Scotus Academicus, Tomus septimus: De Incarnatione Verbi Divini

Note 1. That the heretics against whom we do battle freely concede that Christ Jesus born of the Virgin glories in the name of God, since august Scripture frequently and openly attributes that name to Him: but they contend that this name is attributed to Him no otherwise than to certain creatures which are honored with that title; although He claims it for Himself in a more excellent and more divine manner, on account of the ampler, richer communication of divinity which He obtained at the very beginning of His formation, through the operation and power of the Most High descending into the Virgin. Therefore before that rising and birth He neither was God nor obtained any appellation of Son of God. Two things therefore are here to be proved: First, that Christ is true God: Secondly, that He existed prior to His birth from the Virgin.

Note 2. The divinity of Christ becomes known chiefly by two ways; namely, either by the clear texts and oracles of both the Old and New Divine Testament, or from His wondrous operations in commendation and assertion of His divinity: since God is truth by essence, to whom it cannot happen either to deceive or be deceived; thence it is clear that oracles proceeding from Him bear certain and constant truth, nor can anything unusual beyond the order of nature ever be wrought by anyone in defense of falsity or error: whence if He has attested by clear oracles that Christ is true God, and the true Son of God, likewise if He has exercised His omnipotence in working deeds above the forces of nature in assertion of the divinity of Christ, it can be doubtful to no one however unskilled in Christian truth that Christ is to be confessed true God; therefore from this twofold head especially must the divinity of Christ be gathered and asserted.

Note 3. The name of divinity is attributed to someone either by delegation: thus Angels, who appeared instead of God to the holy Patriarchs and Prophets, are called by the name of God: or by ministry: thus Exodus (7) 1 Moses is called god of Pharaoh, because by his wondrous works he exercised the power and justice of God: or by usurpation: thus demons were called gods by the gentiles: For all the gods of the gentiles are devils, Psalm 95: or by imitation: thus the just, and emulators of divine sanctity, are sometimes illustrated with the name of God in the Scriptures; hence Christ our Lord John 10 commands: If He called them gods, to whom the word of God was spoken, etc. Or by assimilation, and exercise of power and justice: thus Psalm 81, God addressing princes and judges said: I have said: You are gods, and all of you the sons of the Most High; but you shall die like men, etc.: Or finally by nature and essence, which is the proper and genuine attribution and signification of the name of God, of which alone there will be question in the present.

Single Conclusion. — CHRIST IS TRUE GOD, AND THE TRUE SON OF THE ETERNAL FATHER. This is against the Jews and various heretics.

It is proved first. — From the oracles of the Old Testament, in which the Messiah is named true God. — First indeed from that of Psalm 2, where God the Father addressing the Son says: Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten Thee; which text was to be taken of the Messiah was most constant among the Hebrews. Hence Paul Acts 13 and also to the Hebrews 5, that he may prove Christ to be the Messiah, uses those words, which certainly he would not pass over unless he understood the Hebrews so to hold. And indeed if the words be rightly weighed, especially toward the end of the Psalm, it will be evident they can be fitted to the Messiah: for he who is called Son of God says: But I am appointed King by Him over Sion His holy mount. And since this kingdom was not temporal but spiritual, He immediately adds: Preaching His commandment: and then adds: The Lord said to me: Thou art my Son, truly natural and not only by adoption or participation, as is evident from this singular mode of speaking, Thou art my Son, that is, in a nobler and more excellent manner than the others who are only sons by adoption: but Thou specially art my own and natural Son.

They respond 1: THAT THE NEW ARIANS say this our interpretation is altogether fictitious, nor did any one of the most ancient Fathers interpret the aforesaid words of the eternal and divine generation of Christ. — But on the contrary: for besides that, as I said just now, this is plainly gathered from the very signification of the words, the holy Fathers have the same interpretation. For St. Ambrose on the Epistle to the Hebrews, expounding these words of St. Paul: For to which of the Angels has He said at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten Thee? And again: I will be to Him a Father, and He shall be to me a Son, says:

for this indeed is said without any doubt of the incarnation of the Son: He put the verb of future time, I will be to Him a Father, as He shall be to me a Son. But what He said, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten Thee, He openly manifests, that He same One of whom He says I shall be in the Father is begotten of the very essence of the Father, therefore He put the present tense today: because concerning Him nothing is past or future, but all things always present: for this can be understood even according to the flesh, because flesh communicates with higher things, as divinity deigned to communicate with lowly things.

— The same has St. Chrysostom: These things indeed, he says, were said of flesh, I will be his Father, and he shall be my Son: but when He said, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten Thee, He manifests nothing else than that He is begotten of the very essence of the Father. To them subscribe St. Cyprian book 2 Contra Iudaeos chapter 7; St. Cyril book 8 of the Thesaurus; St. Athanasius responding to the objection of the Arians saying that in the Old Testament no mention of the Son of God was made, which likewise the new Arians inculcate. Tertullian also favors it in the book Contra Praxeam, where of Christ he says: Firstborn, and begotten before all things: and only-begotten, as alone begotten of God: properly of the womb of His heart: according as the Father testifies, to whom rejoicing thereafter, properly rejoicing, that person of His, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten Thee: false therefore is what the new Arians obtrude, that there is none of the ancient Fathers who expounds this passage of the eternal generation of Christ.

They respond 2: That those words are taken otherwise by the Apostle than to signify the eternal generation of Christ: for the Apostle Acts 13 uses them to confirm the resurrection of Christ. Then to the Hebrews 1, to show that Christ had obtained a name more excellent than the Angels: and chapter 5 accommodates these words to celebrating the honor of the priesthood of Christ; therefore they are perversely twisted to express His eternal generation. — But I answer that the various use of the same text does nothing against the divine filiation, and eternal generation, which those words genuinely signify; although by accommodation to other meanings they can also be used; for although these things are truly said of Christ as to human nature, whether rising, sacrificing, or illustrated with the glorious name Jesus; nevertheless that excellence which He has above the Angels competes to Himself from no other source than that He who is man is at the same time also God, and He who is Son of Mary is also Son of God: but this could not truly be said of Christ if He were only man; for Christ by reason of humanity is said not only inferior to the Father but also "a little less" diminished below the Angels. — To the same tends the use of the same words in the fifth chapter of that Epistle: for in that chapter St. Paul opens the difference between Christ the Pontiff and other Hebrew Pontiffs, that He was called by God in a more excellent manner, namely as born of God and Son of God. — Nor does the passage Acts 13 stand in the way; for worst of all do the Adversaries interpret this passage as if Christ only then began to have participated divinity, when He rose from the dead, because, they say, resurrection is a new generation; and if Christ reviving was born, who begot Him? namely God, who raised Him from hell; therefore Paul also to the Colossians, chapter 1, calls the raising up of Christ the firstborn from the dead: and consequently by what is said, this day have I begotten Thee, that time is indicated when Jesus Christ was recalled unto life which death would never afterwards follow; and He gained empire over heaven and earth. This, I say, reasoning of theirs is altogether absurd: for if God is said to have begotten Christ only because He raised Him from hell; therefore the Son also ought to be said begotten of Himself; for by His own power He rose from the dead, according to that: Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Likewise: I have power to lay down my life, and to take it again. Then, if He be held begotten of God only in His resurrection; therefore falsely so often did He prove Himself Son of God before His passion, and mendaciously He proclaimed blessed Simon Bariona, that God had said: Thou art Christ the Son of the living God, who camest into this world. — Finally, if from resurrection only the Son of God gained empire over heaven and earth, how could He before His passion command sea and winds, cast out demons, heal diseases, raise the dead, and what is greater, forgive sins? Since therefore the word of begetting is said of resurrection only transferred and secundum quid, another generation of the Son of God older than resurrection must be sought; which if we say it is that whereby He was born of the most holy Virgin, I will indeed gladly confess Jesus the Nazarene conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary to be truly and properly Son of God, and true God of true God; but most constantly I will deny that His divine filiation is to be confessed from that only temporal nativity: since He had it from eternity and before the rising of Lucifer.

