Aquinas on the Arian Heresy Concerning the Son of God and its Refutation

NOTE: I didn’t have time to edit the psalm references. Aquinas was using the Vulgate which follows the numbering of the LXX, while the bible I’ve linked to follows the numbering of the Masoretic text.

CHAPTER VI
CONCERNING THE OPINION OF ARIUS ABOUT THE SON OF GOD

WHILE it is inadmissible according to sacred doctrine that the Son of God should have had His origin in Mary, as Photinus said, or that He who was God and Father from eternity should begin to be the Son by taking flesh, as Sabellius contended, there were others who accepted the teaching of Scripture, that the Son of God existed before the mystery of the Incarnation, and even before the creation of the world. And since this Son is distinct from God the Father, they deemed Him not to be of the same nature as God the Father: for they were unable to understand, and unwilling to believe, that any two, distinct in personality, should have one essence and nature. And seeing that, according to the teaching of faith, the nature of God the Father is alone believed to be eternal, they thought that the nature of the Son did not exist from eternity, though He was the Son before other creatures. And since whatever is not eternal is made out of nothing and created by God, they taught that the Son of God was made out of nothing, and a creature.

Since, however, they were forced by the authority of Scripture to acknowledge the Son as God, as we have observed above, they said that He was one with God the Father, not indeed by nature, but by a certain unity of mind, and by a participation of the divine likeness surpassing that of other creatures. Wherefore seeing that in the Scriptures the highest creatures, which we call angels, are styled gods and sons of God—for instance (Job 38:4, 7): Where wast thou … when the morning stars praised me together, and all the sons of God made a joyful melody? and (Ps. 81:1): God hath stood in the congregation of gods,—it follows that He must be styled God and Son of God, above the others, as being of higher rank than other creatures; so much so that God the Father created all other creatures through Him. They strove to confirm this opinion by the teaching of Holy Writ. For addressing the Father the Son says (Jo. 17:3): This is eternal life, that they may know thee, the only true God. Therefore the Father is the only true God: so that as the Son is not the Father He cannot be true God.

Again. The Apostle says (1 Tim. 6:14–16): Keep the commandment without spot, blameless, unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. Which, in his times, he shall show who is the Blessed and only Mighty, the King of kings and Lord of lords. Who only hath immortality, and inhabiteth light inaccessible. In these words we find indicated the distinction between God the Father represented as showing and Christ represented as shown. Therefore God the Father alone, represented as showing, is Mighty, King of kings and Lord of lords, He alone hath immortality and inhabiteth light inaccessible. Therefore only the Father is true God and consequently the Son is not.

Further. The Lord said (Jn. 14:28): The Father is greater than I; and the Apostle said that the Son is subject to the Father (1 Cor. 15:28): When all things shall be subdued unto him, then the Son also himself shall be subject unto him, namely the Father, that put all things under him. If however the nature of the Father and the Son were one, there would also be one greatness and one majesty; for the Son would not be less than, nor subject to, the Father. In their opinion then it follows from the Scriptures that the Son is not of the same nature with the Father.

Again. The nature of the Father cannot be subject to want. But want is found in the Son; for Scripture declares that He receives from the Father: and to receive is a sign of want. Thus, it is written (Matt. 11:27): All things are delivered to me by my Father, and (Jn. 3:35): The Father loveth the Son: and he hath given all things into his hand. Therefore seemingly the Son is not of the same nature as the Father.

Moreover. To be taught and to be helped are signs of need. Now, the Son is taught and helped by the Father. For it is said (Jn. 5:19, 20): The Son cannot do anything of himself, but what he seeth the Father doing, and so the Father loveth the Son, and showeth him all things which himself doth. Again, the Son said to the disciples (Jn. 15:15): All things, whatsoever I have heard of my Father, I have made known to you. It would seem, therefore, that the Son is not of the same nature as the Father.

Further. To receive a commandment, to obey, to pray, and to be sent are, apparently, signs of subjection. Now, these things are related of the Son. For the Son says (Jn. 14:31): As the Father hath given me commandment, so do I; and it is said (Philip. 2:8): Being made obedient (to the Father) unto death: and (Jn. 14:16): I will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete. Again, the Apostle says (Gal. 4:4): When the fulness of the time was come, God sent his Son. Therefore the Son is less than the Father and subject to Him.

Again. The Son is glorified by the Father, as He Himself declares (Jn. 12:28): Father, glorify my name; and the text goes on: A voice … came from heaven: I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again. Also the Apostle says that God raised Jesus Christ from the dead (Rom. 8:11), and Peter declared that He was exalted by the right hand of God (Acts 2:33). From these texts it would seem to follow that He is less than the Father.

Moreover. There can be no defect in the nature of the Father. But in the Son we find a lack of power; for He says (Matt. 20:23): But to sit at my right or left hand is not mine to give to you, but to them for whom it is prepared by my Father. Also a lack of knowledge: for He says (Mark 13:32): But of that day or hour no man knoweth, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father. We also find in Him a lack of mental composure, since Scripture asserts that He was affected by sorrow, anger, and like passions. Therefore seemingly the Son is not of the same nature as the Father.

Again. It is expressly stated in Scripture that the Son of God is a creature: for it is said (Sir 24:12): The Creator of all things … said to me: and he that made me rested in my tabernacle: and again (verse 14): From the beginning and before the world was I created. Therefore the Son is a creature.

