Chapter II: (2) The homonyms of the name “Jesus,” § 18, and of “Christ,” § 22.
CHAPTER II: ON THE HOMONYMS
§ 18. Thesis I: The name “Jesus” along with related titles is attributed also to other men in the Old Testament, but in a far different sense from that by which it is assigned to our Savior. I call related titles those which come from the same root 
. Such are “Joshua,” “Hosea,” “Jeshua,” and “Isaiah.”
The Hebrew name 
, “Joshua,” and by contraction
, is attributed: (1) To the son of Nun, the servant and successor of Moses, the leader of the people of Israel. He was first called 
, “Hoshea,” from the imperative 
, which name was something like a wish and prayer that God would save. However, because God had promised that through this very son of Nun He would provide to the Israelites temporal salvation and a figure of salvation, Moses changed his name to 
[“Joshua”] (Num. 13:[16]) either from the preterit 
or from the future 
with the yod changed to a vav. (2) To the Beth-shemite, in whose field stood the cows pulling the cart in which the ark of the Lord was (1 Sam. 6:14). He is called 
. (3) To the prince of the city of Jerusalem in the days of King Josiah (2 Kings 23:8). He is also called . (4) To the chief priest, the son of Josedek, who performed his priesthood after the return from the Babylonian captivity (Hag. 2:[4]). Zech. 3:1: “He showed me 
, the high priest.”
The following were called “Hosea” [or “Hoshea”]: (1) The servant of Moses before Moses changed his name to Joshua. (2) One of the prophets, the son of Beeri (Hosea 1:1).
“Jeshua,” 
, was the name of one of the doorkeepers who were in the service of Kore the Levite (2 Chron. 31:15). It was the name for one of the Levitical priests who came to Jerusalem with Zerubbabel (Neh. 7:7, 43; 8:7), and for one of the sons of Pahath (Neh. 7:11). The same name, contracted as 
, is attributed to the priest, the son of Josedek (Ezra 2:2; 3:2; Neh. 7:7).
“Isaiah,” 
, was the name of one of the prophets, the son of the prophet Amoz, who was the brother of King Amaziah who was killed by Manasseh (Isa. 1:1). He was so called from 
, the “salvations and comforts” about which he preached.
Some add the name 
or 
(Gen. 46:17; Num. 26:44), but the root letter 
is not in it.
The Greek 
is attributed in the version1 of the Septuagint translators: (1) To Joshua, the successor of Moses (Sirach 46:1; Acts 7:45; Heb. 4:8). (2) To the high priest Joshua, the son of Josedek (Sirach 49:[12]). (3) To the author of the book of Ecclesiasticus, who was the son of Sirach, the grandson of a Jesus having the same name as he, written in his introduction. (4) To a Christian teacher in the New Testament, who was called with the surname “the Just” (Col. 4:11) and who had retained this name from the circumcision, that is, from Judaism.
§ 19. But though the name 
(
in the Greek) is also attributed to others, it is not attributed to them in the same manner and sense as it is attributed to Christ. (1) It is attributed to Christ not only chiefly and especially but fully uniquely, for He is the only Savior of the human race, and in Him alone true salvation is set before us (Matt. 1:21; Acts 4:12; 10:43). It is attributed to the others, however, because of some corporeal deliverance that they provided their people or in memory of a deliverance presented by their forefathers; or they were given that name merely for the sake of a good omen and salvation hoped for.2
(2) Those who are called “saviors” in the Old Testament were all merely types of that unique Savior who was to be sent in the New Testament. For as Joshua, the servant and successor of Moses, led the people of Israel into the Promised Land, which Moses was unable to do, so Christ leads us into eternal life, which was prefigured in the region of Canaan, something that the Law was unable to accomplish (John 1:17). Just as the ark of the Lord stood in the field of Joshua the Beth-shemite, so Christ is the true ark of salvation, the one “mercy seat” [propitiatorium] (Rom. 3:25), whose type was the ark of the covenant in the tabernacle. Just as Joshua, the son of Josedek, was in charge of the rebuilding of the temple after the Babylonian captivity, so Christ is the spiritual rebuilder and architect in the New Testament (Zech. 6:12). Just as Jesus Sirach was the most learned and famous teacher of his day, so Christ illumined the world with His heavenly wisdom and teaching. Bernard, Homily 3 super Missus est, col. 27: “I read that the two Jesuses preceded as a type of Him (Jesus of Nazareth), that both were in command of their people, one of whom led his people out of Babylon, the other of whom led them into the Promised Land.” Those indeed “defended from their foes those whose leaders they were; but they never saved their people from their sins, did they? But this Jesus of ours saves His people from their sins and leads them into the land of the living.”
