint Chrysostom on this subject against a sect of heretics called the Anomoeans. Yet even these could not restrain the audacity of the Sophists from giving free rein to their tongues and prattling senselessly about the majesty of God. They have shown no more modesty here than they ordinarily do in all other matters.
Since our Lord has punished their recklessness by permitting them to fall into many follies, we must be warned by their example to content ourselves with learning what Scripture teaches us, without embracing any subtle speculation. Indeed, we must not even allow it to enter our minds to seek anything concerning God except in his word, to think anything concerning him except in accordance with his word, or to speak anything concerning him except by his word.
Scripture so frequently and so clearly declares that there is one God, of an eternal, infinite, and spiritual essence, that there is no need to prove it at length. For the Manichaeans’ abuse of certain testimonies to establish two first principles was an utterly outrageous folly.
Likewise, the Anthropomorphites, who imagined God to be bodily because Scripture attributes to him a mouth, ears, hands, and feet, erred most grossly. For who is so lacking in understanding that he cannot see that our Lord attributes these things to himself in order to condescend to our capacity, just as a nurse lisps with a little child to accommodate herself to its limited understanding?
Such expressions, therefore, do not so much describe what God is as accommodate the knowledge of him to our ignorance. To do this, he must descend far beneath his own greatness and majesty. It is therefore evident how foolishly those men rave who seek to measure his essence by such descriptions.
We hold it as settled, then, that there is one God and that his essence is infinite, eternal, and spiritual. But the distinction of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit within the Godhead is not so easy to comprehend and greatly troubles many minds.
Let us therefore divide this question into two parts. The first will confirm the divinity of the Son and the Spirit; the second will explain the nature of the distinction among the Father, the Son, and the Spirit.
Scripture provides no lack of testimonies to establish both. For when we hear it speak of the Word of God, it would be a great absurdity to imagine a voice cast into the air and immediately vanishing, as the oracles and prophecies given of old to the fathers did with respect to their outward utterance. Rather, it signifies the eternal wisdom residing in God, from which all the ancient oracles and prophecies proceeded.
For, as Saint Peter testifies, the prophets under the Old Testament spoke by the Spirit of Christ no less than the Apostles who came after them and all those who have ministered the truth of God to men:
“The Spirit of Christ who was in them testified beforehand.” —1 Peter 1:11
Moses sufficiently shows that the world was not created by some sudden and temporary will in God, but by his eternal counsel and, if it is permissible to speak in this way, by his abiding and immutable heart.
Yet if this should remain doubtful or obscure to anyone, it is expressed still more clearly in Solomon, where he introduces the wisdom of God, which, having been begotten from all eternity, presided over the creation of the world and presides over all the works of God.
But Saint John declares it more plainly than either of them when he says:
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
For in each of these two clauses he attributes a permanent essence to the Word. Therefore, although all revelations proceeding from heaven are rightly given the title “words of God,” we must nevertheless acknowledge the essential Word, who is the origin and fountain of all revelations and is subject to no change. He always remains in God and is himself God.
Nevertheless, there are some who, not daring openly to deprive the Son of God of his divinity, endeavor secretly to rob him of his eternity. For they say that the Word began to exist when God opened his mouth at the creation of the world and commanded all things to be made.
But they sin most recklessly against the majesty of God by imagining some novelty in his substance. For just as the names of God that relate to his works were first attributed to him when those works began to exist—as when he is called the Creator of heaven and earth —so, on the contrary, godliness acknowledges no name signifying that something new has arisen within God himself.
But they quibble in this manner: Moses, by relating that God then began to speak, indicates that previously there was no Word in him. But must we infer that because something began to be manifested at a particular time, it had no prior existence?
I conclude precisely the opposite: since the power of his Word was manifested at the very moment when light was created, that Word must already have existed. If anyone asks how long before, no beginning will be found. For Jesus Christ, who is that Word, sets no limit of time when he says:
“Father, glorify your Son with the glory that I had with you before the world was created.”
In speaking thus, he passes beyond all time and all years. We therefore conclude again that the Word of God, having been conceived in him without any beginning, has always remained in him. By this his eternity, majesty, and true divine essence are established.