Further. The Son is numbered among creatures, for it is said in the person of Wisdom (Sir. 24:5): I came out of the mouth of the most High, the first-born before all creatures. Also, the Apostle says that the Son is the First-Born of all creatures (Col. 1:15). It would seem then that the Son is of the same order as creatures, being placed in the first rank among them.

Moreover. The Son said, when He prayed to the Father for His disciples (Jn. 17:22): The glory which thou hast given to me I have given to them: that they may be one as we also are one. Hence He wished His disciples to be one, even as the Father and Son are one. Now, He did not wish His disciples to be one in essence. Therefore the Father and the Son are not one in essence: and thus the Son is a creature and subject to the Father.

This is the opinion of Arius and Eunomius; and apparently it arose from the statements of the Platonists, who said that the supreme God is the Father and Creator of all, and that from Him first of all there emanated a Mind containing the forms of all things, and transcending all: and this mind they called the Paternal Intelligence. Below this they placed the World-Soul, and beneath this other creatures. Accordingly, they referred to this Mind whatever is said in the Scriptures concerning God the Son, especially because Holy Writ calls the Son of God by the names of Wisdom and Word of God. The opinion of Avicenna is in agreement with this view; for above the Soul of the first heaven he placed the First Intelligence that moves the first heaven, and higher still above all he placed God. Hence the Arians supposed the Son of God to be a creature transcending all other creatures, and that by His means God created all things. This was especially in keeping with the opinion of certain philosophers who held that things proceeded from the first principle in a certain order, so that by the first creature all other things were created.

CHAPTER VII
REFUTATION OF THE OPINION OF ARIUS

ONE has only to study carefully the statements of Holy Writ to perceive that this opinion is clearly in opposition to the divine Scriptures. For Holy Scripture gives the name of son of God to Christ in one sense, and to the angels in another. Wherefore the Apostle says (Heb. 1:5): To which of the angels hath he said at any time: Thou art my Son, to-day have I begotten thee? affirming that this was said of Christ. But according to the aforesaid opinion the angels would be called sons of God in the same sense as Christ: since the same appellation of sonship would apply to both in respect of the sublime nature wherein they were created by God. Nor does it matter if Christ were of a more exalted nature than the angels, since even among the angels there are various orders, as we have shown above; and yet the same degree of sonship applies to all. Therefore Christ is not said to be the Son of God in the sense laid down by the aforesaid opinion.

Again. Since, by reason of creation, the appellation of divine sonship applies to many, for it applies to all the angels and saints, it follows that if Christ were called Son for the same reason, He would not be the Only-Begotten, although, on account of the sublimity of His nature, He might be called the First-Born among the others. But Scripture states that He is the Only-Begotten (Jn. 1:14): We have seen his glory, the glory as it were of the Only-Begotten of the Father. Therefore He is not called the Son of God by reason of creation.

Further. The name son is aptly and truly given to one born of living beings, among whom the thing begotten proceeds from the begetter: in other cases, the appellation of sonship is applied not literally, but metaphorically, as when disciples or wards are called sons. Hence, if Christ were called Son merely by reason of creation, since what is created by God does not emanate from His substance, Christ would not truly be called Son. But He is called truly Son (1 Jn. 5:20): That we may be in his true Son, Jesus Christ. Therefore He is called Son of God, not as though He were created by God with however sublime a nature, but as begotten of God’s substance.

Moreover. If Christ be called the Son by reason of creation, He is not true God, because no creature can be called God, save by reason of a certain likeness to God. Now Jesus Christ is true God. For John, after saying (1 Jn. 5:20): That we may be in his true Son, adds: This is the true God and life eternal. Therefore Christ is not called the Son of God by reason of creation.

Further. The Apostle says (Rom. 9:5): Of whom is Christ according to the flesh, who is over all things, God blessed for ever, Amen, and (Tit. 2:13): Looking for the blessed hope and coming of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ. Moreover it is said (Jer. 23:5, 6): I will raise up to David a just branch, and immediately afterwards: And this is the name they shall call him: The Lord, our just one; where the Hebrew has the tetragrammaton, the name that is certainly applied to God alone. Wherefore it is clear that the Son of God is truly God.

Moreover. If Christ is the true Son, it follows of necessity that He is true God: because he who is born of another cannot truly be called his son, even if begotten of the latter’s substance, unless he issue from him in likeness of species: for the son of a man must needs be a man. Accordingly, if Christ be the true Son of God, He must needs be true God: therefore He is not a creature.

Again. No creature receives the whole fulness of divine goodness, because, as we have already made clear, perfections come from God to creatures by a kind of descent. Now, in Christ is the whole fulness of divine goodness: for the Apostle says (Col. 2:9): In him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead. Therefore Christ is not a creature.

Besides. Although an angel’s intelligence has more perfect knowledge than a man’s, it is far below the divine. Now, Christ’s intelligence is not inferior to the divine: for the Apostle says (Col. 2:3) that in Christ are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. Therefore Christ, the Son of God, is not a creature.

Moreover. As we have proved above, whatever God has in Himself is His essence. Now, the Son has whatever the Father has: for the Son said (Jn. 16:15): All things whatsoever the Father hath, are mine: and addressing the Father (Jn. 17:10): All my things are thine, and thine are mine. Therefore Father and Son have the same essence and nature: and consequently the Son is not a creature.