It is confirmed from Psalm 109, where the divine Father likewise addressing the Son says: With Thee is the beginning in the day of Thy strength, in the splendors of the saints, from the womb before Lucifer I begot Thee; that this Psalm was written of Christ is not doubted: both because Christ our Lord Himself expounds it so Matthew 22 v. 44, and the Apostle 1 Corinthians 15 v. 25: and because the beginning of this Psalm, The Lord said to my Lord, etc. can be accommodated to none other than Christ. The fourth verse also: The Lord has sworn, etc., is used by the Apostle to the Hebrews c. 1 to confirm the priesthood of Christ: but this part of verse 3, From the womb before Lucifer I begot Thee, although some interpret of the nativity from the Virgin, as Tertullian, others truly of the eternal generation of the Son of God, as Athanasius, Nyssen, etc., nevertheless neither opinion favors the adversaries.

They reply that it is falsely written "before Lucifer," since literally here the sense is: God of thy nativity is from the womb of dawn, whence they subject this interpretation: just so many disciples of Christ, through whom He conquers enemies, as is the density of the morning dew. — But although some Interpreters and Translators have not expressed those words quite like the Vulgate, nevertheless they brought forward nothing alien from that common version: for the Septuagint Interpreters thus translated: From the womb, before Lucifer I begot thee. Aquila truly: "out of that blindness pour upon thee thy dew." Symmachus: Like dew of dawn is thy youth. Theodotion: From the womb of morning is thy youth: but according to the Hebrew idiom, if word be rendered for word, it must be said with Pagninus: From the womb of dawn is the dew of thy nativity to thee; which words although some transfer to the nativity from the most holy Virgin Mother: others truly to those who are reborn in Christ through the preaching of the Gospel: yet they do not sin who interpret the same of the nativity of Wisdom, by which she was begotten before the foundations of the world: but Wisdom of God is Christ: for this the holy Fathers favor, for Hilary lib. 12. De Trinitate: This, he says, is the illustrious voice of the Father concerning that Christ: from the womb before Lucifer I begot Thee, etc. And St. Ambrose book 1 De Fide chapter 6 from these words: Before Lucifer I begot Thee, concludes the Son not to be a creature, since He is begotten of God, not created. St. Epiphanius book 2 tom. 2 after he expounded the various translations of this passage adds: From which discourse you may know that the Word of God is begotten of the substance of the Father by nature, without beginning and without time, before anything was: He said not only Lucifer the single star, and indeed since many are the stars, as Sun and Moon made on the fourth day, but sea, trees and fruits made beforehand, and the firmament of earth approaches, and together with these the Angels were made: for unless Angels too had been created together with heaven and earth, He certainly would not have said to them: when the stars were begotten, all the Angels praised me with voice. Therefore, he says, before Lucifer, as if He said: before anything created existed, the Word was always with the Father: for through Him all things were made, and without Him nothing was made. To them St. Augustine admirably subscribes in the enarration on Psalm 109, where he says:

If God has a Son, has He perhaps also a womb? But as He has not bodies of flesh, because neither bosom: yet it was said, He who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared. What is bosom, itself is womb, and > bosom: and womb is put for the secret. What is from the womb? from the secret, from the hidden, of myself, of my substance, that is from the womb; for who shall declare His generation? Let us take then the Father saying to the Son: From the womb before Lucifer I begot Thee; what therefore is before Lucifer? Lucifer is put for the stars, as Scripture signifying the whole by a part, and from the eminent star all the stars: but how were these stars made? that they be for signs, and for times, and for days, and years. If therefore the stars are placed for signs and for times, and Lucifer is named for the stars, that which is before Lucifer is before the stars, and that which is before the stars, is before times. If therefore before times, from eternity seek not when: eternity has not when: when, and sometime, are adverbs of time; He is not born of the Father in time, by whom times were made. It was said therefore, as it behoved to be said figuratively and prophetically, that both womb should be put for secret substance, and Lucifer for times.

I judge it must be noted, however, that Saint Augustine also interprets this passage of the birth from the Virgin Mother, which Justin had done before him in the dialogue with Trypho the Jew, and Tertullian, book 3 Contra Marcionem. Against whose opinion many things are disputed by blessed Athanasius in his oration against the Arians, who keenly contends that these words of the Psalm must be understood of the eternal generation of the Word.

It is proved likewise by the testimonies of the Prophet Isaiah, which are so numerous that they cannot all be gathered together without prolixity: but the chief one is sought from chapter 9, where the characters and offices of the coming Messiah are described in these words: Parvulus natus est nobis, et Filius datus est nobis, et factus est principatus eius super humerum eius, et vocabitur nomen eius, Admirabilis, Deus fortis, Pater futuri saeculi, Princeps pacis: multiplicabitur eius imperium, et pacis eius non erit finis; et super solium David sedebit in aeternum: which passage, although certain Hebrews twist it to King Ezechias, they are nevertheless silently refuted; for how was Ezechias Prince of peace, since he waged many wars against the Assyrians? how was his kingdom everlasting, which shortly afterward was scattered by the Babylonians? Whence even the Chaldean has here the express name Messiah. To this is added that he, of whom mention is made, is called God, which appellation simply and absolutely, without any diminishing addition, is ascribed to none but the true God, especially when joined with the appellation strong, and others that sound of divine majesty. — It is confirmed from chapter 38: Deus ipse veniet, et salvabit nos. Tunc aperientur oculi caecorum, etc., where are described all those wondrous effects and stupendous prodigies which the coming Messiah, who is called God, was to work, which signs no one before Isaiah, nor after him any of the Prophets, worked, save Jesus of Nazareth: whence deservedly Matth. 11, when the disciples of John inquired and asked of him in the name of their master: Art thou he that art to come, or look we for another? Jesus answering said to them: euntes renuntiate Ioanni, quae audistis, et vidistis, caeci vident, claudi ambulant, etc. But that the discourse there is about the true God is evident both from these words, God himself will come, and from what precedes, they shall see the glory of the Lord, and the beauty of our God: and from the fact that the name of God is expressed by the name Iehovah, which is proper to God. Hence the holy Fathers often use this passage against the Arians, most especially Saint

Athanasius, book De Incarnatione Verbi, and also against the Jews, as Irenaeus, book 3, chapter 22, and Cyprian, book 2 Contra Iudaeos, chapter 1. — It is confirmed again from chapter 13, where of the Messiah it is said: in te est Deus, et non est Deus absque te: vere tu es Deus absconditus, Deus Israel Salvator. But he had premised: haec dicit Dominus, by which he designates the eternal Father speaking to Christ, in whom God is, either because in him dwells all the fullness of divinity corporally, that is substantially, by reason of the divine person; or because God the Father is in the Son, as Saint Ambrose expounds, book 1 De Fide, chapter 2, according to that oracle of Christ: Ego in Patre, et Pater in me est, etc. It is rightly said also to the Son: non est Deus absque te, on account of the unity of nature, because neither is the Father God without the Son, nor is there another God besides the Son, as Nazianzen rightly expounds, oration 19. Finally he is deservedly called a hidden God, on account of the mystery of the humanity assumed, and God Israel the Savior, which is interpreted Jesus; which passage Saint Paul seems to imitate when he said: erat Deus in Christo mundum reconcilians sibi. Add to these what the same Prophet has in chapter 32, where, having brought in God thus speaking: haec dicit Dominus Deus, in Aegyptum descendit populus meus in principio, further on he subjoins: Ego ipse, qui loquebar, ipse adsum: therefore the same God who before spoke through the Prophets, whom the people of Israel worshipped, afterward appeared through the Incarnation: wherefore he subjoins, quam pulchri sunt super montes pedes Evangelizantis pacem, annuntiantis bona. Which the Prophet Baruch explains more clearly in chapter 3, from those words: Hic est Deus noster, down to these: et cum hominibus conversatus est: where he speaks openly of the true God of Israel, who gave the law to his people, whom afterward he says conversed with men, namely made man; for if he were speaking of another apparition, which took place through the ministry of Angels in assumed bodies, or by a merely imaginative or sensible representation, he would not say: post haec in terris visus est; for long before the giving of the law he had been seen in that manner on earth, and had conversed with Abraham, Jacob, Moses, and other holy men. Wherefore since the sacred Letter name Christ absolutely and definitively God, and our God, the true God, God above all to be praised, and God our Savior, and finally Iehovah; it must be concluded that Christ the Lord is God not by nomination or adoption or participation of gifts, but truly by nature and substance.