But since, once his divinity has been proved, everything else follows, we must concentrate principally upon establishing it, having first briefly considered in what sense he is called the Son of God.
The ancients, who held that Jesus Christ was begotten of the Father by an eternal generation, endeavored to prove it by this testimony from Isaiah:
“Who shall declare his generation?”
But they misunderstood the passage. For the Prophet does not there treat of how the Son was begotten of the Father, but of the abundance of offspring by which the kingdom of Jesus Christ would be multiplied.
What they allege from the Psalms is scarcely more certain:
“I have begotten you from my womb before the morning star.”
—Psalm 110:3, common translation
For this is taken solely from the common translation, which in this place does not correspond to the Hebrew truth. The Hebrew reads in this manner:
“The dew of your birth is like the rising of the morning star.”
The argument possessing the greatest appearance of strength, then, is drawn from the Apostle’s words, where it is said:
“All things were created through the Son.”
For if the Son had not then existed, he could not have manifested his power. Nevertheless, it appears from other similar expressions that this argument is not altogether firm. None of us would grant that the title “Christ” belonged to our Lord Jesus while the Jews were in the wilderness, since that title possesses a proper significance belonging particularly to his human nature. Yet Saint Paul attributes it to him at that time:
“They drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ.”
Likewise, when he says elsewhere:
“Jesus Christ was yesterday, is today, and shall be forever.” —Hebrews 13:8
if anyone wished to prove from this that the name “Christ” had always properly belonged to our Savior, he would accomplish nothing.
What else do we do by misusing testimonies of Scripture that, in their natural sense, contribute little to our cause, except expose the articles of our faith to the mockery of heretics? As for me, this one argument will always suffice as much as any other to confirm my conscience in the eternity of the Son of God.
It is that God is Father to men only through his only Son, to whom alone this honor properly belongs and through whose benefit it is communicated to us. Now God has always willed to be invoked as Father. It follows, therefore, that the Son already existed through whom this fellowship was established.
Let us now proceed to demonstrate his divinity, which rests upon two kinds of proof. For the name and honor of God are clearly attributed to the Son of God by evident testimonies of Scripture, and he is proved to be God by the power of his works.
First, David speaks to him in this manner:
“Your throne, O God, shall endure forever; the scepter of your kingdom is a scepter of uprightness.”
Perhaps some wicked man will attempt to evade this passage by saying that the name Elohim, which is used there, is also applied to angels and rulers. But there is no passage in Scripture where an eternal throne is thus erected for a creature. For he is not simply called God, but also an eternal ruler.
Moreover, this title is never given to anyone else without some qualification, as Moses is called a god to Pharaoh. Thus, in this passage the believer can understand none other than the one true God. That this is spoken of the Son of God is evident from what follows:
“Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness.”
The one spoken of here is therefore God, yet he has God above him. This is Jesus Christ, who in his humanity willed to appear as a servant, submitting himself to God his Father.
In Isaiah he is presented as God and as invested with power, which belongs only to the living God:
“This is the name by which he shall be called: Mighty God, Father of the age to come.”
The Jews must not be permitted, merely to quibble, to overturn the Prophet’s passage by rendering it in this manner: “This is the name by which the mighty God, the Father of the age to come, shall call him,” leaving to Jesus Christ nothing except the title “Prince of Peace.”
For what purpose would the Prophet, contrary to the whole custom of Scripture, have gathered so many titles together to bestow them upon God in a single passage? On the contrary, it is clear that he intended to adorn Jesus Christ with the titles properly belonging to him.
Still more evident is what is said in Jeremiah: that he shall be called the Branch of David, raised up for the salvation of the people, and:
“The Eternal, our righteousness.”
Since the Jews themselves teach that the other names of God are like titles honoring his glory, while the name used here by the Prophet is the proper name of his essence, we have proof that the Son of God is also our one and eternal God.
Elsewhere God himself testifies:
“I will not give my glory to another.”
The Jews maliciously attempt to overturn this passage, alleging that Moses gave this same name to the altar he had erected and that Ezekiel attributes it to the Church of God. But this quibble is utterly vain.
