ever, who denied the Trinity, uses this very argument against the Catholics: "If you admit three Persons in God," says he, "you admit a plurality of Gods like the Gentiles." Besides, in the first Apology of St. Justin, we read that the idolaters objected to the Christians, that they adored Christ as the Son of God. The pagan Celsus, as we find in Origen (13), argued that the Christians, by their belief in the Trinity, should admit a plurality of Gods, but Origen answers him that the Trinity does not constitute three Gods, but only one, for the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, though three Persons, are still only one and the same essence. The acts of the martyrs prove in a thousand places that the Christians believed that Jesus Christ was the true Son of God, and they could not believe this unless they believed at the same time that there were three Persons in God.

REFUTATION II.

THE HERESY OF ARIUS, WHO DENIED THE DIVINITY OF THE WORD. SEC. I. THE DIVINITY OF THE WORD PROVED FROM THE SCRIPTURES.

1. THE Dogma of the Catholic Church is, that the Divine Word, that is, the Person of the Son of God, is, by his nature, God, as the Father is God, and in all things is equal to the Father, is perfect and eternal, like the Father, and is consubstantial with the Father. Arius, on the contrary, blasphemously asserted that the Word was neither God, nor eternal, nor consubstantial, nor like unto the Father; but a mere creature, created in time, but of higher excellence than all other creatures; so that even by him, as by an instrument, God created all other things. Several of the followers of Arius softened down his doctrine; some said that the Word was like the Father, others, that he was created from eternity, but none of them would ever admit that he was consubstantial with the Father. When we prove the Catholic doctrine, however, expressed in the proposition at the beginning of this chapter, we shall have refuted, not alone the Arians, Anomeans, Eunomians, and Aerians, who followed in everything the doctrine of Arius, but also the Basilians, who were Semi-Arians. Those in the Council of Antioch, in 341, and in the Council of Ancyra, in 358, admitted that the, Word was Omoiousion Patri, that is, like unto the Father, in substance, but would not agree to the term, Omousion, or of the same substance as the Father. The Acacians, who held a middle place between the Arians and Semi-Arians, and admitted that the Son was Omoion Patri, like to the Father, but not of the same substance, will all be refuted. All these will be proved to be in error,

(13) Origen, lib. Con. Celsum.

when we show that the Word in all things, not only like unto the Father, but consubstantial to the Father, that is of the very same substance as the Father, as likewise the Simonians, Corinthians, Ebionites, Paulinists, and Photinians, who laid the foundations of this heresy, by teaching that Christ was only a mere man, born like all others, from Joseph and Mary, and having no existence before his birth. By proving the Catholic truth, that the Word is true God, like the Father, all these heretics will be put down, for as the Word in Christ assumed human nature in one person, as St. John says: "The Word was made flesh;" if we prove that the Word is true God, it is manifest that Christ is not a mere man, but man and God.

2. There are many texts of Scripture to prove this, which may be divided into three classes. In the first class are included all those texts in which the Word is called God, not by grace or predestination, as the Socinians say, but true God in nature and substance. In the Gospel of St. John we read: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him, and without him was made nothing that was made" (John, i.) St. Hilary looked on this passage as proving so clearly the Divinity of the Word, that he says (1), “ When I hear the Word was God, I hear it not only said but proved that the Word is God. Here the thing signified is a substance where it is said was God. For to be, to exist, is not accidental, but substantial." The holy doctor had previously met the objection of those who said that even Moses was called God by Pharoe (Exod. viii.) and that judges were called Gods in the 81st Psalm, by saying: It is one thing to be, as it were, appointed a God, another to be God himself; in Pharoe's case a God was appointed as it were (that is Moses), but neither in name or nature was he a God, as the just are also called God: "I said-you are Gods." Now the expression" I said," refers more to the person speaking than to the name of the thing itself; it is, then, the person who speaks who imposes the name, but it is not naturally the name of the thing itself. But here he says the Word is God, the thing itself exists, in the Word, the substance of the Word is announced in the very name: "Verbi enim appellatio in Dei Filio de Sacramento nativiThus, says the Saint, the name of God given to Pharoe and the Judges mentioned by David in the 81st Psalm was only given them by the Lord as a mark of their authority, but was not their proper name; but when St. John speaks of the Word, he does not say that he was called God, but that he was in reality God: "The Word was God."