Further. The Apostle says (Philip. 2:6, 7) that the Son was in the form of God, before He emptied Himself. Now the form of God can have no other meaning but the nature, of God, even as the form of a servant means the nature of man. Therefore the Son is of divine nature, and consequently He is not a creature.
Again. Nothing created can be equal to God. Now, the Son is equal to the Father, for it is said (Jn. 5:18): The Jews sought to kill him, because he did not only break the sabbath, but also said God was his father, making himself equal to God. Thus the evangelist, whose testimony is true, tells us that Christ said He was the Son of God, and equal to God, and that for this reason the Jews persecuted Him. Nor can any Christian doubt that what Christ said of Himself was true, since also the Apostle declares that it was not robbery that He deemed Himself equal to God (Philip. 2:6). Hence the Son is equal to the Father, and therefore He is not a creature.

Moreover. We read that there is none like to God, not even among the angels, who are called the sons of God: Who, says the Psalmist (Ps. 88:7) among the sons of God shall be like to God? and (Ps. 82:2): O God, who shall be like to thee? Now this must be taken as referring to perfect likeness, as is proved from what has been said in the First Book. But Christ declares His perfect likeness to the Father, even as living, for He said (Jn. 5:26): As the Father hath life in himself, so he hath given to the Son also to have life in himself. Therefore Christ must not be reckoned among the created sons of God.

Further. No created substance resembles God in His essence: for any perfection found in any creature whatsoever is less than what God is: so that it is impossible to know through any creature what God is. Now, the Son resembles the Father: for the Apostle says (Col. 1:15) that He is the image of the invisible God. And lest we should think this to mean an imperfect image, that does not reflect the essence of God, so that it would not be possible to know by it what God is—as when a man is said to be God’s image (1 Cor. 11:7)—the Apostle shows that He is a perfect image reflecting the very substance of God when he says (Heb. 1:3): Being the brightness of his glory, and the figure of his substance. Therefore the Son of God is not a creature.

Again. Nothing contained in a genus is the universal cause of the things contained in that genus; thus, the universal cause of mankind is not a man, because nothing is its own cause; whereas the sun, which is outside the human genus, is the universal cause of human generation, and still more so is God.
Now, the Son is the universal cause of creatures: for it is said (Jn. 1:8): All things were made by him; and Begotten Wisdom says (Prov. 8:30): I was with him forming all things: and the Apostle says (Col. 1:16): In him were created all things in heaven, and on earth. Therefore He is not of the genus of creatures.

Besides. From what has been proved in the Second Book, it is clear that the incorporeal substances called angels cannot be formed otherwise than by creation: and it has also been proved that no substance but God can create. Now Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is the cause of the angels, by giving them their being: for the Apostle says (Col. 1:16): Whether thrones, or dominations, or principalities, or powers. All things were created by him and in him. Therefore the Son is not a creature.

Further. Since the action of a thing is consequent to its nature, the proper action of A cannot be assigned to B, if the nature of A is not proper to B: thus a thing that has not human nature, cannot produce a human action. Now, actions proper to God are also proper to the Son, such as to create, as we have already proved, to uphold and conserve all things in being, and to wash away sins. And these things are proper to God, as we have shown above. Now, it is said of the Son (Col. 1:17) that by him all things consist, and (Heb. 1:3): Upholding all things by the word of his power, making purgation of sins. Therefore the Son of God is by nature divine, and not a creature. An Arian indeed might say that the Son does these things, not as the principal agent, but as the latter’s instrument, and that He acts, not by His own power, but only by that of the principal agent; but this view is precluded by the words of our Lord (Jn. 5:19): What things soever he doth, these the Son also doth in like manner. Thus even as the Father works of Himself and by His own power, so too does the Son.

We may further conclude from this that Father and Son have the same might and power. For not only does He say that the Son works in like manner as the Father, but that He does the same things in like manner. Now, if the same work proceed from two agents in like manner, this can happen either when they have dissimilar parts in the action—thus the same work proceeds from the principal agent and the instrument—or when they have similar shares in the action, and then they must combine together in one power: and this power sometimes results from the combined forces of the various agents at work, as when many hands row a boat; for all row alike, and while each one is not strong enough to produce the required result, their combined strength suffices to urge the boat forward. But this cannot be said of the Father and the Son, for the Father’s power is not imperfect but infinite, as we have proved. Therefore the power of Father and Son must be identical. And, since power is consequent to nature, it follows that nature and essence must be identical in Father and Son.

This follows also from what we have said above. For if the Son is divine in nature, as we have proved in many ways, since the divine nature cannot be manifold, as we proved above, it follows of necessity that the nature and essence of Father and Son are numerically the same.

Again. Our ultimate happiness is in God alone, who must be the sole object of our hope and worship. Now our happiness is in God the Son: for He said (Jn. 17:3): This is eternal life: That they may know thee, namely the Father, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. It is also said (1 Jn. 5:20) of the Son, that He is true God and life eternal. And it is certain that by eternal life Holy Writ means final beatitude: for Isaias, quoted by the Apostle (Rom. 15:12), says: There shall be a root of Jesse, and he that shall rise up to rule the Gentiles: in him the Gentiles shall hope. Again, it is said (Ps. 71:11): All kings of the earth shall adore him: all nations shall serve him: and (Jn. 5:23): That all men may honour the Son, as they honour the Father; and (Ps. 96:7): Adore him, all you his angels, which words the Apostle applies to the Son (Heb. 1:6). Therefore it is evident that the Son of God is true God.

Moreover this same conclusion follows from the arguments adduced above to prove against Photinus, that Christ is God, not by creation but in very truth.