For who does not see that the altar was erected as a memorial and sign that God was the exaltation of Moses? Likewise, the name of God is not properly assigned to the Church, but rather signifies the presence of God within it. For the Prophet’s words are:
“The name of the city shall be: The Eternal dwells there.” —Ezekiel 48:35
And Moses speaks in this manner:
“He built an altar to God and named it: The Eternal is my exaltation.”
What else does Jeremiah mean except that Jerusalem is the place where the Lord dwells? And what else does Moses mean except that God is his strength, in testimony of which he erects an altar?
But it may be said that there is greater difficulty in another passage, in Jeremiah 33, where what had previously been said of Jesus Christ is transferred to the Church:
“This is the name by which she shall be called: The Eternal, our righteousness.”
I answer that this passage is so far from opposing us that it is instead well suited to defend our cause. For the Prophet, having first testified that Jesus Christ is our true God, from whom all righteousness must proceed to us, consequently adds that the Church will possess such certain knowledge of this truth that she will even be able to glory in his name.
The New Testament is filled with countless testimonies. I must therefore take care to select some of the most appropriate rather than gather them all.
First, it is worthy of notice that the Apostles show that the things foretold concerning the eternal God were either fulfilled or would finally be fulfilled in Jesus Christ. For example, Isaiah predicts that the God of hosts would be a stumbling stone to the Jews and Israelites:
“He shall be a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense to both houses of Israel.”
Saint Paul says that this was fulfilled in Christ:
“They stumbled at the stumbling stone, as it is written: Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling stone and a rock of offense.”
By this he signifies that Christ is the same God of hosts of whom Isaiah spoke.
Likewise, in another place he says:
“We must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, for it is written: As I live, every knee shall bow before me, and every tongue shall confess to God.”
Since God said this of himself in Isaiah:
“Every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall swear by my name.”
and since it is fulfilled in Jesus Christ, it follows that he is the same God whose glory cannot be transferred elsewhere.
Moreover, what the Apostle declares to have been spoken of Jesus Christ in Ephesians clearly belongs to God alone:
“Ascending on high, he led his enemies captive.”
The Prophet had spoken this of God, who had given his people victory over their enemies:
“You have ascended on high; you have led captivity captive.” —Psalm 68:18
Saint Paul, knowing that this was only a shadow and that its fulfillment is found in Jesus Christ, attributes it to him.
In the same manner, Saint John testifies that it was the glory of the Son of God that appeared to Isaiah:
“Isaiah said these things when he saw his glory and spoke of him.”
although the Prophet says that it was the majesty of the living God:
“I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and exalted.” —Isaiah 6:1
Moreover, there is no doubt that the passages cited by the Apostle in the Epistle to the Hebrews belong to God alone:
“Lord, in the beginning you founded heaven and earth.” —Hebrews 1:10
Again:
“Let all his angels worship him.”
Although these titles honor the majesty of God, applying them to Jesus Christ is not an abuse of them. For it is evident that everything foretold there has been fulfilled in him alone. It is he who came forward to show mercy to Zion. It is he who has taken possession of every people and every region of the world by extending his kingdom everywhere.
And why would Saint John have hesitated to attribute the majesty of God to Jesus Christ, after affirming at the beginning of his Gospel that he is the eternal God?
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
Why would Saint Paul have feared to place him upon the throne of God, after speaking so clearly of his divinity by saying:
“Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever.”
And so that we may see how consistently he perseveres in this doctrine, he says elsewhere:
“God was manifested in the flesh.”
If he is the God blessed forever, he is the one to whom, in another passage, the same Apostle teaches that all glory is due.
Indeed, he declares this openly when he writes:
“Jesus Christ, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to make himself equal with God, but willed to empty himself.”
And so that the wicked might not murmur that he was some god made in haste, Saint John proceeds further, saying:
“He is the true God and eternal life.”
Nevertheless, it ought to suffice us to hear him called God, especially by the mouth of Saint Paul, who openly declares that there are not many gods but only one:
“Although many are called gods in heaven and on earth, nevertheless, for us there is only one God, from whom are all things.”
When we hear from Saint Paul himself that:
“God was manifested in the flesh,”
and that:
“God purchased his Church with his own blood,”
why should we imagine a second God whom he does not acknowledge?
Finally, since it is certain—as indeed it is—that all believers have held this same conviction, Saint Thomas, by confessing Christ to be his God and Lord, declares him to be the one God whom he had always worshiped:
“My Lord and my God.”
