(Calvin, Institutes on the Christian Religion 1, part 11)
Chapter 13 (continued)
13. How clearly and transparently does this appear in his
miracles? I admit that similar and equal miracles were performed by
the prophets and apostles; but there is this very essential
difference, that they dispensed the gifts of God as his ministers,
whereas he exerted his own inherent might. Sometimes, indeed, he
used prayer, that he might ascribe glory to the Father, but we see
that for the most part his own proper power is displayed. And how
should not he be the true author of miracles, who, of his own
authority, commissions others to perform them? For the Evangelist
relates that he gave power to the apostles to cast out devils, cure
the lepers, raise the dead, &c. And they, by the mode in which they
performed this ministry, showed plainly that their whole power was
derived from Christ. "In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth," says
Peter, (Acts 3: 6,) "rise up and walk." It is not surprising, then,
that Christ appealed to his miracles in order to subdue the unbelief
of the Jews, inasmuch as these were performed by his own energy, and
therefore bore the most ample testimony to his divinity.
Again, if out of God there is no salvation, no righteousness,
no life, Christ, having all these in himself, is certainly God. Let
no one object that life or salvation is transfused into him by God.
For it is said not that he received, but that he himself is
salvation. And if there is none good but God, how could a mere man
be pure, how could he be, I say not good and just, but goodness and
justice? Then what shall we say to the testimony of the Evangelist,
that from the very beginning of the creation "in him was life, and
this life was the light of men?" Trusting to such proofs, we can
boldly put our hope and faith in him, though we know it is
blasphemous impiety to confide in any creature. "Ye believe in God,"
says he, "believe also in me," (John 14: 1.) And so Paul (Rom. 10:
11, and 15: 12) interprets two passages of Isaiah "Whose believeth
in him shall not be confounded," (Isa. 28: 16;) and, "In that day
there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of
the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek," (Isa. 11: 10.) But why
adduce more passages of Scripture on this head, when we so often
meet with the expression, "He that believeth in me has eternal
life?"
Again, the prayer of faith is addressed to him - prayer, which
specially belongs to the divine majesty, if anything so belongs. For
the Prophet Joel says, "And it shall come to pass, that whosoever
shall call on the name of the Lord (Jehovah) shall be delivered"
(Joel 2: 32.) And another says, "The name of the Lord (Jehovah) is a
strong tower; the righteous runneth into it and is safe," (Prov. 18:
10.) But the name of Christ is invoked for salvation, and therefore
it follows that he is Jehovah. Moreover, we have an example of
invocation in Stephen, when he said, "Lord Jesus, receive my
spirit;" and thereafter in the whole Church, when Ananias says in
the same book, "Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much
evil he has done to thy saints at Jerusalem; and here he has
authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on thy name,"
(Acts 9: 13, 14.) And to make it more clearly understood that in
Christ dwelt the whole fulness of the Godhead bodily, the Apostle
declares that the only doctrine which he professed to the
Corinthians, the only doctrine which he taught, was the knowledge of
Christ, (1 Cor. 2: 2.) Consider what kind of thing it is, and how
great, that the name of the Son alone is preached to us, though God
command us to glory only in the knowledge of himself, (Jer. 9: 24.)
Who will dare to maintain that he, whom to know forms our only
ground of glorying, is a mere creature? To this we may add, that the
salutations prefixed to the Epistles of Paul pray for the same
blessings from the Son as from the Father. By this we are taught,
not only that the blessings which our heavenly Father bestows come
to us through his intercession, but that by a partnership in power,
the Son himself is their author. This practical knowledge is
doubtless surer and more solid than any idle speculation. For the
pious soul has the best view of God, and may almost be said to
handle him, when it feels that it is quickened, enlightened, saved,
justified, and sanctified by him.
14. In asserting the divinity of the Spirit, the proof must be
derived from the same sources. And it is by no means an obscure
testimony which Moses bears in the history of the creation, when he
says that the Spirit of God was expanded over the abyss or shapeless
matter; for it shows not only that the beauty which the world
displays is maintained by the invigorating power of the Spirit, but
that even before this beauty existed the Spirit was at work
cherishing the confused mass. Again, no cavils can explain away the
force of what Isaiah says, "And now the Lord God, and his Spirit,
has sent me," (Isa. 48: 16,) thus ascribing a share in the sovereign
power of sending the prophets to the Holy Spirit. (Calvin in Acts
20: 28.) In this his divine majesty is clear.
But, as I observed, the best proof to us is our familiar
experience. For nothing can be more alien from a creature, than the
office which the Scriptures ascribe to him, and which the pious
actually feel him discharging, - his being diffused over all space,
sustaining, invigorating, and quickening all things, both in heaven
and on the earth. The mere fact of his not being circumscribed by
any limits raises him above the rank of creatures, while his
transfusing vigour into all things, breathing into them being, life,
and motion, is plainly divine. Again, if regeneration to
incorruptible life is higher, and much more excellent than any
present quickening, what must be thought of him by whose energy it
is produced? Now, many passages of Scripture show that he is the
author of regeneration, not by a borrowed, but by an intrinsic
energy; and not only so, but that he is also the author of future
immortality. In short, all the peculiar attributes of the Godhead
are ascribed to him in the same way as to the Son. He searches the
deep things of Gods and has no counsellor among the creatures; he
bestows wisdom and the faculty of speech, though God declares to
Moses (Exod. 4: 11) that this is his own peculiar province. In like
manner, by means of him we become partakers of the divine nature, so
as in a manner to feel his quickening energy within us. Our
justification is his work; from him is power, sanctification, truth,
grace, and every good thought, since it is from the Spirit alone
that all good gifts proceed. Particular attention is due to Paul's
expression, that though there are diversities of gifts, "all these
worketh that one and the self-same Spirit," (1 Cor. 12: 11,) he
being not only the beginning or origin, but also the author; as is
even more clearly expressed immediately after in these words
"dividing to every man severally as he will." For were he not
something subsisting in God, will and arbitrary disposal would never
be ascribed to him. Most clearly, therefore does Paul ascribe divine
power to the Spirit, and demonstrate that he dwells hypostatically
in God.