(3) Galatinus and those who follow him, such as Pagninus and Jansenius (Harm., ch. 7), look for a diversity of derivation. They say that 
[“Jeshua”] is a simple noun derived from the root 
, “he saved,” but that 
[“Jehoshua” or “Joshua”] is compounded from 
[“Jehovah”] and 
, which means “salvation” and “happiness.” Also, 
means the same thing as “savior” or “salvation” itself, but 
is translated as “God will save” from “Jehovah” and
And yet: (a) The Septuagint translators, Josephus, and Philo, De carit., translate “Yeshua” or “Joshua” as 
. (b) Haggai (1:1, 12, 14; 2:[2, 4]), and Zechariah (3:1) name the priest who was the son of Josedek and who was a type of Christ “Jeshua” or “Jesus,” whom Ezra (Ezra 3:2, 8, 9; 4:3) calls “Jehoshua” or “Joshua.” (c) In Hebrew, both names have the same letters and the same root, 
Therefore, it is not sufficiently safe to resort to a diversity of the name and the etymology.
§ 20. The question arises: Do the Jesuits act correctly in naming themselves from Jesus the Savior? Not only do the Papists call St. Francis a type of Jesus [Jesus typicus] because of his five wounds—which they imagine the angel impressed on him in order that he might more perfectly express the type of our Savior, and for this reason they address him with these words, Libr. Conformit. in prosa, f. 194: “O Francis, type of Jesus and leader of the Minorites, always present on our behalf your pious scars to Christ,” etc.—but they even call their whole order of new monks “the Society of Jesuits” after the Savior, Jesus. They attribute to others not only the name but even the thing denoted by the name. They do this both obliquely when they do battle for the merits of works (for when they attribute the merits of works to the saints, they establish them as saviors), as well as directly. They imagine that Francis with those five scars of his saves from eternal death living people who have lived from his time until the end of the world. Because Petrus Paulus Vergerius opposed this blasphemy with a refutation, Paul III condemned that writing of Vergerius in 1559.
Before the Jesuits, however, some monks wanted to name themselves after Jesus. Platina mentions that around 1326 there arose in Portugal some who wanted themselves to be called “the soldiers of Jesus.” Around 1366, the Order of Jesuates began at Siena. In regard to these, Sabellicus recounts that at first they were called “Apostolics,” but later “Jesuates,” from the fact that the name of Jesus, the great King, was often on their lips. In 1410, a man of Bologna established the Order of the Savior. The Jesuits of our time have wanted to walk in the footsteps of those men. The Jesuits’ order was confirmed around 1555 by Paul IV. They took over this divine name for themselves because they thought they were following the teaching and life of Jesus Christ more perfectly than anyone. In the preface to Epi. Indic., they call themselves “new athletes who have brought help to the Christian faith, which was now falling and torn apart.” Benedictus Arias Montanus, preface to Bibl. Antverp. of 1584: “They seem to occupy their minds with Jesus alone, to live well for Him alone, to follow Him quite closely, and to accompany Him. They profess this openly and boast of it.”
This name [Jesuits], however: (1) Is new. Otherwise catholic antiquity is always on their lips, but this name is neither ancient nor catholic. They constantly accuse us of novelty, but they make themselves guilty of this crime even more by arrogating that name. How does a new name fit with an old teaching and religion?