Accordingly the Catholic Church, taught by the foregoing and like texts of Holy Writ, confesses that Christ is in truth and by nature the Son of God, co-eternal with and equal to the Father, true God having the same essence and nature with the Father, born, neither created nor made. Hence it is clear that the Catholic faith alone confesses true generation in God, since it refers the generation of the Son to the Son’s receiving His divine nature from the Father. On the other hand, heretics refer this generation to some extraneous nature; Photinus and Sabellius referring it to the human nature, while Arius refers it not to the human nature, but to a created nature, of higher rank than other creatures. Arius differs also from Sabellius and Photinus, in that he asserts this generation to have been anterior to the world, while the latter deny that it was before the Virgin-Birth. Sabellius differs too from Photinus, in that he confesses Christ to be God in truth and by nature, while this is denied by Photinus and Arius, the former holding Christ to be a mere man, while the latter contends that He was a most excellent creature combining together the divine and human natures in a kind of fusion. These allow a distinction of person between Father and Son, whereas Sabellius denies it. Accordingly the Catholic faith, taking the middle way, confesses with Arius and Photinus, and against Sabellius, that Father and Son are distinct Persons, and that the Son is begotten, but the Father unbegotten: and with Sabellius, but against Photinus and Arius, that Christ is God in truth and by nature, and of the same nature with the Father, yet distinct from Him in person. Even from such things may we gather the Catholic truth: since, as Aristotle says, even error bears witness to truth: and error is at variance, not only with truth, but also with itself.

CHAPTER VIII
SOLUTION OF THE ARGUMENTS ADDUCED BY ARIUS IN SUPPORT OF HIS VIEW

SINCE then truth cannot be opposed to truth, it is evident that the texts of the Written Truth which the Arians quote in support of their error cannot be in agreement with their opinion. For, as we have shown from the divine Scriptures, that Father and Son have but one identical divine essence and nature, in respect of which each of them is true God, it follows that Father and Son are not two Gods, but only one God. Because, if they were two Gods, it would follow that the divine essence is shared between them, just as in two men there are two numerically distinct human natures: especially seeing that the divine nature and God are not distinct, as we have proved above: whence it follows of necessity, since there is one divine nature in Father and Son, that Father and Son are one God. Accordingly, though we confess both the Father to be God, and the Son to be God, we do not abandon the position that there is but one God, which we proved in the First Book, by both reason and authority. Therefore, although there is but one God, we confess that this may be predicated of both Father and Son.

When, then, our Lord, addressing the Father, said (Jn. 17:3): That they may know thee, the only true God. we must not gather that the Father alone is true God. as though the Son were not true God—because the authority of Scripture clearly proves that the Son is true God—but that the one only true Godhead belongs to the Father, yet in such a way that it belongs also to the Son. Wherefore our Lord said significantly: That they may know thee, the only true God, not as though (the Father) were the only God; but: That they may know thee, and then added, the only true God, to show that the Father, whose Son He declared Himself to be, is God, because in Him is the only true Godhead. And since the true Son must needs have the same nature with the Father, it follows that the only true Godhead belongs to the Son, rather than that it should be excluded from Him. Hence John, as though expounding these words of our Lord, ascribes to the true Son both of these things which our Lord here ascribes to the Father, namely, that He is true God, and that in Him is eternal life (1 Jn. 5:20): That we may know the true God, and may be in his true Son. This is the true God and eternal life. Even though the Son had confessed that the Father alone was true God, He must not for that reason be understood to exclude Himself from the Godhead: because, as Father and Son are one God, as we have proved, whatever is predicated of the Father, by reason of His Godhead, amounts to the same as though it were said of the Son, and vice versa. For when our Lord said (Matt. 11:27): No one knoweth the Son but the Father: neither doth anyone know the Father, but the Son, we are not to conclude that knowledge of Himself is denied to either the Father or the Son.

Whence it is evident that true Godhead is not excluded from the Son by the words of the Apostle (1 Tim. 6:15): Which in his time he shall shew, who is the Blessed and only Mighty, the King of kings and Lord of lords. For the Father is not named in these words, but only something common to Father and Son. For it is explicitly stated that the Son also is King of kings and Lord of lords (Rev 19:13), where it is said: He was clothed with a garment sprinkled with blood, and his name is called The Word of God, and afterwards (Rev 19:16): And he hath on his garment, and on his thigh written: King of kings and Lord of lords. Nor is the Son excluded by the words that follow: Who alone hath immortality (1 Tim. 6:16), since He clothes with immortality them that believe in Him, hence it is said (Jn. 11:26): He that … believeth in me shall not die for ever. It is also certain that the subsequent words also may apply to the Son: Whom no man hath seen, nor can see (1 Tim. 6:16), because our Lord said (Matt. 11:27): No one knoweth the Son but the Father. Nor would it avail to object that He appeared visibly, for this happened in the flesh: since He is invisible as to His Godhead, even as the Father: wherefore the Apostle says in the same epistle (1 Tim 3:16): Evidently great is the mystery of godliness, which was manifested in the flesh. Nor does it affect the issue to say that the above text refers to the Father only, because the text implies a distinction between the one who shows and the one shown, since the Son also shows Himself, for He says (Jn. 14:21): He that loveth me, shall be loved of my Father; and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him: wherefore we say to Him (Ps. 79:20): Show thy face, and we shall be saved. As to our Lord’s words (Jn. 14:28), The Father is greater than I, the Apostle teaches how they should be understood. For seeing that a comparison is made between greater and less, the words must be understood of the Son in respect of His abasement. The Apostle, however, ascribes this abasement to His assuming the form of a servant, yet so that He is equal to the Father in respect of the form of God. For he says (Philip. 2:6, 7): Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal to God: but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant. Nor must we wonder that, for this reason, He is called less than the Father, seeing that the Apostle declares Him to have been made lower than the angels: We see, he writes, Jesus who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour (Heb. 2:9).