10. Nor does the Scripture, in speaking of him, withhold the
name of God. Paul infers that we are the temple of God, from the
fact that "the Spirit of God dwelleth in us," (1 Cor. 3: 16; 6: 19;
and 2 Cor. 6: 16.) Now it ought not to be slightly overlooked, that
all the promises which God makes of choosing us to himself as a
temple, receive their only fulfilment by his Spirit dwelling in us.
Surely, as it is admirably expressed by Augustine, (Ad Maximinum,
Ep. 66,) "were we ordered to make a temple of wood and stone to the
Spirit, inasmuch as such worship is due to God alone, it would be a
clear proof of the Spirit's divinity; how much clearer a proof in
that we are not to make a temple to him, but to be ourselves that
temple." And the Apostle says at one time that we are the temple of
God, and at another time, in the same sense, that we are the temple
of the Holy Spirit. Peter, when he rebuked Ananias for having lied
to the Holy Spirit, said, that he had not lied unto men, but unto
God. And when Isaiah had introduced the Lord of Hosts as speaking,
Paul says, it was the Holy Spirit that spoke, (Acts 28: 25, 26.)
Nay, words uniformly said by the prophets to have been spoken by the
Lord of Hosts, are by Christ and his apostles ascribed to the Holy
Spirit. Hence it follows that the Spirit is the true Jehovah who
dictated the prophecies. Again, when God complains that he was
provoked to anger by the stubbornness of the people, in place of
Him, Isaiah says that his Holy Spirit was grieved, (Isa. 63: 10.)
Lastly, while blasphemy against the Spirit is not forgiven, either
in the present life or that which is to come, whereas he who has
blasphemed against the Son may obtain pardon, that majesty must
certainly be divine which it is an inexpiable crime to offend or
impair. I designedly omit several passages which the ancient fathers
adduced. They thought it plausible to quote from David, "By the word
of the Lord were the heavens made, and all the host of them by the
breath (Spirit) of his mouth," (Ps. 33: 6,) in order to prove that
the world was not less the work of the Holy Spirit than of the Son.
But seeing it is usual in the Psalms to repeat the same thing twice,
and in Isaiah the "spirit" (breath) of the mouth is equivalent to
"word", that proof was weak; and, accordingly, my wish has been to
advert briefly to those proofs on which pious minds may securely
rest.
16. But as God has manifested himself more clearly by the
advent of Christ, so he has made himself more familiarly known in
three persons. Of many proofs let this one suffice. Paul connects
together these three, God, Faith, and Baptism, and reasons from the
one to the other, viz., because there is one faith he infers that
there is one God; and because there is one baptism he infers that
there is one faith. Therefore, if by baptism we are initiated into
the faith and worship of one God, we must of necessity believe that
he into whose name we are baptised is the true God. And there cannot
be a doubt that our Saviour wished to testify, by a solemn
rehearsal, that the perfect light of faith is now exhibited, when he
said, "Go and teach all nations, baptising them in the name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," (Matth. 28: 19,)
since this is the same thing as to be baptised into the name of the
one God, who has been fully manifested in the Father, the Son, and
the Spirit. Hence it plainly appears, that the three persons, in
whom alone God is known, subsist in the Divine essence. And since
faith certainly ought not to look hither and thither, or run up and
down after various objects, but to look, refer, and cleave to God
alone, it is obvious that were there various kinds of faith, there
behaved also to be various gods. Then, as the baptism of faith is a
sacrament, its unity assures us of the unity of God. Hence also it
is proved that it is lawful only to be baptised into one God,
because we make a profession of faith in him in whose name we are
baptised. What, then, is our Saviour's meaning in commanding baptism
to be administered in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the
Holy Spirit, if it be not that we are to believe with one faith in
the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit? But is
this any thing else than to declare that the Father, Son, and
Spirit, are one God? Wherefore, since it must be held certain that
there is one God, not more than one, we conclude that the Word and
Spirit are of the very essence of God. Nothing could be more stupid
than the trifling of the Arians, who, while acknowledging the
divinity of the Son, denied his divine essence. Equally extravagant
were the ravings of the Macedonians, who insisted that by the Spirit
were only meant the gifts of grace poured out upon men. For as
wisdom understanding, prudence, fortitude, and the fear of the Lord,
proceed from the Spirit, so he is the one Spirit of wisdom,
prudence, fortitude, and piety. He is not divided according to the
distribution of his gifts, but, as the Apostle assures us, (1 Cor.
12: 11,) however they be divided, he remains one and the same.
17. On the other hand, the Scriptures demonstrate that there is
some distinction between the Father and the Word, the Word and the
Spirit; but the magnitude of the mystery reminds us of the great
reverence and soberness which ought to he employed in discussing it.
It seems to me, that nothing can be more admirable than the words of
Gregory Nanzianzen: "Ou ftano to ei noesai, kai tois trisi
perilampomai; ou ftavo ta tria dielein kai eis to hen anaferomai",
(Greg. Nanzian. in Serm. de Sacro Baptis.) "I cannot think of the
unity without being irradiated by the Trinity: I cannot distinguish
between the Trinity without being carried up to the unity."