It is proved secondly. — From the New Testament. — By all those oracles in which Christ is called the true God, and Son of the true God, which we already explained in our third volume De Trinitate, while proving the divinity of the Word: whence I linger only over those in which it is intimated that Jesus Christ existed long before he was born of the Virgin; which, since they cannot be understood of the humanity, which then first existed when Christ the Lord was formed in the womb of the Virgin, must needs be taken of his divinity. Thus Ioannis 8, Christ the Lord himself speaking of himself says: Antequam Abraham fieret, ego sum: but he was not before Abraham according to the flesh, seeing that he existed very many centuries after that most holy Patriarch: therefore that priority must necessarily be understood of his divinity. In like manner the holy Apostle proves it, chapter 1 ad Hebraeos, from those words of Psalm 103: Dilexisti iustitiam, et odisti iniquitatem, propterea unxit te Deus oleo exsultationis pra consortibus tuis. Et tu in principio terram fundasti, et opera manuum tuarum sunt Coeli: ipsi peribunt, tu autem permanebis, et omnes ut vestimentum veterascent, et velut amictum mutabis eos, et mutabuntur: tu autem idem ipse es, et anni tui non deficient. The sense of which words appears here: O God! Thy God, that is, I the Father, have anointed thee, O Son of God, with the oil of gladness; for the Son, who by reason of his eternal nativity acknowledges the Father, acknowledged him also as God by reason of his temporal generation, by which he is less than the Father according to his human nativity: whence it is a common expression with the Apostle, Deus, et Pater Domini nostri Iesu Christi, by which he signifies that by reason of the assumed humanity Christ acknowledges God as God, whom before the Incarnation he acknowledged only as Father. It follows: pra consortibus tuis, that is, brethren, who are the faithful; for of these the Son of God was made partaker in the assumption of flesh and blood. It is subjoined: et tu ab initio Domine terram fundasti, by which he signifies that he who was anointed with the oil of gladness was together with the Father the maker of all things: but in the two following verses he celebrates the eternity of Christ, for all created things shall perish, because they are subject to change and destruction: but thou remaining, namely from eternity to eternity, without beginning and end, because thou art the same thyself, and thy years shall not fail, seeing that thou art an eternal, immortal, and incorruptible God.

The Heretics reply. First, that text must be understood literally of Solomon, and attributed mystically alone through the Apostle to Christ. Secondly, that not God but only man is described there; for he who is anointed, and who acknowledges God, that is, one superior and greater than himself, and who moreover has partakers and companions of the kingdom, is not the eternal God: Christ is anointed, he has God and partakers: therefore he is not God.

Against this. It is false that this oracle must be understood literally of Solomon, and appropriated to Christ mystically only by St. Paul, since from the very text it is clear that most of the things said cannot be understood of Solomon: for he neither founded the earth from the beginning, nor does he remain the same while others fail, since he died long ago. To the second I say that there is the fallacy a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter: for all those things are not said of Christ simply, but secundum quid, namely by reason of the office of Mediator and of the humanity, in respect of which he is both anointed and has God and partakers; but not by reason of his eternal Deity, in respect of which indeed the Son has a Father, but not God the maker.

They reply secondly. That these words cannot be taken of the Son: Tu, Domine, ab initio terram fundasti, but must themselves be referred to the Father; first, because the Apostle would contradict himself, seeing that he had previously said the Father created the world: therefore the Son himself did not create. Secondly, because creation is nowhere else attributed to the Son. Thirdly, because the purpose of the Apostle is to exalt Christ above other men and Angels; but if here he attributed creation to him, he would compare the Creator to the creature, which would be foolish and absurd. Fourthly, it is impiously attributed to the Father, that he calls the Son his Lord: therefore those words are not to be referred to the Son, but to the Father himself.

I deny the antecedent, and to the first proof I say it is false that, because the Father created through the Son, therefore the Son did not create: Quaecumque enim Pater facit, Filius similiter facit, as Christ himself testifies, Ioannis 5. To the second I say it is equally false that creation is nowhere else attributed to the Son, for in the same chapter he testifies:

Pater meus usque modo operatur, et ego operor. And in Psalm. 33 it is said that Verbo Domini Coeli firmati sunt. To the third I say the argumentation of those heretics is altogether foolish and absurd: for the scope of the Apostle is to exalt the Son above the Angels, not simply, but as the God and Lord of the Angels: therefore deservedly he adduces the testimonies of Scripture by which he may demonstrate Christ to be both God and Creator, which the Hebrews did not yet know. To the fourth finally I answer that that calumny of the heretics is blasphemous; for it is not said that the Father calls the Son his Lord; but Lord absolutely, or Iehova; for he says, Tu Iehova: and not, Tu Iehova meus: but the Son is the same Lord Iehova as the Father: therefore deservedly the Father honors the Son with this name.

All these responses are confirmed together, and the aforesaid proof, by all those texts of the same Apostle in which he plainly professes that the whole universe of things was created through the Son of God. Thus Coloss. 1: Gratias agentes Deo Patri, qui dignos nos fecit in partem sortis Sanctorum in lumine, qui eripuit nos de potestate tenebrarum, et transtulit in regnum Filii dilectionis suae, in quo habemus redemptionem per sanguinem eius, remissionem peccatorum: qui est imago Dei invisibilis, primogenitus omnis creaturae: quoniam in ipso condita sunt universa in coelis et in terra, visibilia et invisibilia, sive Throni, sive Dominationes, sive Principatus, sive Potestates; omnia per ipsum et in ipso creata sunt. And 1 ad Cor. 8: Unus Deus Pater, ex quo omnia, et nos in eum: et unus Dominus Iesus Christus, per quem omnia, et nos per ipsum. And Hebr. 1: Novissime diebus istis locutus est nobis in Filio, quem constituit haeredem universorum, per quem fecit, et saecula. Hence the Son himself, who is the eternal and divine wisdom, deservedly says in Proverbiorum 3: Dominus possedit me ab initio viarum suarum, antequam quidquam faceret a principio... quando appendebat fundamenta terrae, cum eo eram cuncta componens. Add to these that in the history of creation Moses makes mention both of God the Creator, and of the Word through whom God made all things, and of the Spirit of God, who cherished the matter produced by God: for he brings in God speaking, and God making, which the Ancients interpreted of the Father, and of the Speech, or Son of God. Moreover, in the creation of man he brings in God deliberating: Faciamus, he says, hominem ad imaginem, et similitudinem nostram. And again in chapter 3: Ecce Adam quasi unus ex nobis: now these things were not said to the Angels, for neither was the world founded through the Angels, as inferior gods, nor was man created to the likeness of the Angels; nor must he be sought outside the essence of God, who was present with God the Father in the creation of things; but God the Father addresses his only Son and the Holy Spirit, who do all things whatsoever the Father does.