Moreover, if we judge his divinity by the works attributed to him in Scripture, it will appear still more clearly. For when he says that from the beginning until that very hour he had always worked together with his Father:
“My Father works until now, and I also work,”
—John 5:17 the Jews, although otherwise exceedingly dull, understood very well that by this he attributed to himself the power of God. For this reason, as Saint John says, they sought all the more to kill him, since he not only violated the Sabbath but also presented himself as the Son of God, making himself equal with God:
“Therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill him, because he not only broke the Sabbath but also called God his own Father, making himself equal with God.”
How great, then, would our dullness be if we failed to recognize that his divinity is fully established in this passage?
Indeed, governing the world by his providence and power and upholding all things by his command—which the Apostle says belongs to him—is proper to the Creator alone:
“He upholds all things by the word of his power.”
Not only does the government of the world belong to him jointly with the Father, but so do all the other offices that cannot be transferred to any creature.
The Lord declares through the Prophet:
“I, even I, am he who blots out your iniquities for my own sake.”
Following this declaration, the Jews thought that Jesus Christ insulted God by assuming authority to forgive sins. But Christ not only maintained in words that this power belonged to him; he also proved it by a miracle:
“That you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins—Rise, take up your bed, and go to your house.”
We see, therefore, that Jesus Christ possesses not only the ministry of proclaiming the forgiveness of sins but also the power itself, which God once declared would belong to him forever.
What then? Is it not proper to God alone to know and understand the secrets and thoughts of men? Yet this power belonged to Jesus Christ:
“He knew all men and had no need that anyone should testify concerning man, for he knew what was in man.” —John 2:24–25
His divinity is demonstrated almost visibly in his miracles. For although the Prophets and Apostles performed similar miracles, there is a great difference: they were only ministers of God’s gifts, whereas Jesus Christ possessed the power within himself.
At times, it is true, he employed prayer in order to refer the glory to his Father. But we see that he most often demonstrated the power to be his own. How could he fail to be the true author of miracles when by his own authority he granted others the ability to perform them?
For the Evangelist relates that he gave his Apostles power to raise the dead, cleanse lepers, cast out devils, and do other such works.
The Apostles, for their part, exercised this power in such a manner as to show clearly that it proceeded from none other than Jesus Christ. Saint Peter said to the paralytic:
“In the name of Jesus Christ, rise and walk.”
It is therefore no wonder that Jesus Christ appealed to his miracles to overcome the unbelief of the Jews, since, being performed by his own power, they bore abundant testimony to his divinity.
Moreover, if apart from God there is no salvation, no righteousness, and no life, then Christ, containing all these things in himself, is thereby demonstrated to be God. No one should allege that these things were merely granted to him by God, for it is not said that he received the gift of salvation, but that he himself is salvation.
And if no one is good except the one God:
“No one is good except God alone.”
how could a mere man be—not merely good and righteous, but goodness and righteousness themselves?
And what shall we say to the Evangelist’s teaching that from the beginning of the world life was in him, and that, being life, he was also the light of men?
“In him was life, and the life was the light of men.”
Having such demonstrations of his divine majesty, we dare to place our faith and hope in him, although we know it is blasphemy to place our confidence in a creature. Nor do we do this rashly, but according to his word:
“You believe in God; believe also in me.”
Saint Paul likewise says:
“We have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Jesus Christ.”
In this manner he interprets two passages from Isaiah:
“Whoever believes in him shall not be put to shame.” —Romans 10:11; Isaiah 28:16
Again:
“There shall arise from the root of Jesse a Prince to rule the peoples; in him the Gentiles shall hope.”
And what need is there to recount many testimonies, since this declaration is so frequently repeated?
“Whoever believes in me has eternal life.”
Moreover, the invocation that proceeds from faith is also due to him, although invocation belongs properly to the majesty of God, if anything does. The Prophet says:
“Whoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” —Joel 2:32
Likewise, Solomon says:
“The name of the Lord is a strong fortress; the righteous takes refuge in it and shall be saved.”
Now the name of Christ is invoked for salvation. It follows, therefore, that he is God.
We have an example of this invocation in Saint Stephen, when he says:
“Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.”