Therefore, let us beware of imagining such a Trinity of persons as
will distract our thoughts, instead of bringing them instantly back
to the unity. The words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, certainly
indicate a real distinction, not allowing us to suppose that they
are merely epithets by which God is variously designated from his
works. Still they indicate distinction only, not division. The
passages we have already quoted show that the Son has a distinct
subsistence from the Father, because the Word could not have been
with God unless he were distinct from the Father; nor but for this
could he have had his glory with the Father. In like manner, Christ
distinguishes the Father from himself when he says that there is
another who bears witness of him, (John 5: 32; 8: 16.) To the same
effect is it elsewhere said, that the Father made all things by the
Word. This could not be, if he were not in some respect distinct
from him. Besides, it was not the Father that descended to the
earth, but he who came forth from the Father; nor was it the Father
that died and rose again, but he whom the Father had sent. This
distinction did not take its beginning at the incarnation: for it is
clear that the only begotten Son previously existed in the bosom of
the Father, (John 1: 18.) For who will dare to affirm that the Son
entered his Father's bosom for the first time, when he came down
from heaven to assume human nature? Therefore, he was previously in
the bosom of the Father, and had his glory with the Father. Christ
intimates the distinction between the Holy Spirit and the Father,
when he says that the Spirit proceedeth from the Father, and between
the Holy Spirit and himself, when he speaks of him as another as he
does when he declares that he will send another Comforter; and in
many other passages besides, (John 14: 6; 15: 26; 14: 16.)
18. I am not sure whether it is expedient to borrow analogies
from human affairs to express the nature of this distinction. The
ancient fathers sometimes do so, but they at the same time admits
that what they bring forward as analogous is very widely different.
And hence it is that I have a great dread of any thing like
presumption here, lest some rash saying may furnish an occasion of
calumny to the malicious, or of delusion to the unlearned. It were
unbecoming, however, to say nothing of a distinction which we
observe that the Scriptures have pointed out. This distinction is,
that to the Father is attributed the beginning of action, the
fountain and source of all things; to the Son, wisdom, counsel, and
arrangement in action, while the energy and efficacy of action is
assigned to the Spirit. Moreover, though the eternity of the Father
is also the eternity of the Son and Spirit, since God never could be
without his own wisdom and energy; and though in eternity there can
be no room for first or last, still the distinction of order is not
unmeaning or superfluous, the Father being considered first, next
the Son from him, and then the Spirit from both. For the mind of
every man naturally inclines to consider, first, God, secondly, the
wisdom emerging from him, and, lastly, the energy by which he
executes the purposes of his counsel. For this reason, the Son is
said to be of the Father only; the Spirit of both the Father and the
Son. This is done in many passages, but in none more clearly than in
the eighth chapter to the Romans, where the same Spirit is called
indiscriminately the Spirit of Christ, and the Spirit of him who
raised up Christ from the dead. And not improperly. For Peter also
testifies (1 Pet. 1: 21,) that it was the Spirit of Christ which
inspired the prophets, though the Scriptures so often say that it
was the Spirit of God the Father.
19. Moreover, this distinction is so far from interfering with
the most perfect unity of God, that the Son may thereby be proved to
be one God with the Father, inasmuch as he constitutes one Spirit
with him, and that the Spirit is not different from the Father and
the Son, inasmuch as he is the Spirit of the Father and the Son. In
each hypostasis the whole nature is understood the only difference
being that each has his own peculiar subsistence. The whole Father
is in the Son, and the whole Son in the Father, as the Son himself
also declares, (John 14: 10,) "I am in the Father, and the Father in
me;" nor do ecclesiastical writers admit that the one is separated
from the other by any difference of essence. "By those names which
denote distinctions" says Augustine "is meant the relation which
they mutually bear to each other, not the very substance by which
they are one." In this way, the sentiments of the Fathers, which
might sometimes appear to be at variance with each other, are to be
reconciled. At one time they teach that the Father is the beginning
of the Son, at another they assert that the Son has both divinity
and essence from himself, and therefore is one beginning with the
Father. The cause of this discrepancy is well and clearly explained
by Augustine, when he says, "Christ, as to himself, is called God,
as to the Father he is called Son." And again, "The Father, as to
himself, is called God, as to the Son he is called Father. He who,
as to the Son, is called Father, is not Son; and he who, as to
himself, is called Father, and he who, as to himself, is called Son,
is the same God." Therefore, when we speak of the Son simply,
without reference to the Father, we truly and properly affirm that
he is of himself, and, accordingly, call him the only beginning; but
when we denote the relation which he bears to the Father, we
correctly make the Father the beginning of the Son. Augustine's
fifth book on the Trinity is wholly devoted to the explanation of
this subject. But it is far safer to rest contented with the
relation as taught by him, than get bewildered in vain speculation
by subtle prying into a sublime mystery.
20. Let those, then, who love soberness, and are contented with
the measure of faith, briefly receive what is useful to be known. It
is as follows: - When we profess to believe in one God, by the name
God is understood the one simple essence, comprehending three
persons or hypostases; and, accordingly, whenever the name of God is
used indefinitely, the Son and Spirit, not less than the Father, is
meant. But when the Son is joined with the Father, relation comes
into view, and so we distinguish between the Persons. But as the
Personal subsistence carry an order with them, the principle and
origin being in the Father, whenever mention is made of the Father
and Son, or of the Father and Spirit together, the name of God is
specially given to the Father. In this way the unity of essence is
retained, and respect is had to the order, which, however derogates
in no respect from the divinity of the Son and Spirit. And surely
since we have already seen how the apostles declare the Son of God
to have been He whom Moses and the prophets declared to be Jehovah,
we must always arrive at a unity of essence. We, therefore, hold it
detestable blasphemy to call the Son a different God from the
Father, because the simple name God admits not of relation, nor can
God, considered in himself, be said to be this or that. Then, that
the name Jehovah, taken indefinitely, may be applied to Christ, is
clear from the words of Paul, "For this thing I besought the Lord
thrice." After giving the answer, "My grace is sufficient for thee,"
he subjoins, "that the power of Christ may rest upon me," (2 Cor.