It is confirmed finally, and the Divinity of Christ and his indivisible power of creating with the Father is most openly declared, by that most loving Disciple of his, whose testimony, as being a most firm argument of our assertion, we reserved for the last place of this proof. For in the first chapter of his Gospel he says openly: In principio erat Verbum, et Verbum erat apud Deum, et Deus erat Verbum; hoc erat in principio apud Deum. Omnia per ipsum facta sunt, et sine ipso factum est nihil, quod factum est. And after some verses interposed there follows: Et Verbum caro factum est, et habitavit in nobis, et vidimus gloriam eius; gloriam gloriae quasi unigeniti a Patre plenum gratiae, et veritatis. That Theologians all know with what arts Satan attempted to corrupt and evade that open oracle, through the old and new Arians. But that I may pass over the various corruptions of that passage devised by the ancient heretics and refuted by the Holy Fathers; it pleases us here merely to report and refute that diabolical fiction which the new Arians devised, saying that by the name of the Word, or Speech, is indeed signified that man Jesus born of Mary, who is called Speech by reason of his office, because he was a singular herald and interpreter of the divine will, and is therefore called Made Flesh because in the most abject condition he bore among men the form of a servant: but that they might extol the authority and force of the aforesaid divine oracle, they interpret the words of the Evangelist in two ways after this manner, as may be seen in Simlerus in Antisocino.

OF THE FIRST CHAPTER OF THE HOLY GOSPEL OF SAINT JOHN

THE HERETICAL EXPOSITION IS PROPOSED AND REFUTED.

Heretical exposition (column 1)	Heretical exposition (column 2)
1. At the beginning of the reformation of the world through the Gospel, when John the Baptist began to exhort men to repentance, Jesus Christ was already then destined for the office of opening and confirming the Gospel: but at that time he was not yet known to men as the legate and internuncius of God, but to God his Father alone; nay, even then that same one was endowed with divine power and authority.	1. At the beginning of the Gospel, when John the Baptist was preparing the way for Christ by his preaching, Jesus Christ the Speech, and Interpreter, or Legate of God, was already present, and this Speech, although he dwelt among men, was known from the beginning to God alone, and was as it were hidden with God. Finally this Speech was destined for us as Savior, prince of our salvation, and he was our Lord and God, though unknown to the world.
2. But at that time he was known to God his Father alone.	2. This Speech, I say, from the beginning of the Gospel was with God: seeing that he was known to him alone, nay dwelt with him so familiarly that from his bosom he might shortly afterward bring the Gospel to us.
3. Through him all things were made which pertain to the reformation of the world through the Gospel, and without him nothing was made of what was done by his disciples and ministers.	3. Through this Speech all things whatsoever pertain to the confirmation of the Gospel were made, and without his auspice nothing of these things was done, which consequently were also done by the Apostles, so that the glory of all these works is to be referred to him alone as author.
4. and 5. He was the chief Herald of eternal life, and as it were the supreme Doctor of the Church, setting before men ignorant of heavenly things the solid doctrine of the Gospel,	4. In this Speech of God J.C. eternal life was exhibited or set forth to us: and this life, or its promise, was the true and spiritual light of men, seeing that by its knowl-

Heretical exposition (column 1), cont.	Heretical exposition (column 2), cont.
…and he shone forth before them by the example of holy life: but they would not believe his doctrine nor imitate his life.	…edge and certain hope human minds are illumined.
—	5. Moreover this light shines clearly thus far in the darkened society of men; but the sons of darkness (who do evil, and hate the light) by their own fault did not at all comprehend it, being unfit to perceive it.
6. There was a man sent from God to the Jews, whose name was John.	6. Besides, at this very time there was in Judaea a certain celebrated man sent from God, whose name was John.
7. He came, that he might testify openly and publicly concerning Jesus, that he is the Christ, that is, the Messiah and only Savior of the world, so that all might believe in him through him.	7. Him God willed to come forth into the midst for this purpose, that as a faithful witness and precursor he might render testimony concerning Jesus Christ among all, and so by his preaching commend to all the author of that spiritual light of which I spoke before, that all might be prepared through the ministry of this man to have faith in Christ.
8. He was not the Christ, that is, the Messiah himself, as many of the Jews supposed, but the precursor of Christ, sent by God for this end, that he might testify concerning Christ.	8. This John, I say, was not the celestial light, which was about to illumine the whole world presently, but only its precursor, therefore sent that he might give testimony concerning that light.
9. But Jesus the Nazarene himself was the true and chief Doctor of the Gospel, who from the time he came into the world instructed every man to be saved with the solid knowledge of heavenly doctrine and holiness of life.	9. But that light was Jesus Christ, namely that true and celestial light, which after he came into the world and began to exercise his office, illuminated absolutely all men, as far as lay in him, with the saving knowledge of God and the most certain hope of eternal salvation.
10. He dwelt among the men of this world, and men were reformed and regenerated through his Gospel: but also the impious unbelievers did not acknowledge him.	10. Moreover that spiritual light J.C. then sojourned in this world, and dwelt in the midst of human society, teaching and healing all as occasion offered; nay, this world through him was restored and made as it were new, or other.
11. He came to his own people the Jews, but they refused to acknowledge him as the true Messiah and Savior of the world sent and exhibited by God.	11. And what is more marvelous, he came to his own proper people, namely the Jewish, to whom he had been promised peculiarly, and to whom first of all he announced the way of salvation; nevertheless those own people of his

Heretical exposition (column 1), cont.	Heretical exposition (column 2), cont.
—	…did not receive him, but affixed him to the cross as some criminal.
12. But as many as applied faith to him, to them he gave power to become Sons of God, and heirs of eternal life.	12. Meanwhile as many of the Jews and Gentiles together as embraced him as their Savior, to these he attributed a truly great dignity, namely that they may eventually become in perfect manner Sons of God, and so be made most like unto him in glory and immortality.
13. But those who have attained this power are not to be judged to be all those who are born naturally either from some illustrious family and other men, or adopted as sons by the will of men: but those alone who are regenerated from God through the preaching of the Gospel.	13. To these, I say, he gave that power, who believe in him from the heart; and keep his precepts, such as not indiscriminately all whoever are born of the blood of parents, or of the lust of the flesh, or the lust of man; but only they who are born of God; namely upright and pious men, who are prepared to obey the divine will as soon as it has been made open to them, and so by the power of God are recalled to the pursuit of justice.
14. Although indeed Jesus the Nazarene was endowed with so great and so divine power and authority; nevertheless before the men of this world, especially the Scribes and Pharisees, he lived as a lowly man, abject, obscure, sorrowful, and mortal. But he dwelt familiarly among us Apostles and Disciples, and made his glory, power, and divine authority clearly known and attested by various and admirable signs and deeds, so that he was acknowledged by us all as the Only-begotten and most beloved Son of God the Father, who not only most abundantly and clearly disclosed to the world the true doctrine of the Gospel, and in it the immense grace and benignity of God toward the human race, but also will most certainly finally bestow eternal life, which he promised in the name of God to all believing in him, etc.	14. But this Speech of God Jesus the Nazarene, as long as he lived in this world, was flesh, that is, wretched, mortal, and abject, and was as it were one of the common crowd of mortals, so that he sojourned among us as in a tent of an earthly body: nevertheless we Apostles and Disciples (as we Apostles) who dwelt more familiarly with him, clearly saw his divine glory in the transfiguration and miracles, professing itself continually; his glory, I say, as of the Only-begotten and singular Son of God, which he had received from his Father; by whom namely he himself was begotten, and sent as legate into this world: and he in all his words and deeds showed most fully the most abundant benignity and fidelity of God toward us.

Novi Ariani say the Speech, or Word, is a created Spirit fashioned before all other things, and the minister of God in creating the world, and that this one was made man in assumed flesh. Servetus indeed denies that the Word or Speech is an existing thing, but the disposition or dispensation of a thing, whereby it has pleased God to reveal to us the hidden secret of his will; and he adds that it is the voice of God, an oracle out of darkness, the decree of the cloud, an idea, just as the idea of a future work is in the mind of the artisan; this Speech was made flesh because by the voice uttered from the beginning that flesh was begotten; no otherwise than if a man uttering a word should cast gold or pearls from his mouth; thus then properly speaking his voice would be said to have been made gold: so the Word of God most powerful passed without any coagulation of things into the matter of flesh. And these are the opinions of the Heretical Adversaries, so absurd, monstrous, and impious, that to have indicated and denounced them to Christian men is refutation sufficiently just, says Simlerus.

