first-born, because there was none before him--the only-begotten, because there was none after him.

37. They object, sixthly, that expression of St. John the Baptist (John, i. 15): "He that shall come after me is preferred before me" (ante me factus est); therefore, say they, the Word was created. St. Ambrose (9) answers, that all that St. John meant by the expression," was made before me" (ante me factus est), was, that he was preferred or placed before him, for he immediately assigns the reason: "Because he was before me, that is, because he preceded him for all eternity, and he was, therefore, not even worthy to "unloose the latchet of his shoe." The same answer meets the passage of St. Paul: "Being made so much better than the angels" (Heb. i. 4), that is, he was honoured so much more than the angels.

38. They object, seventhly, that text of St. John (xvii. 3): " Now this is eternal life, that they may know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." Hence it is declared, say they, that the Father only is true God; but we answer, that the word "only" does not exclude from the Divinity, unless creatures alone, as St. Matthew says: "No one knoweth the Son but the Father, nor the Father but the Son" (Matt. xi. 27). Now, it would be a false conclusion to deduce from this that the Father does not know himself; and, therefore, the word " only," in the former text, is to be taken, as in the twelfth verse of the thirty-second chapter of Deuteronomy: "The Lord alone was his leader, and there was no strange God with him." Another proof is that text of St. John (xvi. 32): "And shall leave me alone." Here the word alone (solum) does not mean that he is excluded from the Father, for he immediately adds: "And yet I am not alone, for the Father is with And thus, likewise, must we understand that text of St. Paul: "We know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no God but one; for although there be that are called gods, either in heaven or on earth, yet to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto him, and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him" (1 Cor. viii. 5, 6). Here the expression, "One God, the Father," is meant to exclude the false gods, but not the Divinity of Jesus Christ, no more than saying "Our Lord Jesus Christ," excludes the Father from being still our Lord.

me."

39. They also adduce the sixth verse of the fifth chapter of the Epistle to the Ephesians: "One God, and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in us all." We answer that the words: "One God, and Father of all," do not exclude the Divinity of the other two Persons; for the word, Father, is not here taken in its strict sense, as denoting the Person of the Father alone, but in that essential sense by which the word, Father, is applied to the

(9) St. Ambrose, l. 3, de Fide.

whole Trinity, which we invoke when we say: "Our Father, who art in heaven." We thus, also, answer the other text adduced from St. Paul to Timothy: "For there is one God and one Mediator of God and man, the man, Christ Jesus (1 Tim. ii. 5). The expression, "one God," does not exclude the Divinity of Jesus Christ; but, as St. Augustin remarks, the words which immediately follow, one Mediator of God and man," prove that Jesus Christ is both God and man. "God alone," the Saint says, "could not feel death, nor man alone could not subdue it."

66

40. They object, eighthly, the text: "But of that day or time, no man knoweth, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father" (Mark, xiii. 32). So, say they, the Son is not omniscient. Some have answered this, by saying, that the Son did not know the day of judgment as man, but only as God; but this does not meet the objection, since we know from the Scriptures, that to Christ, even as man, the fulness of knowledge was given : "And we saw the glory, the glory as it were of the only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth" (John, i. 14); and again: "In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge" (Colos. ii. 3). And St. Ambrose (10), treating of this point, says: "How could he be ignorant of the day of judgment, who told the hour, and the place, and the signs, and the causes of judgment." The African Church, therefore, obliged Leporius to retract, when he said, that Christ, as man, did not know the day of judgment, and he at once obeyed. We, therefore, answer, that it is said the Son did not know the day of judgment, as it would be of no use, nor fit that men should know it. This is the way in which St. Augustin explains it. We are, therefore, to conclude that the Father did not wish that the Son should make known the day, and the Son, as his Father's Legate, said in his name, he did not know it, not having received a commission from his Father to make it known.