12: 8, 9.) For it is certain that the name of Lord (Kuriou) is there
put for Jehovah, and, therefore, to restrict it to the person of the
Mediator were puerile and frivolous, the words being used
absolutely, and not with the view of comparing the Father and the
Son. And we know that, in accordance with the received usage of the
Greeks, the apostles uniformly substitute the word Kurios for
Jehovah. Not to go far for an example, Paul besought the Lord in the
same sense in which Peter quotes the passage of Joel, "Whosoever
shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved," (Acts 2: 21;
Joel 2: 28.) Where this name is specially applied to the Son, there
is a different ground for it, as will be seen in its own place; at
present it is sufficient to remember, that Paul, after praying to
God absolutely, immediately subjoins the name of Christ. Thus, too,
the Spirit is called God absolutely by Christ himself. For nothing
prevents us from holding that he is the entire spiritual essence of
God, in which are comprehended Father, Son, and Spirit. This is
plain from Scripture. For as God is there called a Spirit, so the
Holy Spirit also, in so far as he is a hypostasis of the whole
essence, is said to be both of God and from God.
21. But since Satan, in order to pluck up our faith by the
roots, has always provoked fierce disputes, partly concerning the
divine essence of the Son and Spirit, and partly concerning the
distinction of persons; since in almost every age he has stirred up
impious spirits to vex the orthodox doctors on this head, and is
attempting in the present day to kindle a new flame out of the old
embers, it will be proper here to dispose of some of these perverse
dreams. Hitherto our chief object has been to stretch out our hand
for the guidance of such as are disposed to learn, not to war with
the stubborn and contentious; but now the truth which was calmly
demonstrated must be vindicated from the calumnies of the ungodly.
Still, however it will be our principal study to provide a sure
footing for those whose ears are open to the word of God. Here, if
any where, in considering the hidden mysteries of Scripture, we
should speculate soberly and with great moderation, cautiously
guarding against allowing either our mind or our tongue to go a step
beyond the confines of God's word. For how can the human minds which
has not yet been able to ascertain of what the body of the sun
consists, though it is daily presented to the eye, bring down the
boundless essence of God to its little measure? Nay, how can it,
under its own guidance, penetrate to a knowledge of the substance of
God while unable to understand its own? Wherefore, let us willingly
leave to God the knowledge of himself. In the words of Hilary, (De
Trinity. lib. 1,) "He alone is a fit witness to himself who is known
only by himself." This knowledge, then, if we would leave to God, we
must conceive of him as he has made himself known, and in our
inquiries make application to no other quarter than his word. On
this subject we have five homilies of Chrysostom against the
Anomoei, (De Incomprehensit. Dei Natura,) in which he endeavoured,
but in vain, to check the presumption of the sophists, and curb
their garrulity. They showed no more modesty here than they are wont
to do in everything else. The very unhappy results of their temerity
should be a warning to us to bring more docility than acumen to the
discussion of this question, never to attempt to search after God
anywhere but in his sacred word, and never to speak or think of him
farther than we have it for our guide. But if the distinction of
Father, Son, and Spirit, subsisting in the one Godhead, (certainly a
subject of great difficulty,) gives more trouble and annoyance to
some intellects than is meet, let us remember that the human mind
enters a labyrinth whenever it indulges its curiosity, and thus
submit to be guided by the divine oracles, how much soever the
mystery may be beyond our reach.
22. It were tedious, and to no purpose toilsome, to form a
catalogue of the errors by which, in regard to this branch of
doctrine, the purity of the faith has been assailed. The greater
part of heretics have with their gross deliriums made a general
attack on the glory of God, deeming it enough if they could disturb
and shake the unwary. From a few individuals numerous sects have
sprung up, some of them rending the divine essence, and others
confounding the distinction of Persons. But if we hold, what has
already been demonstrated from Scripture, that the essence of the
one God, pertaining to the Father, Son, and Spirit, is simple and
indivisible, and again, that the Father differs in some special
property from the Son, and the Son from the Spirit, the door will be
shut against Arius and Sabellius, as well as the other ancient
authors of error. But as in our day have arisen certain frantic men,
such as Servetus and others, who, by new devices, have thrown every
thing into confusion, it may be worthwhile briefly to discuss their
fallacies.
The name of Trinity was so much disliked, nay detested, by
Servetus, that he charged all whom he called Trinitarians with being
Atheists. I say nothing of the insulting terms in which he thought
proper to make his charges. The sum of his speculations was, that a
threefold Deity is introduced wherever three Persons are said to
exist in his essence, and that this Triad was imaginary, inasmuch as
it was inconsistent with the unity of God. At the same time, he
would have it that the Persons are certain external ideas which do
not truly subsist in the Divine essence, but only figure God to us
under this or that form: that at first, indeed, there was no
distinction in God, because originally the Word was the same as the
Spirit, but ever since Christ came forth God of God, another Spirit,
also a God, had proceeded from him. But although he sometimes cloaks
his absurdities in allegory, as when he says that the eternal Word
of God was the Spirit of Christ with God, and the reflection of the
idea, likewise that the Spirit was a shadow of Deity, he at last
reduces the divinity of both to nothing; maintaining that, according
to the mode of distribution, there is a part of God as well in the
Son as in the Spirit, just as the same Spirit substantially is a
portion of God in us, and also in wood and stone. His absurd
babbling concerning the person of the mediator will be seen in its
own place.
The monstrous fiction that a Person is nothing else than a
visible appearance of the glory of God, needs not a long refutation.