Nevertheless, for the fuller confutation of these blasphemies, I say that all these heretical fictions are most alien to the mind of the holy Evangelist, since they attribute to the Speech, or Word, those things which befit none but a subsisting person, seeing that they say the Word existed in the beginning, the Word was God; for the article added shows that the Word in this speech of the Evangelist is the subject; so that place may not be given to the cavil of those who say the Father was the Word; so that the Word may be predicated of God; even as God is also said to be just and strong: since here Word is not an attribute, but the subject of the attribute name God. Moreover it is said that through this Word all creatures were created, the Word was life and light, and the author of all life and light in men; John the Baptist bore testimony concerning him; he himself came to the nation peculiar and proper to himself, and was not received by it; he gave to those who received him and believed in him power to become Sons of God. Finally that Word was made flesh and dwelt among men; men also saw his glory as of the Only-begotten of the Father: which things, since they cannot belong except to an intelligent and operating hypostasis, evidently prove that Word to be a person, and even to have existed before the flesh was assumed; but after the flesh was assumed to consist of two natures in the unity of person, namely the divine, which is proper to the Word itself, and the human, which he assumed when he was made flesh.

But this interpretation was not only most constant among all the holy Fathers who lived after the first Council of Nicaea, as the heretics contrive, who wish that at the time of this most famous Council the faith concerning the Son of God and Christ had been given over to ruin and altogether corrupted, but it is also the sense of the whole antiquity long before the Council, and from the very beginnings of the nascent Church. For St. Ignatius in his third Epistle, speaking of Jesus Christ the Son of the eternal Father, whom he calls Speech, or Word, says: Verbum non a voce, sed a substantia Dei existens, for it signifies not a composed sound of speech, but the begotten substance of the divine operation, which may restore all things to him from whom he was sent, appeased and reconciled to the Father. Irenaeus, book 2, chapter 3, says to the same effect: ostensum manifeste, quod in principio Logos existens apud Deum, per quem omnia facta sunt, qui et semper affuit generi humano. Hence in the last times according to the time predetermined by the Father, he sent his fashion, namely passible man made. The same holds Tertullian adversus Praxeam, Gregory of Neocaesarea, and all whosoever wrote before the Council of Nicaea concerning the eternal or temporal generation of the divine Word.

The Heretics reply, insofar as Christ is called Word and God through whom all things were made, insofar as by a special dispensation he exercised among men the ministry of God, that all things might be repaired and renewed through the mystery of reconciliation and redemption; for, they say, new creature is everywhere attributed in the New Testament to Christ, through whom God accomplished this.

Against this, this response is utterly futile and empty; for the Evangelist testifies absolutely that that Word, of which he undertakes to speak, existed from the beginning, namely in that beginning of which Moses had said: In principio Deus creavit coelum, et terram. Nor does it matter that works of reparation are attributed to him; for what hinders that to one and the same two works, which follow upon each other mutually, be attributed? Whence deservedly Irenaeus, book 4, chapter 14, says: Filium Dei ab initio assistere suo plasmati, et suum plasma in semetipso recapitulare: therefore nothing hinders that the Word, who formed all things together with the Father and Holy Spirit, should have repaired and restored through the mystery of his Incarnation his image defiled by the sin of the first man and corrupted moreover in many ways; by which reason, although creation is not specially attributed to him, yet the restoration and reformation of men is specially attributed to him, seeing that he alone assumed human nature.

They reply secondly. That the Old Testament attributes creation to one and only God the Father, just as the New attributes the later creation or renovation; it never says that God alone accomplished these, but through Christ: whence it asserts that also we were redeemed, justified, reconciled to God, and made heirs of eternal life, which is the work of the new creation wrought by God through Christ; for without him nothing of these was done: therefore St. John speaks only of reparation made before all things through Christ, that is, restored. They confirm from the fact that the New Testament is called the beginning of the words and deeds of Christ; for Lucas in Actor., chapter 1, says he writes quae Iesus coepit facere, et docere until the day on which, giving commandments through the Holy Spirit to the Apostles whom he chose, he was taken up. In the same way also Marcus says he writes initium Evangelii Iesu Christi; so too Saint Paul ad Hebr. 2 enumerates the sum of the doctrine of salvation begun to be preached by Christ, and of his works: but those Apostles would lie if Christ under the Old Testament had done or taught anything: therefore he undertook nothing besides the reconciliation and Redemption of men; and straightway the words of John must be understood only of the reparation and reconciliation of men. They confirm moreover that if Christ had created heaven and earth he would not have been silent about it: especially there where against the Jews he proves himself to be the Son of God from the works common to himself with the Father; but there he makes mention only of the works of the new creation, in healing, quickening, raising, judging. He would also have said, if this were true: The Father was working in creating; so I also work: but he was speaking only of present things saying: Sicut Pater meus operatur, ita et ego operor: therefore, etc.

But the truth of the contrary plainly appears from what has been said; for both Testament, New as well as Old, attributes the creation of all things to Christ the eternal Word, and subsisting Wisdom. Whence we are said not only to be redeemed through Christ, justified, and reconciled to God, which is the work of the new creation; but both Testament says: Verbo Dei coeli firmati sunt: and omnia per ipsum condita sunt, and of him it was said Psalm. 102 and ad Hebr. 1: Tu in principio, Domine, terram fundasti, et opera manuum tuarum sunt coeli.

To the Confirmation I say the Adversaries sin in many ways in their argument; first for the Evangelists speak of the Son of God not simply, but as incarnate, and endowed with the name Jesus and Christ; but both this name he had only from his temporal conception and nativity; for Jesus was named from his office, because he was to save his people from their sins: Christ likewise was called from the unction, which from the oil of Divinity and divine charisms, by which it was illustrated, he obtained in the union of humanity with the Word: but the heretics transfer to one nature of the Word, existing from the beginning with God, those things which are said of Christ according to both natures, or of the whole person: therefore they admit a true paralogism in their argument. Secondly the Evangelists describe the beginning of the Gospel, for to do and to teach is referred to the administration of the Gospel: but the heretics refer it to the beginning of the person of Christ, which certainly is to hallucinate. Finally, if Christ had only a beginning, when he began to do and to teach, what will be its origin? For Marcus begins that beginning of the Gospel of Christ from his baptism, but Lucas begins his narrative higher, from his very conception and nativity: therefore according to the blasphemous temerity of the heretics, one or other of the Evangelists would have to be guilty of falsehood.

To the second confirmation, I deny that it follows that, if Christ had created heaven and earth, he would not have been silent about it when addressing the Jews: for this conditional proposition has been made; for, as the mystery of the Son of God before his coming in the flesh was veiled by certain shadows and prophetic utterances, and he offered himself to the Ancients to be glimpsed only under an enigma; so also, after he came in the flesh, he did not at once exhibit his celestial glory to be seen; for since the Son of God in the flesh exhibited himself to the world as Mediator and Redeemer, Scripture describes for us those discourses above all, and those deeds of Christ, with divine majesty as it were covered by a certain veil, which pertain to that office of Mediator. Yet meanwhile Christ was not silent concerning his divine nature and Majesty: for he testified both that he is God, and the true Son of God, existing before Abraham, not only in words but also by very many wondrous works. Add that Saint John expressly pronounces: In mundo erat, et mundus per ipsum factus est: therefore that very Word which was made flesh is the maker of the whole world; and long ago, before his nativity and conception from blessed Virgin, he existed according to the divine nature and person.

They reply, that by the name of world is signified by the Evangelist not the universe of all things, but only men, by whom he was not known: for what does it matter to the matter that Christ is not known by the machine of heaven? They add that often with John world is taken for men, as when Christ is called lux mundi: and that thus Deus dilexit mundum, ut Filium suum unigenitum daret; and that

Christ tollat peccata mundi, etc.