41. They object, ninthly, that the Father alone is called good, to the exclusion of the Son: "And Jesus said to him: Why callest thou me good? None is good but one, that is God" (Mark, x. 18). Christ, therefore, they say, confesses that he is not God. St. Ambrose (11) answers this. Christ, he says, wished to reprove the young man, who called him good, and still would not believe he was God, whereas, God alone is essentially good; it is, says the Saint, as if our Lord should say: "Either do not call me good, or believe me

to be God."

42. They object, tenthly, that Christ has not full power over all creatures, since he said to the mother of St. James and St. John: "To sit on my right or left hand, is not mine to give you" (Matt. xx. 23). We answer, it cannot be denied, according to the Scriptures, that Christ received all power from his Father: "Knowing

(10) St. Ambrose, l. 5, de Fide, c. 16, n. 204. (11) St Ambrose, l. 2, de Fide, c. 1.

that the Father had given him all things into his hands" (John, xiii. 3); "All things are delivered to me by my Father" (Matt. xi. 27); "All power is given to me in heaven, and on earth" (Matt. xxviii. 18). How, then, are we to understand his inability to give places to the sons of Zebedee? We have the answer from our Lord himself: "It is not mine," he says, "to give to you, but to them for whom it is prepared by my Father." See, then, the answer: "It is not mine to give you;" not because he had not the power of giving it, but I cannot give it to who think you you, have a right to heaven, because you are related to me; for heaven is the portion of those only for whom it has been prepared by my Father; to them, Christ, as being equal to the Father, can give it. "As all things," says St. Augustin (12), "which the Father has, are mine, this is also mine, and I have prepared it with the Father."

43. They object, eleventhly, that text: "The Son cannot do anything from himself, but what he sees the Father doing" (John, v. 19). St. Thomas (13) answers this. "When it said that the Son cannot do anything for himself, no power is taken from the Son, which the Father has, for it is immediately added: "For what things soever he doth, these the Son also doth, in like manner;" but it is there that the Son has the power, from his Father, from whom he also has his Nature." Hence, Hilary (14) says: "This is the Unity of the Divine Nature; ut ita per se agat Filius quod non agat a se." The same reply will meet all the other texts they adduce, as: "My doctrine is not mine" (John, vii. 16); "The Father loves the Son, and shows him all things" (John, v. 20); "All things are delivered to me by my Father" (Matt. xi. 27). All these texts, prove, they say, that the Son cannot be God by Nature and Substance. But we answer, that the Son, being generated by the Father, receives everything from him by communication, and the Father, generating, communicates to him all he has, except the Paternity; and this is the distinction between him and the Son, for the power, the wisdom, and the will, are all the same in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. The Arians adduce several other texts, but the reader will find no especial difficulty in answering them, by merely referring to what he has already read.

REFUTATION III.

OF THE HERESY OF MACEDONIUS WHO DENIED THE DIVINITY. OF THE HOLY GHOST.

1. THOUGH Arius did not deny the Divinity of the Holy Ghost, still it was a necessary consequence of his principles, for, denying

(12) St. Augus. l. 1, de Trin. c. 12. (14) Hilar. de Trin. 7. 9.

(13) St. Thomas, 1, p. 9, 42, a. 6, ad 1.

the Son to be God, the Holy Ghost, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, could not be God. However, Aezius, Eunomius, Eudoxius, and all those followers of his, who blasphemously taught that the Son was not like unto the Father, attacked also the Divinity of the Holy Ghost, and the chief defender and propagator of this heresy was Macedonius. In the refutation of the heresy of Sabellius, we will prove, in opposition to the Socinians, that the Holy Ghost is the Third Person of the Trinity, subsisting and really distinct from the Father and the Son; here we will prove that the Holy Ghost is true God, equal and consubstantial to the Father and the Son.

SECT. I. THE DIVINITY OF THE HOLY GHOST PROVED FROM SCRIPTURES, FROM THE TRADITIONS OF THE FATHERS, AND FROM GENERAL COUNCILS.