For when John declares that before the world was created the Logos
was God, (John 1: 1,) he shows that he was something very different
from an idea. But if even then, and from the remotest eternity, that
Logos, who was God, was with the Father, and had his own distinct
and peculiar glory with the Father, (John 17: 5,) he certainly could
not be an external or figurative splendour, but must necessarily
have been a hypostasis which dwelt inherently in God himself. But
although there is no mention made of the Spirit antecedent to the
account of the creation, he is not there introduced as a shadow, but
as the essential power of God, where Moses relates that the
shapeless mass was unborn by him (Gen. 1: 2.) It is obvious that the
eternal Spirit always existed in God, seeing he cherished and
sustained the confused materials of heaven and earth before they
possessed order or beauty. Assuredly he could not then be an image
or representation of God, as Servetus dreams. But he is elsewhere
forced to make a more open disclosure of his impiety when he says,
that God by his eternal reason decreeing a Son to himself, in this
way assumed a visible appearance. For if this be true, no other
Divinity is left to Christ than is implied in his having been
ordained a Son by God's eternal decree. Moreover, those phantoms
which Servetus substitutes for the hypostases he so transforms as to
make new changes in God. But the most execrable heresy of all is his
confounding both the Son and Spirit promiscuously with all the
creatures. For he distinctly asserts, that there are parts and
partitions in the essence of God, and that every such portion is
God. This he does especially when he says, that the spirits of the
faithful are co-eternal and consubstantial with God, although he
elsewhere assigns a substantial divinity, not only to the soul of
man, but to all created things.
23. This pool has bred another monster not unlike the former.
For certain restless spirits, unwilling to share the disgrace and
obloquy of the impiety of Servetus, have confessed that there were
indeed three Persons, but added, as a reason, that the Father, who
alone is truly and properly God, transfused his Divinity into the
Son and Spirit when he formed them. Nor do they refrain from
expressing themselves in such shocking terms as these: that the
Father is essentially distinguished from the Son and Spirit by this;
that he is the only essentiator. Their first pretext for this is,
that Christ is uniformly called the Son of God. From this they
infer, that there is no proper God but the Father. But they forget,
that although the name of God is common also to the Son, yet it is
sometimes, by way of excellence, ascribed to the Father, as being
the source and principle of Divinity; and this is done in order to
mark the simple unity of essence. They object, that if the Son is
truly God, he must be deemed the Son of a person: which is absurd. I
answer, that both are true; namely, that he is the Son of God,
because he is the Word, begotten of the Father before all ages; (for
we are not now speaking of the Person of the Mediator,) and yet,
that for the purpose of explanation, regard must be had to the
Person, so that the name God may not be understood in its absolute
sense, but as equivalent to Father. For if we hold that there is no
other God than the Fathers this rank is clearly denied to the Son.
In every case where the Godhead is mentioned, we are by no
means to admit that there is an antithesis between the Father and
the Son, as if to the former only the name of God could competently
be applied. For assuredly, the God who appeared to Isaiah was the
one true God, and yet John declares that he was Christ, (Isa. 6;
John 12: 41.) He who declared, by the mouth of Isaiah, that he was
to be "for a stone of stumbling" to the Jews, was the one God; and
yet Paul declares that he was Christ, (Isa. 8: 14; Rom. 9: 33.) He
who proclaims by Isaiah, "Unto me every knee shall bow," is the one
God; yet Paul again explains that he is Christ, (Isa. 45: 23; Rom.
14: 11.) To this we may add the passages quoted by an Apostle,
"Thou, Lord, hast laid the foundations of the earth;" "Let all the
angels of God worship him," (Heb. 1: 10; 10: 6; Ps. 102: 26; 97: 7.)
All these apply to the one God; and yet the Apostle contends that
they are the proper attributes of Christ. There is nothing in the
cavil, that what proper]y applies to God is transferred to Christ,
because he is the brightness of his glory. Since the name of Jehovah
is everywhere applied to Christ, it follows that, in regard to
Deity, he is of himself. For if he is Jehovah, it is impossible to
deny that he is the same God who elsewhere proclaims by Isaiah, "I
am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God,"
(Is. 44: 6.) We would also do well to ponder the words of Jeremiah,
"The gods that have not made the heavens and the earth, even they
shall perish from the earth and from under these heavens," (Jer. 10:
11;) whence it follows conversely, that He whose divinity Isaiah
repeatedly proves from the creation of the world, is none other than
the Son of God. And how is it possible that the Creator, who gives
to all should not be of himself, but should borrow his essence from
another? Whosoever says that the Son was essentiated by the Father,
denies his selfexistence. Against this, however, the Holy Spirit
protests, when he calls him Jehovah. On the supposition, then, that
the whole essence is in the Father only, the essence becomes
divisible, or is denied to the Son, who, being thus robbed of his
essences will be only a titular God. If we are to believe these
triflers, divine essence belongs to the Father only, on the ground
that he is sole God, and essentiator of the Son. In this way, the
divinity of the Son will be something abstracted from the essence of
God, or the derivation of a part from the whole. On the same
principle it must also be conceded, that the Spirit belongs to the
Father only. For if the derivation is from the primary essence which
is proper to none but the Father, the Spirit cannot justly be deemed
the Spirit of the Son. This view, however, is refuted by the
testimony of Paul, when he makes the Spirit common both to Christ
and the Father. Moreover, if the Person of the Father is expunged
from the Trinity, in what will he differ from the Son and Spirit,
except in being the only God? They confess that Christ is God, and
that he differs from the Father. If he differs, there must be some
mark of distinction between them. Those who place it in the essence,
manifestly reduce the true divinity of Christ to nothing, since
divinity cannot exist without essence, and indeed without entire
essence. The Father certainly cannot differ from the Son, unless he
have something peculiar to himself, and not common to him with the
Son. What, then, do these men show as the mark of distinction? If it
is in the essence, let them tell whether or not he communicated
essence to the Son. This he could not do in part merely, for it were
impious to think of a divided God. And besides, on this supposition,
there would be a rending of the Divine essence. The whole entire
essence must therefore be common to the Father and the Son; and if
so, in respect of essence there is no distinction between them. If
they reply that the Father, while essentiating, still remains the
only God, being the possessor of the essence, then Christ will be a
figurative God, one in name or semblance only, and not in reality,
because no property can be more peculiar to God than essence,
according to the words, "I AM has sent me unto you," (Ex. 3: 4.)