(2) It is schismatic. All the disciples of Christ, ever since the times of apostolic preaching in the New Testament, are called with the one name of “Christians,” so that by the unity of that name they might be reminded that they are members of one mystical Body under one Head, Christ. Anyone who adopts another way of being named has dissolved the bond of unity (1 Cor. 1:12). Ignatius, Letter 6, ad Magnes.: “Let us be worthy of this surname, ‘Christian,’ that we have received, for he who is called by a name other than this is not of God. He who denies that he is a Christian is at the same time convicted of the Christ he has denied.” (See [Ius canonicum], ch. Non solum, 11, q. 3, from Augustine.)3
(3) It is arrogant. Why in the world do they want to separate themselves from the other Christians with a peculiar and special name? Do they really want themselves to be the only worshipers and disciples of Jesus? Did Jesus really promise and prepare salvation for them alone? Are they really Jesus’ only partakers in the salvation to be granted to men? Why do they arrogate something that is common to all the devout for themselves through sacrilege? Thuanus, bk. 35, p. 735: “From the time when Guilielmus Pratensis, bishop of Clermont, assigned the School of Clermont to them at Paris, the fellows of the Clermont School suppressed the arrogant and ambitious (as it seemed to many) name of the Jesuits with which they have now for some time been named.”
(4) It does not befit the thing signified. You see, this new breed, the Jesuits, are as far removed from Jesus the Savior as the highest heaven is removed from the lowest earth. Whether you consider the teaching or life or fortune of Christ in this world, it is everywhere obvious that it is not only most greatly diverse from that of the Jesuits but even most greatly contrary. They attack the doctrine of Christ; they defend the decrees of the Roman pontiff and human traditions; they do not imitate Christ’s humility, gentleness, patience, simplicity, etc. See the Assertio contra Jesuitas, ch. 7ff., Doctrinae Jesuit., vol. 1, p. 17, 1. Rupell. edition, 1589, and the anti-Jesuit epigram, which begins: “If Jesus can love you presbyters who bear the names of your associate, Jesus, then may I perish!”
(5) The more sensible Papists disapprove of it. It was forbidden in the Conference of Poissy, in the name of the entire French church on Dec. 15, 1561, in order that they would avoid completely the title “Jesus” and “Jesuits” and even “the Society of Jesus.”
(6) The Jesuits chose it out of rash ambition. Ribadeneira, De vit. Ignat., bk. 2, ch. 12, and Maffeius, bk. 2 of the same work, ch. 5, teach that Christ Himself gave this name to His very own society when Ignatius went to Rome in 1537: “God appeared in His Son and commended the associates of Ignatius whom even Christ accepted as His associates when He said to Ignatius: ‘I will be kindly disposed to you at Rome.’ “ Montaignes, De la vérité defend., ch. 66, alleges that the pope gave that name to this society. The untruth of both assertions, however, is clear from the fact that, before the confirmation, they used this title in their supplicatory letters sent to Paul III to obtain confirmation, for they say: “Those in our society, which we want to be known by the name of Jesus, wish to do battle under the banner of the cross.”
§ 21. Gretserus makes the exception (Apolog. contra Steinium): “If it is correct to name the faithful ‘Christians’ from ‘Christ,’ then it is also just as correct to name the fellows of His society ‘Jesuits’ from the name ‘Jesus.’ “
We respond: The nature of these are far different. (1) We are called “Christians” in the Scriptures (Acts 11:26), but nowhere are we called “Jesuits.” (2) We are called “Christians” from “Christ,” because we become partakers of a spiritual anointing, but we cannot be called “Jesuits” because Christ allows no associates in earning or granting salvation.
** Panormitanus: “The name ‘Christian’ is assumed correctly because Christ communicated an anointing to us. But we cannot be called ‘Jesuits’ correctly because He is the one Savior.” **
If they make the exception that they call themselves “Jesuits” not actively but passively, we respond that in this sense all the truly devout can call themselves “Jesuits,” that is, those that have become partakers of salvation through Christ. Why, then, should they usurp for themselves alone what is common to all? (3) Ludolphus Carthusiensis, who lived two hundred years before the rising of the Jesuits, gives a different reason for the difference. He writes as follows, De vita Christi, part 1, ch. 10:
“Christ” is the name of grace; “Jesus” is the name of glory, honor, and holiness. Just as in this life we are called “Christians” from “Christ” through the grace of Baptism, so in heavenly glory we shall be called “Jesuits” in the Lord Jesus in heavenly glory, that is, people who have been saved by the Savior. The saints who are in heaven and are enjoying eternal glory are true, triumphant Jesuits. The holy servants of God who are still on earth fighting and doing battle should in the midst of their perils retain and bear the name of their military organization, and that is the true name “Christians.” But if they behave themselves in such a way as the saints who sit in eternal glory upon the throne of salvation, then they can get the name “Jesuits.” Because they wish to be considered in the number of those doing battle and fighting under the banner of Christ, however, they ought also to be content with the name of Christ.