Hence too it is evident, that the Son is stated to be subject to the Father in the same sense, namely in respect of His human nature: this is clear from the context. For the Apostle had said before (1 Cor. 15:21): By a man came death, and by a man the resurrection of the dead: and afterwards (1 Cor 15:23-24) he had added that everyone shall rise in his own order, first of all Christ, and then they that are of Christ, and then: Afterwards the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God and the Father. Then, having declared the nature of this kingdom, namely that all things must be made subject to Him, he goes on to say (verse 28): When all things shall be subdued unto him, then the Son also himself shall be subject unto him that put all things under him. Therefore the context shows that this is to be understood of Christ as man: for as such He died and rose again: because, as God, since He does all that the Father does, as we have shown, He also subdued all things to Himself. Wherefore the Apostle says (Philip. 3:20, 21): We look for the Saviour, our Lord Jesus Christ, who will reform the body of our lowness, made like to the body of his glory, according to the operation whereby also he is able to subdue all things to himself.

The fact that in the Scriptures the Father is said to give to the Son, whence it follows from Scripture that the Son receives from the Father, does not prove that He is in want of anything. In fact this is requisite in order that He be the Son. For He could not be called Son, were He not begotten of the Father, and whatever is begotten receives from the begetter the latter’s nature. When therefore, we read that the Son receives from the Father, nothing else is indicated but the Son’s generation, whereby the Father gave His nature to the Son. This can be gathered from the thing given, for He says (Jn. 10:29): That which my Father hath given me, is greater than all. Now, that which is greater than all is the divine nature, whereby the Son is equal to the Father. This is proved by our Lord’s very words. For He had said that no man would be able to pluck His sheep from His hand: and in proof of this He utters the words quoted, namely that what His father had given Him, is greater than all. And because, as He concludes, no one can wrest from the hand of His Father, it follows that neither can anyone wrest from the hand of the Son: and this would not follow, unless by that which the Father had given Him, He were equal to the Father. Accordingly in order to express this more clearly He says (Jn 10:30): I and the Father are one. In like manner the Apostle says (Philip. 2:9, 10): And (God) hath given him a name which is above all names: that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those that are in heaven, on earth, and under the earth. Now, the name that is above all names, and which every creature reveres is none other than the name of the Godhead. Therefore this giving by begetting signifies the begetting itself, whereby the Father gave the Son true Godhead. The same conclusion follows from the statement that all things were given Him by the Father: since all things could not have been given to Him, unless the whole fulness of the Godhead that is in the Father were also in the Son. Accordingly by saying that the Father had given to Him, He declares Himself to be the true Son; and this is against Sabellius: and from the greatness of the thing given, He declares Himself to be equal to the Father; and this is against Arius.

It is clear, then, that this giving is no indication of want in the Son: for the Son was not before He received, since in Him to be begotten and to receive were one and the same: and the fulness of that which was given was incompatible with want in Him who received. Nor can it be objected against what we have said, that Scripture asserts the Son to have received from the Father in course of time. Thus our Lord after His resurrection, said to His disciples (Matt. 28:18): All power is given to me in heaven and in earth: and the Apostle says (Philip. 2:8, 9) that for this cause God hath exalted him, and hath given him a name which is above all names, because He became obedient unto death: as though He had not this name from eternity. For Scripture is wont to describe things as being or made, when they come to our knowledge. Now, that the Son received from eternity universal power and the divine name, was made known to the world by the preaching of the disciples. This is shown by the words of God Himself, for our Lord said (Jn. 17:5): Glorify thou me, O Father, with thyself, with the glory which I had before the world was: for He asks that His glory, which from eternity, as God, He received from the Father, should be manifested in Him now that He was made man.

Hence it is clear how the Son is taught, whereas He is not ignorant. For it has been shown that in God intelligence and being are one and the same. Wherefore communication of divine nature is also communication of intelligence. Now, communication of intelligence may be called showing, speaking, or teaching. Therefore, since by His birth the Son received the divine nature from the Father, we may speak either of Him as hearing from the Father, or of the Father as showing to Him, or employ other like expressions of Scripture: not as though the Son were previously ignorant or nescient, and was afterwards taught by the Father. For the Apostle declares (1 Cor. 1:24) that Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God: and it is impossible for wisdom to be ignorant, or power to be weak.

Therefore the words: The Son cannot do anything of himself (Jn. 5:19) do not argue weakness of action in the Son: but, as in God to act is the same as to be, and action is identified with essence, as we have proved above, so the Son is said to be unable to act of Himself, but to act with the Father, even as He cannot be of Himself, but only of the Father. For were He of Himself, He would not be the Son. Accordingly, even as it is impossible for the Son not to be the Son, so is it impossible that He act of Himself. But since the Son receives the same nature as that which the Father has, and consequently the same power, although the Son is not of Himself (a se) nor works of Himself, yet He is by Himself (per se) and works by Himself: because, even as He is by His own nature which He received from the Father, so does He work by His proper nature received from the Father. Wherefore after our Lord had said: The Son cannot do anything of himself, in order to show that although the Son works not of Himself, yet does He work by Himself, He added: What things soever he doth—namely, the Father—these the Son also doth in like manner.