24. The assumption, that whenever God is mentioned absolutely,
the Father only is meant, may be proved erroneous by many passages.
Even in those which they quote in support of their views they betray
a lamentable inconsistency because the name of Son occurs there by
way of contrast, showing that the other name God is used relatively,
and in that way confined to the person of the Father. Their
objection may be disposed of in a single word. Were not the Father
alone the true God, he would, say they, be his own Father. But there
is nothing absurd in the name of God being specially applied, in
respect of order and degree, to him who not only of himself begat
his own wisdom, but is the God of the Mediator, as I will more fully
show in its own place. For ever since Christ was manifested in the
flesh he is called the Son of God, not only because begotten of the
Father before all worlds he was the Eternal Word, but because he
undertook the person and office of the Mediator that he might unite
us to God. Seeing they are so bold in excluding the Son from the
honour of God, I would fain know whether, when he declares that
there is "none good but one, that is, God," he deprives himself of
goodness. I speak not of his human nature, lest perhaps they should
object, that whatever goodness was in it was derived by gratuitous
gift: I ask whether the Eternal Word of God is good, yes or no? If
they say no, their impiety is manifest; if yes, they refute
themselves. Christ's seeming at the first glance to disclaim the
name of good, (Matth. 19: 17,) rather confirms our view. Goodness.
being the special property of God alone, and yet being at the time
applied to him in the ordinary way of salutation, his rejection of
false honour intimates that the goodness in which he excels is
Divine. Again, I ask whether, when Paul affirms. that God alone is
"immortal," "wise, and true," (1 Tim. 1: 17,) he reduces Christ to
the rank of beings mortal, foolish, and false. Is not he immortal,
who, from the beginning, had life so as to bestow immortality on
angels? Is not he wise who is the eternal wisdom of God? Is not he
true who is truth itself?
I ask, moreover, whether they think Christ should be
worshipped. If he claims justly, that every knee shall bow to him,
it follows that he is the God who, in the law, forbade worship to be
offered to any but himself. If they insist on applying to the Father
only the words of Isaiah, "I am, and besides me there is none else,"
(Is. 44: 6,) I turn the passage against themselves, since we see
that every property of God is attributed to Christ. There is no room
for the cavil that Christ was exalted in the flesh in which he
humbled himself, and in respect of which all power is given to him
in heaven and on earth. For although the majesty of King and Judge
extends to the whole person of the Mediator, yet had he not been God
manifested in the flesh, he could not have been exalted to such a
height without coming into collision with God. And the dispute is
admirably settled by Paul, when he declares that he was equal with
God before he humbled himself, and assumed the form of a servants
(Phil. 2: 6, 7.) Moreover, how could such equality exist, if he were
not that God whose name is Jah and Jehovah, who rides upon the
cherubim, is King of all the earth, and King of ages? Let them
glamour as they may, Christ cannot be robbed of the honour described
by Isaiah, "Lo, this is our God; we have waited for him," (Is. 25:
9;) for these words describe the advent of God the Redeemer, who was
not only to bring back the people from Babylonish captivity, but
restore the Church, and make her completely perfect.
Nor does another cavil avail them, that Christ was God in his
Father. For though we admit that, in respect of order and gradation,
the beginning of divinity is in the Father, we hold it a detestable
fiction to maintain that essence is proper to the Father alone, as
if he were the deifier of the Son. On this view either the essence
is manifold, or Christ is God only in name and imagination. If they
grant that the Son is God, but only in subordination to the Father,
the essence which in the Father is unformed and unbegotten will in
him be formed and begotten. I know that many who would be thought
wise deride us for extracting the distinction of persons from the
words of Moses when he introduces God as saying, "Let us make man in
our own image," (Gen. 1: 26.) Pious readers, however, see how
frigidly and absurdly the colloquy were introduced by Moses, if
there were not several persons in the Godhead. It is certain that
those whom the Father addresses must have been untreated. But
nothing is untreated except the one God. Now then, unless they
concede that the power of creating was common to the Father, Son,
and Spirit, and the power of commanding common, it will follow that
God did not speak thus inwardly with himself, but addressed other
extraneous architects. In fine, there is a single passage which will
at once dispose of these two objections. The declaration of Christ
that "God is a Spirit," (John 4: 24,) cannot be confined to the
Father only, as if the Word were not of a spiritual nature. But if
the name Spirit applies equally to the Son as to the Father, I infer
that under the indefinite name of God the Son is included. He adds
immediately after, that the only worshipers approved by the Father
are those who worship him in spirit and in truth; and hence I also
infer, that because Christ performs the office of teacher under a
head, he applies the name God to the Father, not for the purpose of
destroying his own Divinity, but for the purpose of raising us up to
it as it were step by step.