I answer, that although by the name of world men are usually signified, yet where John says, mundus per ipsum factus est, by the name of world he understands the fabric of the universe, since by this locution he wishes Christ to be commended: but what great thing would it have been that Christ, merely a man, dwelt among men and existed in the world? But it is illustrious and honorable for Christ that he was Emmanuel, that is, God with us, or as St. Paul says, he was seen on earth, and conversed with men.

It is proved thirdly. — From the holy Fathers of the former centuries. — St. Ignatius stabs this error, which was then being disseminated by Cerinthus, in many places of his epistles: thus in Epist. ad Ephesios: Medius, inquit, unus est, et carnalis et spiritualis, genitus et ingenitus, seu factus et non factus, in homine existens Deus, in morte vita aeterna, et ex Maria et ex Deo primum passibilis, et tum impassibilis Iesus Christus Dominus noster. — And in Epist. ad Magnesianos: Unus Deus est, qui seipsum manifestavit per Iesum Christum filium suum, qui est Verbum ipsius aeternum. — St. Polycarpus, in the Prayer poured forth to God at the brink of martyrdom, which the Church of Smyrna reports in its encyclical Epistle: Domine Deus meus, inquit, pater dilecti ac benedicti Filii tui Iesu Christi, per quem tui notitiam accipimus, Deus Angelorum et virtutum, benedico te. — St. Justin martyr, Apolog. 2: Et horum omnium, inquit, Magistrum nos habere, qui in hoc ipsum veniens et crucifixus est, Iesum Christum; eundemque quod ipsius veri Dei Filium esse edocti sumus. And further on: Et Iesus Christus unus et solus proprie Filius Deo genitus, qui nimirum ratio et verbum eius, et primogenitus et virtus est, atque de consilio et voluntate eius instaurandi et restituendi humani generis, ergo homo factus nos ista docuit. — And in Apolog. 2, he has this: Porro filius eius qui proprie dicitur filius, Verbum simul cum illo ante creaturas existens et nascens, quoniam primitus per eum cuncta ordinavit et ornarit. — And in the Dialogo contra Tryphonem, page 251, he demonstrates that Christ is called God and Lord of hosts in Sacred Scripture. And throughout the whole Dialogue he proves that those things which are said in the sacred Letters, especially indeed in the Psalms, concerning the supreme Lord and God of all, befit Christ, and that he is the one who appeared to Abraham, Moses, and the patriarchs, whom they worshipped as their God, and who is there designated by that name, namely the Tetragrammaton. — Tertullian, book Contra Praxeam, chapter 13, assaults the same error with these words: Itaque Deos omnino non dicam nec dominos; sed Apostolum sequar, ut si pariter nominandi fuerint Pater, et Filius, Deum Patrem appellem, et Iesum Christum Dominum nominem. Solum autem Christum potero Deum dicere, sicut idem apostolus: from which Christ, who is, he says, Deus super omnia benedictus in saecula omne. And chapter 28, after he had adduced the words of the Apostle ad Galatas 1, writing: Paulus non ab hominibus, neque per hominem, sed per Iesum Christum, et Deum Patrem, he subjoins these: Et habes tota instrumenta quae in hunc modum pronuntiant, et duos proponunt, Deum Patrem et Dominum nostrum Iesum Christum filium Patris, et Iesum ipsum esse Christum, in utroque quoque nomine Dei Filium, etc. — St. Cyprian, book 2 Adversus Iudaeos ad Quirinum, chapter 1, with many testimonies of Sacred Scripture proves Christ to be the firstborn, and the wisdom of God, through whom all things were made. And chapter 3, that Christ is the same Speech of God. And chapter 6, that God is Christ. And book de idolorum vanitate: Hic est virtus Dei, he says, hic ratio, hic sapientia eius et gloria, hic in Virginem illabitur, carnem Spiritu Sancto cooperante induitur: Deus cum homine miscetur: hic Deus noster, hic Christus est. — Origen expressly asserts that Christ is not a mere man, book 7 contra Celsum: Quod si divinum quiddam, inquit, erat in eo homine, qui in illo intelligitur, cuiusmodi erat Unigenitus Dei et primogenitus omnis creaturae, qui dicit: Ego sum veritas, et ego sum vita, et ego sum ostium etc., alia nimirum et huius, et substantiae ipsius ratio propter eam quae est hominis in Iesu considerati. — Minucius Felix in Octavio, to the pagans objecting that a crucified man is worshipped as God by Christians, answers thus: Nam quod religioni nostra hominem noxium et crucem adscribitis, longe a veritatis via erratis, qui putatis Deum credi aut meruisse noxium, aut posuisse terrenum. By which he affirms that Christ is God, but denies that he was guilty and altogether earthly. — Josephus himself, though a Jew in religion and race, bears testimony to the divinity of Christ, book 18 Antiquitatum Iudaicarum, chapter 1: Eodem tempore, inquit, fuit Iesus vir sapiens, si tamen virum eum fas est dicere: erat enim mirabilium operum patrator, et doctor eorum qui libenter vera suscipiunt: plurimosque tam de Iudaeis quam de gentibus sectatores habuit. Christus hic erat, quem accusatum a nostrae gentis principibus Pilatus cum addixisset cruci, nihilominus non destiterunt eum diligere, qui ab initio coeperant. Apparuit eis tertia die vivus, ita ut divinitus vates hoc et alia multa miranda praedixerunt et usque in hodiernum diem christianorum genus ab eo denominatum non deficit. Nor let some of the heretics deprive us of that strong testimony to be taken from an enemy, by claiming that that passage is not conformable to the style, order, history, and faith of its author, and therefore seems here stitched in; for besides the authority of the more ancient Fathers of the Church, and especially of Eusebius, the parent of ecclesiastical history, who give it great credit, whosoever shall sincerely read that passage will observe both the consonance of style and the congruence of order, seeing that his purpose there was to narrate the tumults stirred up among the Jews; and since on occasion of Christ the Lord all Judaea had been stirred up, he could not fail to say something about him. That however he said little, this arose from the hatred of the Jews and Romans toward Christians: if he spoke against his own faith, he brought forth these things conquered by truth according to common estimation. — Moreover there could be added not so much testimonies as entire volumes of the Fathers of following centuries; but let these suffice against the Socinians, who hear only the Fathers of the three first centuries, and spew out that the tradition concerning the Trinity and Incarnation was violated by the Council of Nicaea.

THE PRINCIPAL OBJECTIONS ARE PROPOSED AND SOLVED,

WHICH THE HERETICS THRUST FORTH FROM THE SCRIPTURES.

It is objected 1. That Christ who was born of the Virgin Mary is the same who had been promised to the ancient holy Fathers and Patriarchs: but he who had been promised is not true God, but only man: therefore Christ is not true God. All admit the major. The heretics prove the minor with various oracles of the Old Testament; most especially indeed from those words Genesis 3 v. 15, where Christ is called the seed of the woman, who was to crush the head of the serpent, and chapter 12, where God promises Abraham that in him shall be blessed all the kindreds of the earth, that is, in his seed, as the Apostle explains ad Galat. 3: Abrahae, inquit, dictae sunt promissiones, et semini eius. Non dicit et seminibus, quasi in multis; sed quasi in uno, et semini tuo, qui est Christus. Likewise from Deuteronomii 18, where Moses promises the Israelitic people that the Messiah will come in these words: Prophetam de gente tua, et de fratribus tuis, sicut me, suscitabit tibi Dominus Deus, ipsum audies: which Prophet Peter and Stephen interpreted to be Christ, Actor. 1 and 7; nay, Christ seems to have alluded to that place when he said Ioan. 5: Si crederetis Moysi, crederetis et mihi, de me enim ille scripsit: as St. Cyprian noted, book Contra Iudaeos, chapter 18. But Moses indicates in the same place that the future Prophet will not be God; then because he says he will be like himself; then because he subjoins: ipsum audies, ut petisti a Domino Deo tuo in Horeb quando dixisti, ultra non audiam vocem Domini Dei mei, etc. Similarly Psalm. 102, God promises David: De fructu ventris tui ponam super sedem tuam: and similarly as often as the Prophets make discourse concerning the coming Messiah, they delineate him no otherwise than as a pure man: therefore, etc.