From the foregoing it is also clear in what sense the Father commands the Son, and the Son obeys the Father, or prays to the Father, or is sent by the Father. For all these things are ascribed to the Son as subject to the Father, and this is only in respect of the human nature which He had assumed, as we have shown. Wherefore the Father commands the Son as subject to Him in His human nature. The very words of our Lord declare this. For when He said (Jn. 14:31), That the world may know that I love the Father, and as the Father hath given me commandment, so do I, what this commandment was is indicated by the words that follow, Arise, let us go hence. For He said this when He was going to His Passion: and it is clear that the command to suffer applied to the Son in respect only of His human nature. Likewise, when He said (Jn. 15:10), If you keep my commandments you shall abide in my love; as I also have kept my Father’s commandments, and do abide in his love, it is clear that these commandments regarded the Son, in so far as He was, as man, beloved of His Father; just as He loved His disciples as men. The Apostle shows that the Father’s commandments to the Son are to be referred to the human nature assumed by the Son, when he teaches that the Son was obedient to the Father in things appertaining to human nature. For he says (Philip. 2:8) that he became obedient to the Father, unto death. The Apostle also shows that prayer becomes the Son in respect of His human nature, for he says (Heb. 5:7) that in the days of his flesh with a strong cry and tears, offering up prayers and supplications to him, that was able to save him from death, (He) was heard for his reverence. The Apostle shows in what respect He is said to be sent by the Father, when he says (Gal. 4:4): God sent his Son, made of a woman: wherefore He is said to be sent by reason of His being made of a woman: and it is certain that this applies to Him in respect of the flesh which He assumed.

It is therefore clear that none of these texts proves that the Son was subject to the Father, except as regards His human nature.

We must however observe that the Son as God is also said to be sent by the Father invisibly, without prejudice to His equality with the Father. We shall prove this farther on, when we treat of the mission of the Holy Ghost. It is likewise clear that from the Son being glorified, raised up, or exalted by the Father, we cannot argue that the Son is less than the Father, save in respect of His human nature. For the Son needs not to be glorified as receiving glory anew, since He declares that He had it from the beginning of the world: but it was fitting that His glory, which was concealed beneath the weakness of His flesh, should be made manifest, through the glorification of His body and the working of miracles, in the faith of believers. Wherefore it is said of this concealment (Isa. 53:3): His look was, as it were, hidden and despised; whereupon we esteemed him not. In like manner Christ was raised from the dead, in as much as He suffered and died, that is, according to the flesh; for it is said (1 Pet. 4:1): Christ having suffered in the flesh, be you also armed with the same thought. And it behoved Him to be exalted for as much as He was humbled: for the Apostle says (Philip. 2:8, 9): He humbled himself, being made obedient unto death … for which cause God also hath exalted him.

Accordingly, by the fact that the Father glorifies, raises up, and exalts the Son, the Son is not proved to be less than the Father, except in His human nature: because, in His divine nature whereby He is equal with the Father, there is but one power, and one operation of both Father and Son. Wherefore the Son by His own power not only exalts Himself, according to the words of the Psalmist (Ps. 20:14): Be thou exalted, O Lord, in thy own strength; but also raises Himself from the dead, as slated in His own words (Jn. 10:18): I have power to lay down my life, and I have power to take it up again. Moreover He glorifies not only Himself, but also the Father, for He says (Jn. 17:1): Glorify thy Son, that thy Son may glorify thee; not that the Father is concealed under the veil of assumed flesh, but by the invisibility of His nature. In this way the Son also is concealed in respect of His divine nature: since the words of Isaiah 45:15, Verily thou art a hidden God, the God of Israel, the Saviour, apply to Father and Son in common. And the Son glorifies the Father, not by bestowing glory on Him, but by manifesting Him to the world: for He says (Jn. 17:6): I have manifested thy name to men.

We must not believe that there is any lack of power in the Son of God, since He says (Matt. 28:18): All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Hence His words (Matt. 20:23): To sit on my right hand, is not mine to give you, but to them for whom it is prepared by my Father, do not prove that the Son has not the power of distributing the heavenly seats, since these seats signify the participation in eternal life, the bestowal of which He declares to belong to Him, when He says (Jn. 10:27, 28): My sheep hear my voice: and I know them, and they follow me; and I give them life everlasting. It is also said (Jn. 5:22) that the Father … hath given all judgement to the Son: and it is a part of judgement to bestow eternal life on certain persons for their merits. Wherefore it is said (Matt. 25:33) that the Son of Man shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left. Therefore it is in the power of the Son to set a man either on His right or on His left, whether both be referred to different participations of glory, or one to glory and the other to punishment. Accordingly the passage quoted must be interpreted according to the foregoing. For we are told in the first place (Matt. 20:20 seqq.) that the mother of the sons of Zebedee came to Jesus, begging of Him that one of her sons might sit at His right hand, and the other at His left: and she seems to have been urged to make this request through relying on her blood relationship with the man Christ. Accordingly our Lord by His answer denied, not that He had the power to give what was asked, but that it was His to give to them for whom the request was made. For He did not say: “To sit on My right or left hand is not mine to give to any man”; rather does He declare that it was His to give to them for whom it was prepared by His Father. For this belonged to Him, not as the son of the Virgin, but as the Son of God. Consequently, to give to this or that one was not in His power on account of His relationship as son of the Virgin; whereas it was His to give to them for whom it was prepared by His Father in eternal predestination; because He was the Son of God.