Afterward, as Ananias testifies in the same book:
“Lord Jesus, you know how greatly he has afflicted all the saints who call upon your name.”
And so that we may understand that all the fullness of the Godhead dwells bodily in Jesus Christ, Saint Paul confesses that he determined to know no other doctrine among the Corinthians than the knowledge of him, and that he preached nothing except him alone:
“I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and him crucified.”
What does it mean to preach nothing but Jesus Christ to believers, whom God forbids to glory in any name but his own?
“Let him who glories glory in this: that he understands and knows me.”
Who, then, will dare to say that he is a mere creature, when the knowledge of him is our only glory?
It is also of no small importance that, in the greetings the Apostles customarily place at the beginning of their writings, they request the same blessings from Jesus Christ that they request from God his Father. By this they demonstrate not only that through Christ’s intercession and mediation we obtain the blessings of God, but that we receive them from Christ himself.
This knowledge, which consists in practice and experience, is far more certain than all idle speculations. For the believing soul unmistakably recognizes—and, so to speak, touches with its hand— the presence of God wherever it feels itself given life, illuminated, saved, justified, and sanctified.
We must therefore employ the same proof to establish the divinity of the Holy Spirit. For the things Scripture assigns to him are far above all creatures, as is also our experience of him.
First, it is he who, being everywhere present, sustains, preserves, and gives life to all things in heaven and on earth. By the very fact that he has neither end nor limits, he is excluded from the number of creatures. For it is altogether divine to extend his power everywhere, imparting existence, life, and motion to all things.
Moreover, if regeneration unto incorruptible life is nobler and more excellent than every bodily power, what must we judge concerning the Holy Spirit, from whom it proceeds? Scripture teaches us in many places that he is the author of regeneration by his own power, not by a borrowed power, and even attributes to him the glory of our future immortality.
In short, Scripture attributes to him, as it does to the Son, all the offices that properly belong to the Godhead. For it says that:
“The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God.”
God has no counselor among the creatures. Scripture assigns to the Spirit the power of wisdom and speech, which our Lord declared to Moses belonged to his majesty alone:
“Who has made man’s mouth? Is it not I, the Lord?”
Likewise, through the Spirit we are brought into participation in God, and thus we experience his power giving us life. Our justification is his work. From him proceed all sanctification, truth, grace, and everything that can be regarded as good. For there is only one Spirit, says Saint Paul, from whom we receive every kind of good:
“There are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit,” who “distributes to each one individually as he wills.”
—1 Corinthians 12:4, 11
Indeed, when Scripture speaks of him, it plainly employs the name of God. For Saint Paul concludes that we are temples of God because his Spirit dwells within us:
“Do you not know that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?”
This must not be passed over lightly. For since our Lord so often promises that he has chosen us to be his temple and dwelling place, this promise is fulfilled in us only because his Spirit dwells within us. Indeed, the Apostle calls us, with the same meaning, sometimes the temple of God and sometimes the temple of his Spirit.
Saint Peter, rebuking Ananias for lying to the Holy Spirit, says:
“You have not lied to men, but to God.”
Likewise, where Isaiah presents the Lord of hosts as speaking, Saint Paul says that it was the Holy Spirit who spoke:
“The Holy Spirit spoke rightly through Isaiah the Prophet.” —Acts 28:25; Isaiah 6:9–10
And where God complains that he was provoked to wrath by the people’s stubbornness, Isaiah says:
“They rebelled and grieved his Holy Spirit.”
To bring this discussion to a close, one argument should abundantly satisfy us in establishing the divinity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. If by baptism we are consecrated to the faith and worship of one God, then the one into whose name we are baptized is our God. It is therefore evident that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are comprehended within the same divine essence, since we are baptized into the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit:
“Baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”
Saint Paul so closely joins these three—God, faith, and baptism—that he argues from one to the other in this manner:
“There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God.” —Ephesians 4:5–6
From the fact that there is only one faith, he proves that there is only one God. From the fact that there is only one baptism, he proves that there is only one faith. For since faith must not wander or look here and there, but rest and find satisfaction in one God alone, we may infer that if there were several faiths, there would have to be several gods.