3. The Socinians next object that the text of St. John should

(1) Hilar. 7. 7, de Trinit.

not be read with the same punctuation as we read it, but thus: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was. God the same was in the beginning," &c., but this travestie of the text is totally opposed to all the copies of the Scriptures we know, to the sense of all the Councils, and to all antiquity. We never find the text cut up in this way; it always was written "The Word was God." Besides, if we allowed this Socinian reading of the text, the whole sense would be lost, it would be, in fact, ridiculous, as if St. John wanted to assert that God existed, after saying already that the Word was with God. There are, however, many other texts in which the Word is called God, and the learned Socinians themselves are so convinced of the weakness of this argument, as calculated only to make their cause ridiculous, that they tried other means of invalidating it, but, as we shall presently see, without succeeding.

4. It is astonishing to see how numerous are the cavils of the Arians. The Word, they say, is called God, not the God the fountain of all nature, whose name is always written in Greek with the article (o Theos), such, however, is not the case in the text; but we may remark that in this very chapter, St. John, speaking of the supreme God, "there was a man sent from God, whose name was John," does not use the article, neither is it used in the 12th, 13th, or 18th verses. In many other parts of the Scriptures, where the name of God is mentioned, the article is omitted, as in St. Matthew, xiv. 33, and xxvii. 43; in St. Paul's 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, viii. 4, 6; to the Romans, i. 7; to the Ephesians, iv. 6; and on the other hand we see that in the Acts of the Apostles, vii. 43; in the 2nd Epistle to the Corinthians, iv. 4, and in that to the Galatians, iv. 8, they speak of an idol as God, and use the article, and it is most certain that neither St. Luke nor St. Paul ever intended to speak of an idol as the supreme God. Besides, as St. John Chrysostom teaches (2), from whom this whole answer, we may say, is taken, the Word is called God, sometimes even with the addition of that article, on whose omission in St. John they lay such stress, as is the case in the original of that text of St. Paul, Romans, ix. 5: "Christ, according to the flesh, who is over all things, God blessed for ever." St. Thomas remarks, that in the first cited passage the article is omitted in the name of God, as the name there stands in the position not of a subject, but a predicate: "Ratio autem quare Evangelista non apposuit articulum hinc nomini Deus.... ....est quod Deus ponitur hic in prædicato et tenetur formaliter, consuetum erat autem quod nominibus in prædicato positis non ponitur articulus cum discretionem importet" (3).

5. They object, fourthly, that in the text of St. John the Word is called God, not because he is so by nature and substance, but (3) St. Thom. in cap. 1, Joan. lec. 2.

(2) St. Jo. Chry, in Jo.

only by dignity and authority, just as they say the name of God is given in the Scriptures to the angels and to judges. We have already answered this objection by St. Hilary (N. 2), that it is one thing to give to an object the name of God, another to say that he is God. But there is, besides, another answer. It is not true that the name of God is an appellative name, so that it can be positively and absolutely applied to one who is not God by nature; for although some creatures are called Gods, it never happened that any one of them was called "God," absolutely, or was called true God, or the highest God, or singularly God, as Jesus Christ is called by St. John: "And we know that the Son of God is come, and he hath given us understanding, that we may know the true God, and may be in his true Son" (1 John, v. 20). And St. Paul says, "Looking for the blessed hope and the coming of the glory of the great God, and our Saviour, Jesus Christ" (Epis. to Titus, ii. 13), and to the Romans, ix. 5: "Of whom is Christ, according to the flesh, who is over all things God, blessed for ever." We likewise read in St. Luke, that Zachary, prophesying regarding his Son, says, " And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest, for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways" (Luke, i. 76); and again, ver. 78: "Through the bowels of the mercy of our God, in which the Orient from on high has visited us."