2. WE begin with the Scriptures. To prove that this is an article of Faith, I do not myself think any more is necessary than to quote the text of St. Matthew, in which is related the commission given by Christ to his Apostles: "Go, ye, therefore, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" (Matt. xxviii. 19). It is in this belief we profess the Christian religion, which is founded on the mystery of the Trinity, the principal one of our Faith; it is by these words the character of a Christian is impressed on every one entering into the Church by Baptism; this is the formula approved by all the Holy Fathers, and used from the earliest ages of the Church: "I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." As the three Persons are named consecutively, and without any difference, the equality of the authority and power belonging to them is declared, and as we say, "in the name," and not "in the names," we profess the unity of essence in them. By using the article" and in the name of his Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," we proclaim the real distinction that exists between them! for if we said, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, the latter expression, Holy Ghost, might be understood, not as a substantive, as the proper name of one of the Divine Persons, but as an epithet and adjective applied to the Father and the Son. It is for this reason, Tertullian says (15), that our Lord has commanded to make an ablution, in the administration of baptism, at the name of each of the Divine Persons, that we may firmly believe that there are three distinct Persons in the Trinity. "Mandavit ut tingerent in Patrem et Filium, et Spiritum Sanctum; non in unum nec semel sed ter ad singula nomina in personas singulas tingimur." 3. St. Athanasius, in his celebrated Epistle to Serapion, says, that we join the name of the Holy Ghost with the Father and the Son in baptism, because, if we omitted it, the Sacrament would

(15) Tertullian, con. Praxeam, c. 26.

be invalid: "He who curtails the Trinity, and baptizes in the name of the Father alone, or in the name of the Son alone, or omitting the Holy Ghost, with the Father and Son, performs nothing, for initiation consists in the whole Trinity being named." The Saint says that if we omit the name of the Holy Ghost the baptism is invalid, because baptism is the Sacrament in which we profess the Faith, and this Faith requires a belief in all the three Divine Persons united in one essence, so that he who denies one of the Persons denies God altogether. "And so," follows on St. Athanasius, "Baptism would be invalid, when administered in the belief that the Son or the Holy Ghost were mere creatures." He who divides the Son from the Father, or lowers the Spirit to the condition of a mere creature, has neither the Son nor the Father, and justly, for, as it is one baptism which is conferred in the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost and it is one Faith in Him, as the Apostle says, so the Holy Trinity, existing in itself, and united in itself, has, in itself, nothing of created things. Thus, as the Trinity is one and undivided, so is the Faith of three Persons united in it, one and undivided. We, therefore, are bound to believe that the name of the Holy Ghost, that is, the name of the Third Person expressed by these two words, so frequently used in the Scriptures, is not an imaginary name, or casually invented, but the name of the Third Person, God, like the Father and the Son. We should remember, likewise, that the expression, Holy Ghost, is, properly speaking, but one word, for either of its component parts might be applied to the Father or the Son, for both are Holy, both are Spirit, but this word is the proper name of the Third Person of the Trinity. "Why would Jesus Christ," adds St. Athanasius, "join the name of the Holy Ghost with those of the Father and the Son, if he were a mere creature? is it to render the three Divine Persons unlike each other? was there anything wanting to God that he should assume a different substance, to render it glorious like unto himself?"

4. Besides this text of St. Matthew, already quoted, in which our Lord not only orders his disciples to baptize in the name of the three Persons, but to teach the Faith: "Teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father," &c., we have that text of St. John: "There are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one" (1 John, v. 7). These words (as we have already explained in the Refutation of Sabellianism, n. 9), evidently prove the unity of nature, and the distinction of the three Divine Persons (16). The text says, "These three are one;" if the three testimonies are one and the same, then each of them has the same Divinity, the same substance, for otherwise how, as St. Isidore (17) says, could the text of St. John be verified? Nam cum tria sunt unum sunt."

(16) St. Athan. Epis. ad Serapion, n. 6.

66

(17) St. Isidore, 1. 7; Etymol. c. 4.