Now, since baptism is the sacrament of faith, its unity confirms us in the unity of faith. From this it is easy to conclude that we can be baptized only into one God, since we receive the faith of the one into whose name we are baptized.
What, then, did Christ mean when he commanded that men be baptized into the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, except that we must believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit? And what else is this but a clear testimony that the three are one God?
Since it must be settled among us that there is only one God, we conclude that the Son and the Holy Spirit are the very divine essence. The Arians were therefore greatly deluded, for although they granted Jesus Christ the title of God, they deprived him of the divine substance.
The Macedonians were driven by a similar madness, for by the Holy Spirit they understood nothing more than the gifts of grace God distributes to men. But just as wisdom, understanding, prudence, power, and other virtues proceed from him, so he is the one fountain of prudence, wisdom, power, and every other virtue. Nor is he divided according to the diverse distribution of graces, but always remains whole, although the graces are variously distributed, as the Apostle says:
“One and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually as he wills.”
On the other hand, Scripture shows us a certain distinction between God and his Word, and between the Word and the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, as the greatness of the mystery warns us, we must consider this distinction with great reverence and sobriety.
I am therefore greatly pleased with the saying of Saint Gregory Nazianzen:
“I cannot conceive of the One without the Three shining around me, nor can I distinguish the Three without immediately being brought back to the One.”
We must therefore beware of imagining a Trinity of persons in God that occupies our understanding without bringing it back to this unity. Certainly, the words Father, Son, and Spirit signify a real distinction, so that no one should suppose they are merely different titles attributed to God in order to designate him in various ways. But we must observe that this is a distinction, not a division.
Likewise, the heavenly Father shows that he possesses a property distinct from his Son when in Zechariah he calls him his companion or fellow:
“Awake, O sword, against my shepherd and against the man who is my fellow, says the Lord of hosts.”
For since there is no equality between God and creatures, this name would not be attributed to the Son unless it marked some distinction between him and the Father.
Again, the Son distinguishes himself from the Father when he says:
“There is another who bears witness concerning me.” —John 5:32
We must understand in the same manner the statement that the Father created all things through his Word, which could not have occurred unless there were some distinction between the Father and the Son.
Moreover, the Father did not descend to earth, but the one who proceeded from him did. The Father did not die and rise again, but the one whom he had sent. Nor should it be said that this distinction originated when the Son assumed flesh, since it is evident that before then the only Son was in the bosom of the Father:
“The only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, has revealed him.”
For who would dare to say that he entered the Father’s bosom only when he descended from heaven to assume our humanity? He was therefore there from the beginning, reigning in glory.
The distinction of the Holy Spirit from the Father is signified when it is said that he proceeds from the Father:
“The Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father.”
His distinction from the Son is signified when he is called “another,” as when Jesus Christ declares that another Comforter will come:
“I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Comforter.”
The same distinction is expressed in many other passages.
As to expressing the nature of this distinction, I do not know whether it is expedient to borrow analogies from human things. The ancients sometimes do so, but they likewise confess that everything they can say on the subject falls far short.
Therefore, I am reluctant to undertake anything in this matter, lest, by saying something inappropriate, I give the wicked occasion to speak evil or the ignorant occasion to be misled. Nevertheless, we must not conceal the distinction expressed in Scripture.
To the Father is attributed the beginning of every action and the fountain and origin of all things. To the Son are attributed wisdom, counsel, and the ordering of all things. To the Holy Spirit are attributed the power and efficacy of every action.
Moreover, although the eternity of the Father is also the eternity of the Son and of his Spirit—since God could never have existed without his wisdom and power, and in eternity we must seek neither first nor second—nevertheless, the order observed among the Father, the Son, and the Spirit is not superfluous. The Father is named first, then the Son as coming from him, and afterward the Holy Spirit as proceeding from both.
For every person’s understanding naturally inclines to consider first God, then his wisdom, and finally his power, by which he executes what he has determined in his wisdom. For this reason the Son is said to proceed from the Father, and the Spirit from both. This is frequently repeated in Scripture, but nowhere more clearly than in Romans 8, where the Holy Spirit is called indifferently both the Spirit of Christ and the Spirit of him who raised Christ from the dead:
“If anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not his”; and, “If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ from the dead shall also give life to your mortal bodies.”