Moreover our Lord Himself declares that even this preparation is in the power of the Son of God, when He says (Jn. 14:2): In my Father’s house there are many mansions; if not, I would have told you, that I go to prepare a place for you. Now, these many mansions are the various degrees of participation in heavenly bliss, which God has prepared in His eternal predestination. When then our Lord says: If not—that is, if there were not sufficient mansions prepared for those who were to be taken up into heaven—and adds: I would have told you that I go to prepare a place for you, He shows that this preparation lies in His power.

Nor can it be admitted that the Son knew not the day of His coming, seeing that in him are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, as the Apostle says (Col. 2:3), and that He knows perfectly something greater, namely the Father. But this means that the Son, as a man living among men, conducted Himself as an ignorant man, by not revealing the matter to His disciples. For Scripture is wont to describe God as knowing something, when He makes others know it, for instance (Gen. 22:12): Now I know that thou fearest God; that is, “I have caused thee to know”: and thus contrariwise, the Son is said not to know that which He does not make us know.

As to sorrow, fear, and the like, it is clear that such things were in Christ as man: so that they argue no depreciation in the Son’s Godhead.

When wisdom is described as created, in the first place this may refer, not to that Wisdom which is the Son of God, but to the wisdom which God has bestowed on creatures. For it is said (Sir. 1:9, 10): He created her—namely, wisdom—in the Holy Ghost … and he poured her out upon all his works. It may also refer to the created nature assumed by the Son, so that the sense would be: From the beginning and before the world, was I created; that is, I was predestined to be united to a creature (Sir 24:14). Or again wisdom is said to be both created and begotten, so as to insinuate the manner of divine generation. Because, when a thing is begotten, it receives the nature of its begetter, and this savours of perfection: whereas when a thing is generated here below, the begetter itself is changed, and this savours of imperfection: while in creation, the Creator undergoes no change, but the creature does not receive the nature of the Creator. Accordingly, the Son is said to be both created and begotten, so that from creation we gather the unchangeableness of the Father, and from generation the identity of nature in Father and Son. Thus did the Council expound Scripture, as may be gathered from the works of Hilary.

When the Son is said to be the First-Born of creatures, this does not imply that the Son is to be reckoned among creatures, but that the Son proceeds from the Father, and receives from the Father from whom creatures proceed and receive. The Son however receives identity of nature, whereas creatures do not: wherefore the Son is called not only the First-Born, but also the Only Begotten, on account of the singular mode of that reception.

The words of our Lord to His Father in reference to His disciples, That they may be one, as we also are one (Jn. 17:22), prove that Father and Son are one in the same way as it behoves the disciples to be one, namely, by love. But this manner of union does not exclude unity of nature, rather does it prove it. For it is said (Jn. 3:35): The Father loveth the Son: and he hath given all things into his hand: and this shows that the fulness of the Godhead is in the Son, as we have already stated. Hence it is clear that the authority of Scripture invoked by the Arians in support of their view is in no way opposed to the truth as declared by the Catholic Faith.

Excerpted from~THOMAS AQUINAS, S. – FATHERS OF THE ENGLISH DOMINICAN PROVINCE, Summa contra gentiles, Burns Oates & Washbourne, London 1924.

Christ as the Natural and Supernatural Head of All Creatures

I. By His human origin Christ is like and akin to the sons of Adam; He is a member of the great human corporation (Heb. 2:11 sqq.), and occupies a place in the created universe. But, by reason of His Divine Personality, He is “the image and likeness of God” to a degree unapproached by either man or angel. Moreover, men and angels and all things have been created “in,” that is, “by and for” Him. He, then, “is the first-born of every creature … the head of the body” (Col. 1:15–17; cf. § 183, III. 3). His superiority rests upon His belonging to a higher order than His brethren; whence He ranks above them as they rank above the animal and material creation, and not merely as a king ranks above his subjects.

II. The practical object of Christ’s headship is not only to place the universe, and especially mankind, under a Divine king: it is the intention of God and the will of Christ that the Incarnation should establish between the First-born and His brethren a real kinship or affinity, Christ becoming the Head of the human family, and the human family acquiring a title to participate in the supernatural privileges of their Head. “When the fulness of time was come, God sent His Son, made of a woman, that we might receive the adoption of sons” (Gal. 4:4, 5; cf. Rom. 8:29). When, in the virginal womb of Mary, the Word espoused human flesh, all human flesh became akin to Him; all men acquired affinity to the Man-God and fellowship in His exalted privileges: “we are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones” (Eph. 5:30). The idea that Christ by taking flesh “espoused” not only the Church, but all mankind, is often dwelt upon by the Fathers. See St. Augustine, In Joan., ar. 1, ch. 2; St. Gregory the Great, Hom. xxxvii. in Ezechielem; St. Leo the Great, Sermo xvi. in Nativ.; St. Cyril of Alexandria, Comm. in Joan., i. 14, etc.