I answer by denying the minor, and to its proof I say that the aforesaid oracles do indeed designate that the coming Messiah ought to be true man, yet they do not deny that he must likewise also be held true God; for in the promises the description of the person of the Messiah is not everywhere set forth intact, but many things are uttered concerning his office, from which nevertheless he may still be gathered to be true God, since there are attributed to him things which cannot befit one who were only man, for instance when it is said that by his power, or by the works of his mother herself, the head of the serpent must be crushed: that all nations are to be blessed through him: that he must reign unto the age of ages, etc. Which comprise liberation from the wrath of God, and reconciliation with God, release from sin, and death, and the tyranny of Satan: all which require infinite efficacy; nor can they be presently performed, nor expected from one who is only man. Add that in certain prophecies the person of the Messiah is described more clearly, and adorned with certain titles, by which it is indicated far more openly that the coming Messiah will be God-man. Thus Isaiae 7: Ecce Virgo concipiet et pariet Filium, et vocabitur nomen eius Emmanuel: for Emmanuel cannot be said unless that person who was born of the Virgin also be God: for God spoke through Moses and the Prophets, and worked miracles; and yet neither Moses nor the Prophets were called Emmanuel: therefore he who was born of the Virgin had to be not only true man, but also true God.

They insist. Jesus Christ, who was born of the Virgin, was announced by an Angel what he would be: but the Angel, the Herald of that nativity, does not say that he is the eternal God, nay says that the Son of God was to be so called, not because he was begotten of divine essence and a divine Father before the ages, but that he would be so called because he ought to be conceived by the power of the Most High and the Holy Spirit, and born of Mary. Add that he does not say he is called, but will be called Son of God: therefore he was not then the Son of God when the Angel uttered these things. Secondly, the Angel does not console Joseph doubting about the conception of the Virgin by saying that he who lay enclosed in the womb of the Virgin was the eternal Son of God the Father: which certainly would have been the chief and most welcome consolation in that disturbance: therefore the Angel judged him not to be such. Finally, the Evangelists accurately describe the Annunciation of Christ accomplished, his Conception, Nativity, and Ancestors: nor do they pass over the time, the months during which he was carried in the womb; they remember also the place in which he was born, the manger into which he was laid, the house in which he was educated; moreover they narrate what he did whether boy or grown man, and what befell him, etc.; but none of them touched even with a word upon his Divinity, and his eternal generation from the divine side: which certainly they would not have passed over in silence, if they had judged it true: therefore that Christ born of the Virgin Mary must not be held the eternal Son of God.

I deny all these consequences: and to the first reason, I say that the Angel sufficiently designates that he who was to be born of the Virgin was the eternal Son of God, when he said: Quod ex te nascetur Sanctum, vocabitur Filius Dei: for that attribution of divine filiation can signify nothing else than that he who was to be born would be the true Son of God, not only by reason of the divine nature, but also of the divine person, by which the assumed humanity, soon to be born of the Virgin, subsisted. Nor does it matter that he said will be called, and not is called Son of God: for the Son of God was manifested in the flesh in his own time, who nevertheless was from eternity the Only-begotten Son of God; and thus him whom before the faithful of the Old Testament dimly discerned to come in the flesh, now that he has been exhibited openly, all the faithful of the New Testament preach to be the Son of God.

To the second proof I say that, since Joseph was solicitous about this most holy conception, it was sufficient for confirming his mind to indicate that Mary had not conceived from adultery, nor in human manner and mode, nor from any congress of man, but from the Holy Spirit, and by the power of the Most High, saying: Quod in ea natum est, de Spiritu sancto est.

To the third confirmation I say that this consequence does not hold: the Evangelists describe Christ as man: therefore they write nothing else about him than that he is man; for the Evangelists and Apostles preached his eternity and true Deity, as has been proven above from their oracles: therefore if the heretics embrace those passages of Scripture by which the true human nature in Christ the Savior is proved, they must also reverently receive and embrace the others which call him God, and attribute to him divine glory and divine worship.

They press: If there were two natures in Christ, divine and human, the Evangelists ought to have declared them most openly; otherwise they would have omitted the foundation of Faith, insulted God and the Son of God, and been the cause of all contentions in the Church: but nowhere do they openly confess two natures in Christ: therefore there are not two natures in Christ.

I deny the minor: for there is no one of the Evangelists who does not relate those divine oracles and wondrous works by which Christ attested his Divinity: therefore the Evangelists and Apostles did not omit the foundation of Faith. Nor are they themselves the authors of discords, but ambitious and turbulent men, who are not content with the simplicity of Apostolic doctrine, have always been, and are today also, the cause of dissensions. I confess that the doctrine concerning Christ the Savior as God and at the same time man, God and Son of man, has had many adversaries from the very age of the Apostles, of whom some denied that Christ is God, others that he is man, and many moreover impiously mangled the natures that they might take away either both or one or the other: yet it does not therefore follow that the dogma itself is false.

It is objected 2. He who is Mediator of men before the God of Israel is not himself the God of Israel: but Christ born of the Virgin is Mediator before the God of Israel: therefore he is not himself the God of Israel. The major is proved from the absurdities which follow if we say that the God of Israel is a Mediator before God: First, God will be held inferior to himself. Secondly, God will pray to himself. Thirdly, the offended party will be mediatrix with herself. Hence the Apostle ad Timotheum 2 distinguishes Christ the mediator from the one supreme God, and calls him man: Unus Deus, unus et Mediator Dei et hominum, homo Christus Iesus.

I answer with St. Chrysostom that God is here said to be one by way of distinction from idols, not to the exclusion of Christ. Or with St. Augustine, that Christ is not opposed to the one God except qua he is man, which the very words intimate: Unus Mediator homo Christus Iesus, inasmuch as he is man, he says, book 10 Confess. chapter 13, so far is he Mediator: but inasmuch as he is the Word, equal to God, and God with God, together with the Holy Spirit one God. And as because he is Mediator of God and men it does not conflict that he is man, nay thus he is named in the cited place; so also it does not conflict that he is God. Nay, St. John Chrysostom, homily 1 on epistle 2 of St. Paul ad Timotheum, elegantly shows that the Mediator must be joined by association with both parties of whose mediation he is: for that, he says, is proper to a mediator, to become a partaker of both parties of whom he was mediator. But if he touch one indeed by association, but be separated from the other, he can no longer be called mediator. Therefore unless he be a sharer of the paternal nature, he certainly is not Mediator: but just as he took upon himself fellowship of human nature when he came to men: so also he did not depart from the substance of God, since he came from God: for he who was middle between two natures had need to be a partaker of both. For a pure man would never altogether become Mediator; for such a Mediator had need to converse with God. Likewise God alone could not be Mediator, for neither would they have received him whose Mediator he came to be. Therefore, so far is the aforesaid passage of the Apostle from favoring Ebionites and Cerinthians as ancient as recent, that rather it confounds and casts them down.

To the first absurdity however I say it does not follow that God is inferior to himself by reason of being Mediator: for the Mediator, by reason of office, is inferior to him with whom he intercedes: but he is not inferior in nature, since among men an equal often becomes intercessor with equals for others: so the Son who is one God with the Father, and equal to God in the form of God, emptied himself taking the form of a servant, and lowered himself to the office of Mediator, without any diminution of his nature, power, Majesty, and Deity.

To the second I say that the Son prays to God insofar as he is Mediator, especially considered according to human nature; for prayers and subjection pertain to the human nature; but the efficacy of these flows from the divine nature, with which the human nature is joined into one person.