25. The hallucination consists in dreaming of individuals, each
of whom possesses a part of the essence. The Scriptures teach that
there is essentially but one God, and, therefore, that the essence
both of the Son and Spirit is unbegotten; but inasmuch as the Father
is first in order, and of himself begat his own Wisdom, he, as we
lately observed, is justly regarded as the principle and fountain of
all the Godhead. Thus God, taken indefinitely, is unbegotten, and
the Father, in respect of his person, is unbegotten. For it is
absurd to imagine that our doctrine gives any ground for alleging
that we establish a quaternion of gods. They falsely and
calumniously ascribe to us the figment of their own brain, as if we
virtually held that three persons emanate from one essence, whereas
it is plain, from our writings, that we do not disjoin the persons
from the essence, but interpose a distinction between the persons
residing in it. If the persons were separated from the essence,
there might be some plausibility in their argument; as in this way
there would be a trinity of Gods, not of persons comprehended in one
God. This affords an answer to their futile question - whether or
not the essence concurs in forming the Trinity; as if we imagined
that three Gods were derived from it. Their objection, that there
would thus be a Trinity without a God, originates in the same
absurdity. Although the essence does not contribute to the
distinction, as if it were a part or member, the persons are not
without it, or external to it; for the Father, if he were not God,
could not be the Father; nor could the Son possibly be Son unless he
were God. We say, then, that the Godhead is absolutely of itself.
And hence also we hold that the Son, regarded as God, and without
reference to person, is also of himself; though we also say that,
regarded as Son, he is of the Father. Thus his essence is without
beginning, while his person has its beginning in God. And, indeed,
the orthodox writers who in former times spoke of the Trinity, used
this term only with reference to the Persons. To have included the
essence in the distinction, would not only have been an absurd
error, but gross impiety. For those who class the three thus -
Essence, Son, and Spirit - plainly do away with the essence of the
Son and Spirit; otherwise the parts being intermingled would merge
into each other - a circumstance which would vitiate any
distinction. In short, if God and Father were synonymous terms, the
Father would be deifier in a sense which would leave the Son nothing
but a shadow; and the Trinity would be nothing more than the union
of one God with two creatures.
26. To the objection, that if Christ be properly God, he is
improperly called the Son of God, it has been already answered, that
when one person is compared with another, the name God is not used
indefinitely, but is restricted to the Father, regarded as the
beginning of the Godhead, not by essentiating, as fanatics absurdly
express it, but in respect of order. In this sense are to be
understood the words which Christ addressed to the Father, "This is
life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus
Christ whom thou hast sent," (John 17: 3.) For speaking in the
person of the Mediator, he holds a middle place between God and man;
yet so that his majesty is not diminished thereby. For though he
humbled (emptied) himself, he did not lose the glory which he had
with the Father, though it was concealed from the world. So in the
Epistle to the Hebrews (Heb. 1: 10; 2: 9,) though the apostle
confesses that Christ was made a little lower than the angels, he at
the same time hesitates not to assert that he is the eternal God who
founded the earth. We must hold, therefore, that as often as Christ,
in the character of Mediator, addresses the Father, he, under the
term God, includes his own divinity also. Thus, when he says to the
apostles, "It is expedient for you that I go away," "My Father is
greater than I," he does not attribute to himself a secondary
divinity merely, as if in regard to eternal essence he were inferior
to the Father; but having obtained celestial glory, he gathers
together the faithful to share it with him. He places the Father in
the higher degree, inasmuch as the full perfection of brightness
conspicuous in heaven, differs from that measure of glory which he
himself displayed when clothed in flesh. For the same reason Paul
says, that Christ will restore "the kingdom to God, even the
Father," "that God may be all in all," (1 Cor. 15: 24, 28.) Nothing
can be more absurd than to deny the perpetuity of Christ's divinity.
But if he will never cease to be the Son of God, but will ever
remain the same that he was from the beginning, it follows that
under the name of Father the one divine essence common to both is
comprehended. And assuredly Christ descended to us for the very
purpose of raising us to the Father, and thereby, at the same time,
raising us to himself, inasmuch as he is one with the Father. It is
therefore erroneous and impious to confine the name of God to the
Father, so as to deny it to the Son. Accordingly, John, declaring
that he is the true God, has no idea of placing him beneath the
Father in a subordinate rank of divinity. I wonder what these
fabricators of new gods mean, when they confess that Christ is truly
God, and yet exclude him from the godhead of the Father, as if there
could be any true God but the one God, or as if transfused divinity
were not a mere modern fiction.
27. In the many passages which they collect from Irenaeus, in
which he maintains that the Father of Christ is the only eternal God
of Israel, they betray shameful ignorance, or very great dishonesty.
For they ought to have observed, that that holy man was contending
against certain frantic persons, who, denying that the Father of
Christ was that God who had in old times spoken by Moses and the
prophets, held that he was some phantom or other produced from the
pollution of the world. His whole object, therefore, is to make it
plain, that in the Scriptures no other God is announced but the
Father of Christ; that it is wicked to imagine any other.
Accordingly, there is nothing strange in his so often concluding
that the God of Israel was no other than he who is celebrated by
Christ and the apostles. Now, when a different heresy is to be
resisted, we also say with truth, that the God who in old times
appeared to the fathers, was no other than Christ. Moreover, if it
is objected that he was the Father, we have the answer ready, that
while we contend for the divinity of the Son, we by no means exclude
the Father. When the reader attends to the purpose of Irenaeus, the
dispute is at an end. Indeed, we have only to look to lib. 3 c. 6,
where the pious writer insists on this one point, "that he who in
Scripture is called God absolutely and indefinitely, is truly the
only God; and that Christ is called God absolutely." Let us remember
(as appears from the whole work, and especially from lib. 2 c. 46,)
that the point under discussion was, that the name of Father is not
applied enigmatically and parabolically to one who was not truly
God. We may adds that in lib. 3 c. 9, he contends that the Son as
well as the Father united was the God proclaimed by the prophets and
apostles. He afterwards explains (lib. 3 c. 12) how Christ, who is
Lord of all, and King and Judge, received power from him who is God
of all, namely, in respect of the humiliation by which he humbled
himself, even to the death of the cross. At the same time he shortly
after affirms, (lib. 3 c. 16,) that the Son is the maker of heaven
and earth, who delivered the law by the hand of Moses, and appeared
to the fathers. Should any babbler now insist that, according to
Irenaeus, the Father alone is the God of Israel, I will refer him to
a passage in which Irenaeus distinctly says, (lib. 3 c. 18, 23,)
that Christ is ever one and the same, and also applies to Christ the
words of the prophecy of Habakkuk, "God cometh from the south." To
the same effect he says, (lib. 4 c. 9,) "Therefore, Christ himself,
with the Father, is the God of the living." And in the 12th chapter
of the same book he explains that Abraham believed God, because
Christ is the maker of heaven and earth, and very God.