This is in agreement with the statement of Pelbartus de Themeswar in his Pomerium sermonum, pars aestiv., de circumc., sermon 4:
“Jesus” is a divine name, the name of eternal salvation. “Christ” means “the Anointed One,” and this is the name of the Christian military service. This name “Christian” is that by which they know that they are like oiled boxers in the fight against the world, the flesh, and the devil. For this reason, the name of Christ befits us at the present because of our salvation-bringing military service. In the future, however, when we shall be in salvation, the name of Jesus will befit us, that is, the name of salvation.
(This author flourished in the year 1437.)
(4) The truly devout and faithful are called “Christians” from “Christ,” because they seek their salvation uniquely in Christ, cling uniquely to the Word of Christ, through faith are members of Christ, and by Christ become partakers of a spiritual anointing. The Jesuits, however, under the name of Jesus attack the doctrine of Christ and His true members. Therefore what Irenaeus (bk. 1, ch. 3) writes about the heretics of his time befits the Jesuits: “They display the name of Christ Jesus as a provocation, but, as they introduce the wickedness of the Antichrist in various ways, they mortify many through this good name while badly ruining its meaning. Through the sweetness and dignity of that name they hold out the bitter and malignant poison of the serpent, the prince of apostasy.” Also fitting is the statement of Athanasius, Contra Arianos, orat. 2, and Ad Theoph. de Arianis, bk. 3: “They feign ‘Jesuitism’ and fight against Jesus. They bear the name of Jesus and speak with the mouth of the devil.” Again fitting is what Bishop Serapion writes against some heretics: “Wearing the skins of the sheep of Christ they say what they are not, and what they are, they are unwilling to say. They cover up their wickedness with the robe of the name. They indeed have a common name, but they are eager to destroy the name of Christ completely, fighting against Jesus and yet invoking Jesus.”
§ 22. Thesis II. The name “Christ” is also attributed to some men in the Old Testament, but in a far different sense from that in which it is attributed to our Savior. The Greek 
[“Christ”] corresponds to the Hebrew 
[“Messiah”], which in general is assigned to priests and kings. Lev. 4:3: “If a priest 
, who is anointed, sins ….” Some understand Ps. 105:15 in this sense: “Touch not 
, my christs,” that is, the fathers who were great, like kings anointed with oil.
In particular, it was attributed: (1) To Saul. 1 Sam. 12:3; 24:6: He is “the anointed of the Lord.” In 2 Samuel 1, “the shield of Saul was not anointed with oil,” that is, he fell as if he had not been anointed as king. (2) To David, who was a type of Christ (2 Sam. 19:21; 22:51). (3) To Cyrus, the king of the Persians, whom Scripture calls “Koresh” (Isa. 45:1 [Hebrew]).
We explained earlier what the difference is between the anointing of the kings and priests of the Old Testament and the anointing of Christ in the New Testament—and, as a consequence, the difference between those types of Christ and our true Christ. Here we take note of the fact that the name “Christ” is assigned to our Savior in two ways: (a) Absolutely, as Christ is considered as a person consisting of two natures within Himself. (b) Relatively, as Christ is considered as the Head of the Church with which He constitutes one mystical Body. The prior sense they call “literal”; the latter, “of synecdoche.” 1 Cor. 12:12: “Just as the body is one and has many members … so it is also with Christ.” 1 Cor. 15:28: “The Son Himself will be subject to the Father.”
1 Read versione with Cotta instead of visione.
2 Read speratae with Cotta and Frankfurt/Hamburg editions instead of separatae.
3 Canon Law, “Decretum,” pars 2, causa 11, quaestio 3, ch. 85; Friedberg, vol. 1, col. 666–67.