To the third I answer that it is indeed absurd that the offended party be mediatrix where there is only one person of the offending party: but where there are several persons, it is not unfitting that one of them offer herself by common decree to pacification and satisfaction: thus however it was done between God and men through the very Son of God, nor certainly could it otherwise have been done or ought to have been; for who besides this Mediator sent from the side of the offended party, whether of men or of Angels, could come forth and intercede with God? Certainly unless the offended party had undertaken the office of Mediator, we should never have returned into grace with God.

Add to these what we said concerning the satisfaction of Christ, namely that he could make satisfaction even to himself, as offended.

It is objected 3. He alone is the one true God whom Christ acknowledged and invoked, and taught to be invoked as true God: but Christ acknowledged only the Father, and taught him to be invoked, Matth. 11, Luc. 11, Ioan. 17: therefore only the Father is true God.

I distinguish the minor: that Christ, as mediator according to human nature, invoked God the Father, and handed on to us also the ordinary formula of praying, whereby we may invoke the Father, I concede: that as divine Word, and according to the divine nature, he invoked the Father, I deny.

Add that Christ himself does not strip himself of this honor, so that we may not invoke him also together with the Father; for there are open passages of Scripture in which Christ proposes himself as to be invoked by us. Thus Ioannis 5: Pater non iudicat quemquam, sed omne iudicium dedit Filio, ut omnes honorificent Filium, sicut honorificant Patrem. And Ioan. 14: Quodcumque petieritis Patrem in nomine meo, hoc faciam, ut glorificetur Pater in Filio: therefore he wishes himself to be invoked together with the Father. Moreover, since the Apostles teach by their word and example to invoke Christ, does not Christ, in whose spirit they spoke, claim invocation for himself? Add that since the works of the Trinity ad extra are indivisible, hence it comes that under the name of Father, whom we invoke in the formula of prayer handed down by Christ, three persons together are comprehended.

They insist: If by the appellation of God Christ also understood himself, he would also include himself, mention of God being made: but he does not include himself when he speaks of God; rather he expressly makes discourse of himself, and calls the Father only the true God; while he calls himself his legate Ioannis 3 v. 16: Sic Deus dilexit mundum, ut Filium suum Unigenitum daret, etc. And chapter 17: Haec est autem vita aeterna, ut cognoscant te solum verum Deum, et quem misisti Iesum Christum. And Ioan. 14: Creditis in Deum, et in me credite: therefore, since he does not join himself into the society of the name of God, it follows that the name of God absolutely placed signifies only the Father.

I answer, that the name of God is taken in two ways in the Scriptures, namely either essentially or hypostatically: that is, either insofar as it signifies the essence common to three persons, or insofar as it signifies some one of the divine persons, which is truly God. Whence to the minor I say that as often as the name of God is placed relatively and hypostatically to signify the person of the Father, Christ deservedly distinguishes himself from God, that is from the Father, seeing that he is another person than the Father: but he does not distinguish himself from God insofar as the name of God is taken absolutely and essentially. Likewise I distinguish otherwise: that Christ qua Mediator of God and men distinguishes himself from God, I concede: that qua Son of God, I deny. Therefore it must be concluded with Saint Ambrose, book 3 De Fide, c. 2: Ergo cum legis Deum, non separes Patrem, non separes Filium, quia divinitas Patris et Filii una eademque est; et item nec ibi separes, ubi legis quod beatus et solus potens; for of him it was said, as we have it, I command thee the name of God which signifies all things: but also Christ is called God: therefore the name of God befits both the Son and the Father, when the effect of operation also befits them.

They press. The name of God is attributed to Christ insofar as he is held one with the Father: but he is not one with the Father by reason of nature, but only by reason of consensus and affection: therefore, etc. The minor is proved from John chapter 17, where Christ prays the Father that all the disciples may be one among themselves, as we also are one: but the faithful are one among themselves not by unity of essence, but by consensus of minds and wills, and communication of goods: therefore Christ is one with the Father not by unity of essence, but by consensus and communication of goods.

— I deny the minor: for although there perhaps Christ makes discourse concerning concord and likeness of properties, yet he does not assert there that no other closer union, or unity, exists between himself and the Father than that which is between men; otherwise he would fight with himself: for he teaches elsewhere that he is the Son of God begotten of the Father, equal to the Father, and that the same one who is the Father is God. Whence it follows, on account of the equality and unity of essence, that the Father and the Son have the same most concordant will, as has been proven many times already.

They object again: From the attribution of the name of God, and divine generation, it cannot be gathered that Christ is true God, and has the same nature with the Father: therefore, etc. The antecedent is proved by all those texts of Scripture in which the name of God is attributed to creatures, as we observed in the third Notable; likewise divine generation and filiation is attributed to creatures; for Esaiae 1 concerning the Jews it is written: Filios enutrivi, et exaltavi; ipsi autem spreverunt me. Ioannis 1.: Quotquot autem receperunt eum, dedit eis potestatem filios Dei fieri. Et Ioann. 3.

— I deny the antecedent. For it belongs to creatures on account of identity of essence with the Father, to creatures indeed only on account of usurpation, imitation, representation, or delegation. Add that not only some name of God is attributed to Christ, but those names above all are attributed to him which signify true God, as Iehovah, the Tetragrammaton. Similarly Christ is called Son on another account than the other sons of God; since men are called sons of God either on account of formation, or on account of the singular protection and affection of God toward them, or on account of adoption, which takes place through sanctifying grace: wherefore believers are born of God through adoption and grace, and have in themselves the seed of the divine Spirit, and are partakers of the divine nature through the bestowal of gifts and the operation of the indwelling Spirit: but Christ by nature is Son of God, and Deity itself was communicated to him whole and undivided without beginning of time through eternal generation, whence he is said not only to be Son of God, but even God himself.

They insist. Although the name Iehovah, and something similar, is attributed to Christ, nevertheless from this it cannot be inferred that Christ is truly one God with the Father: therefore, etc. They prove the antecedent: for this name Iehovah is attributed to the city Jerusalem, in the last of Ezechiel: and Moses, when he had constructed an altar, Exodi 17, called it Iehova: similarly Iudicum 13 the Angel claims for himself the name Iehovah. — I deny the antecedent, and to its proof I say that the name Iehovah is attributed to those things not absolutely, but only respectively with respect to God; for thus the altar built by Moses was such that Iehovah is the exaltation of Moses; for we read in the Vulgate: Aedificavit Moyses altare, et vocavit nomen eius, Dominus exaltatio mea. Similarly the name Iehovah is attributed to the city of Jerusalem because it enjoyed the peculiar protection and residence of God; for we read: the name of the city from that day, Dominus ibidem. But as far as concerns the Angel, I say that he is named Iehovah not only in Iudicum 6 but also Genesis 32 and often elsewhere: but certain Theologians wish this Angel, who is named Iehovah, not to have been a created Angel, but the very Son of God, who then offered himself to men to be seen in sensible form, as very many Fathers teach together with Tertullian: which indeed could be confirmed from the fact that those most holy Men, to whom that Iehovah appeared, offered to him the worship owed to the true God alone, as sacrifice, Iudicum 6 ff., Genesis 18, Temple, Malachiae 3; and the Fathers, upon seeing this Angel, Genesis 32 and Iudicum 13, said they had seen God face to face. Oseas too testifies that the Angel who wrestled with Jacob, and being asked his name, answered that it was admirable, was Iehovah. From which it can be gathered that that Angel who claimed for himself the name Iehovah was that Angel of great counsel, namely Christ, who although he was not yet then incarnate, nevertheless began to exercise the office of mediator, and set forth the figure of his office, that he might approach more familiarly to the faithful. — More truly however I judge it must be said that he was really a created Angel who appeared to the holy Fathers: for St. Paul says ad Hebraeos 1: Multifariam multisque modis olim Deus loquens Patribus, novissime nobis locutus est in Filio: which certainly would appear less true, if the Son himself had also spoken to the ancient Fathers: therefore he who spoke then was truly a created Angel: but since he fulfilled the commands and legation of God, he also spoke in the name and stead of God.