28. With no more truth do they claim Tertullian as a patron.
Though his style is sometimes rugged and obscure, he delivers the
doctrine which we maintain in no ambiguous manner, namely, that
while there is one God, his Word, however, is with dispensation or
economy; that there is only one God in unity of substance; but that,
nevertheless, by the mystery of dispensation, the unity is arranged
into Trinity; that there are three, not in state, but in degree -
not in substance, but in form - not in power, but in order. He says
indeed that he holds the Son to be second to the Father; but he
means that the only difference is by distinction. In one place he
says the Son is visible; but after he has discoursed on both views,
he declares that he is invisible regarded as the Word. In fine, by
affirming that the Father is characterised by his own Person, he
shows that he is very far from countenancing the fiction which we
refute. And although he does not acknowledge any other God than the
Father, yet, explaining himself in the immediate context, he shows
that he does not speak exclusively in respect of the Son, because he
denies that he is a different God from the Father; and, accordingly,
that the one supremacy is not violated by the distinction of Person.
And it is easy to collect his meaning from the whole tenor of his
discourse. For he contends against Praxeas, that although God has
three distinct Persons, yet there are not several gods, nor is unity
divided. According to the fiction of Praxeas, Christ could not be
God without being the Father also; and this is the reason why
Tertullian dwells so much on the distinction. When he calls the Word
and Spirit a portion of the whole, the expression, though harsh, may
be allowed, since it does not refer to the substance, but only (as
Tertullian himself testifies) denotes arrangement and economy which
applies to the persons only. Accordingly, he asks, "How many
persons, Praxeas, do you think there are, but just as many as there
are names for?" In the same way, he shortly after says, "That they
may believe the Father and the Son, each in his own name and
person." These things, I think, sufficiently refute the effrontery
of those who endeavour to blind the simple by pretending the
authority of Tertullian.
29. Assuredly, whosoever will compare the writings of the
ancient fathers with each other, will not find any thing in Irenaeus
different from what is taught by those who come after him. Justin is
one of the most ancient, and he agrees with us out and out. Let them
object that, by him and others, the Father of Christ is called the
one God. The same thing is taught by Hilary, who uses the still
harsher expression, that Eternity is in the Father. Is it that he
may withhold divine essence from the Son? His whole work is a
defence of the doctrine which we maintain; and yet these men are not
ashamed to produce some kind of mutilated excerpts for the purpose
of persuading us that Hilary is a patron of their heresy. With
regard to what they pretend as to Ignatius, if they would have it to
be of the least importance, let them prove that the apostles enacted
laws concerning Lent, and other corruptions. Nothing can be more
nauseating, than the absurdities which have been published under the
name of Ignatius; and therefore, the conduct of those who provide
themselves with such masks for deception is the less entitled to
toleration.
Moreover, the consent of the ancient fathers clearly appears
from this, that in the Council of Nice, no attempt was made by Arius
to cloak his heresy by the authority of any approved author; and no
Greek or Latin writer apologises as dissenting from his
predecessors. It cannot be necessary to observe how carefully
Augustine, to whom all these miscreants are most violently opposed,
examined all ancient writings, and how reverently he embraced the
doctrine taught by them, (August. lib. de Trinit. &c.) He is most
scrupulous in stating the grounds on which he is forced to differ
from them, even in the minutest point. On this subject, too, if he
finds any thing ambiguous or obscure in other writers, he does not
disguise it. And he assumes it as an acknowledged fact, that the
doctrine opposed by the Arians was received without dispute from the
earliest antiquity. At the same time, he was not ignorant of what
some others had previously taught. This is obvious from a single
expression. When he says (De Doct. Christ. lib. 1.) that "unity is
in the Father," will they pretend that he then forgot himself? In
another passage, he clears away every such charge, when he calls the
Father the beginning of the Godhead, as being from none - thus
wisely inferring that the name of God is specially ascribed to the
Father, because, unless the beginning were from him, the simple
unity of essence could not be maintained. I hope the pious reader
will admit that I have now disposed of all the calumnies by which
Satan has hitherto attempted to pervert or obscure the pure doctrine
of faith. The whole substance of the doctrine has, I trust, been
faithfully expounded, if my readers will set bounds to their
curiosity, and not long more eagerly than they ought for perplexing
disputation. I did not undertake to satisfy those who delight in
speculate views, but I have not designedly omitted any thing which I
thought adverse to me. At the same time, studying the edification of
the Church, I have thought it better not to touch on various topics,
which could have yielded little profit, while they must have
needlessly burdened and fatigued the reader. For instance, what
avails it to discuss, as Lombard does at length, (lib. 1 dist. 9,)
Whether or not the Father always generates? This idea of continual
generation becomes an absurd fiction from the moment it is seen,
that from eternity there were three persons in one God.
Calvin, Institutes on the Christian Religion, Volume 1
(continued in part 12...)
---------------------------------------------------
file: /pub/resources/text/ipb-e/epl-04:cvin1-11.txt
.