6. Another most convincing proof of the Divinity of the Word is deduced from the 1st chapter of St. John, already quoted. In it these words occur: "All things were made by him, and without him was made nothing that was made." Now any one denying the Divinity of the Word must admit from these words that either the Word was eternal, or that the Word was made by himself. It is evidently repugnant to reason to say the Word made himself, nemo dat quod non habet. Therefore, we must admit that the Word was not made, otherwise St. John would be stating a falsehood when he says, "Without him was made nothing that was made." This is the argument of St. Augustin (4), and from these words he clearly proves that the Word is of the same substance as the Father: "Neque enim dicit omnia, nisi quæ facta sunt, idest omnem creaturam; unde liquido apparet, si facta substantia est, ipsum factum non esse, per quem facta sunt omnia. Et si factum non est, creatura non est; si autem creatura non est, ejusdem cum Patre substantiæ cujus Pater, ergo facta substantia, quæ Deus non est, creatura est; et quæ creatura non est, Deus est. Et si non est Filius ejusdem substantiæ cujus Pater, ergo facta substantia est: non omnia per ipsum facta sunt; et omnia per ipsum facta sunt. Ut unius igitur ejusdemque cum Patre substantiæ est, et ideo non tantum Deus, sed et verus Deus." Such are the words of the Holy Father; the passage is rather long, but most convincing.

(4) St. Aug. 1. n. de Trinit. cap. 6.

not be read with the same punctuation as we read it, but thus: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was. God the same was in the beginning," &c., but this travestie of the text is totally opposed to all the copies of the Scriptures we know, to the sense of all the Councils, and to all antiquity. We never find the text cut up in this way; it always was written "The Word was God." Besides, if we allowed this Socinian reading of the text, the whole sense would be lost, it would be, in fact, ridiculous, as if St. John wanted to assert that God existed, after saying already that the Word was with God. There are, however, many other texts in which the Word is called God, and the learned Socinians themselves are so convinced of the weakness of this argument, as calculated only to make their cause ridiculous, that they tried other means of invalidating it, but, as we shall presently see, without succeeding.

4. It is astonishing to see how numerous are the cavils of the Arians. The Word, they say, is called God, not the God the fountain of all nature, whose name is always written in Greek with the article (o Theos), such, however, is not the case in the text; but we may remark that in this very chapter, St. John, speaking of the supreme God, "there was a man sent from God, whose name was John," does not use the article, neither is it used in the 12th, 13th, or 18th verses. In many other parts of the Scriptures, where the name of God is mentioned, the article is omitted, as in St. Matthew, xiv. 33, and xxvii. 43; in St. Paul's 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, viii. 4, 6; to the Romans, i. 7; to the Ephesians, iv. 6; and on the other hand we see that in the Acts of the Apostles, vii. 43; in the 2nd Epistle to the Corinthians, iv. 4, and in that to the Galatians, iv. 8, they speak of an idol as God, and use the article, and it is most certain that neither St. Luke nor St. Paul ever intended to speak of an idol as the supreme God. Besides, as St. John Chrysostom teaches (2), from whom this whole answer, we may say, is taken, the Word is called God, sometimes even with the addition of that article, on whose omission in St. John they lay such stress, as is the case in the original of that text of St. Paul, Romans, ix. 5: "Christ, according to the flesh, who is over all things, God blessed for ever." St. Thomas remarks, that in the first cited passage the article is omitted in the name of God, as the name there stands in the position not of a subject, but a predicate: "Ratio autem quare Evangelista non apposuit articulum hinc nomini Deus.... ..... est quod Deus ponitur hic in prædicato et tenetur formaliter, consuetum erat autem quod nominibus in prædicato positis non ponitur articulus cum discretionem importet" (3).

5. They object, fourthly, that in the text of St. John the Word is called God, not because he is so by nature and substance, but (3) St. Thom. in cap. 1, Joan. lec. 2.

(2) St. Jo. Chry, in Jo.