III. The name “Head,” so frequently given by St. Paul to Christ, is, speaking strictly, but a figure of speech; but, like the name Christ, it has a dogmatic significance. The Apostle connects it with our Lord’s Divinity; the Fathers and theologians with the plenitude of Holiness and Grace, of which He is the fountain. Christ is Head in the moral and in the physical sense: head of the human family, head of the mystical body, the Church. Both senses are used by St. Paul. “God hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings … in Christ.… He hath graced us (ἐχαρίτωσεν) in His beloved Son … that He might make known to us the mystery of His will … to re-establish all things in Christ, which are in heaven and on earth, in Him.… Raising Him up from the dead and setting Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, above all principality, and power, and vrtue, and dominion … and He hath put all things under His feet, and hath made Him head over all the Church, which is His body, and the fulness of Him who is filled all in all” (Eph. 1:3–23). “God hath quickened us together in Christ … and hath raised us up together, and hath made us sit together in the heavenly places through (ἐν) Christ Jesus” (Eph. 2:5, 6). “That we may in all things grow up in Him (εἰς αὐτὸν) Who is the head, Christ: from Whom the whole body being compacted and fitly joined together by what every joint supplieth, according to the operation in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in charity” (Eph. 4:15, 16. See also Eph. 2:19–21; 5:22 sqq.; Col. 1:13–20, 23, 24; 2:8–10, 18, 19; 1 Cor. 12:12).

Christ is the Head of mankind as man, yet not by reason of some accidental perfection or external appointment: He heads the race by reason of the substantial perfection imparted to Him through the Logos, just as the head—the seat of reason—is the noblest part of the body. Again, Christ’s headship being founded upon His supernatural excellence, He is our “supersubstantial” Head, to whom all the properties and functions of the natural head belong in an eminently equivalent degree. Whatever dignity accrues to the bodily head from its being the seat of the soul’s chief activity—whatever power of influencing, governing, and unifying the other members is possessed by the head—the same dignity and power belong to Christ as Head in relation to mankind. His Divine Principle works on man in general, and especially on the members of the Church, with a power more perfect than that of the soul in the individual man. “In Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead corporally; and you are filled in Him who is the head of all principality and power” (Col. 2:10; cf. Eph. 1:22, 23).

IV. Adam, the first head of mankind, was a type of the Second Head inasmuch as he was the principle of natural life, the intended transmitter of supernatural life; and, in this respect, he acted on behalf of the whole human race. But, whereas Adam is the earthly, animal, and guilty head of the race, Christ is its heavenly, spiritual, and substantially holy Head. Adam is the principle of the material unity of mankind; Christ is much more the principle of its spiritual unity. Adam was a precarious mediator of supernatural life; Christ is its essential and unchangeable mediator. Hence Christ not only supplements the failings of the first head, but completes and perfects the headship. The first head, then, was, as it were, the material root of the race which was to be incorporated in and brought to perfection by Christ, its real principle and final object (τέλος). Cf. 1 Cor. 15:45 sqq.; Peter Lomb., 3, dist 13, Q. 2; St. Thomas, 3, q. 8.

Excerpted from~WILHELM, J. – SCANNELL, T. B., A Manual of Catholic Theology: Based on Scheeben’s “Dogmatik”, II, Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co. Ltd., London 1908Third Edition, Revised.

The Doctrine of the New Testament on the Son of God

I. The doctrine of the New Testament on the Son of God centres in the idea of His true and perfect Sonship: if true Son, He is of the same Essence as the Father; if of the same Essence as God the Father, He is God just as the Father is.

The texts treating expressly of the Divinity of the Son are chiefly found in St. John’s Gospel and in his First Epistle, especially in the introduction to chap. i. of the Gospel, and in three speeches of the Son of God Himself: (1) after healing the man who had been eight and thirty years under his infirmity (Jn 5:17 sqq.); (2) in defence of His Divine authority, in the continuation of His description of the Good Shepherd (Jn 10:14); (3) in the sacerdotal prayer after the Last Supper (Jn 17:1ff), in explanation of His position as mediator. Other classical texts are Heb. 1 and Col. 1:13–20.

II. The Filiation of the Son of God is a filiation in the strictest sense of the word—that is, a relation founded upon the communication of the same living essence and nature.

1. This first results from the manner in which the name “Son of God” is used in Holy Scripture. That name is, indeed, also applied to beings not of the same essence as the Father, in order to express an analogical sonship, based upon adoption, love, or some other analogy. In such cases, however, the name is used as a common noun, and never applied in the singular, as a distinctive name to any single individual, as it is applied to the Person called Word of God, Jesus, and Christ. On the other hand, this Person is distinguished, as being the Son of God (ὁ υἵος θεοῦ) and the only begotten (μονογενής) Son of God, from all creatures, even the highest angels and the beings most favoured by grace; so that His Sonship is given as the ideal and the principle of the adoptive sonship granted to men or angels. Hence, when applied to the Son of God, the term “Son” must be taken in its strict and proper sense, there being no reason to the contrary.

In illustration of these propositions, see, for instance, Gal. 4:7; Rev 21:7; Exod. 4:22. “For to which of the Angels hath He said at any time, Thou art My Son?” etc. (Heb. 1:5). The comparison of the real with the adoptive sonship is found in the beginning of the Epistle to the Hebrews and of the Gospel of St. John (see Heb. 1:1, 3, 5, 6; John 1:12). The Jews who did not acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah, considered it as arrogance on His part to call Himself “the Son of God” even in the weaker sense, but they treated His claim to be the Son equal to the Father as blasphemy (John 5:18), and demanded His death on that count (Matt. 26:63; Luke 22:66–71; John 19:7).

The difficulty which some find in John 10:35, 36, where, according to them, Christ claims no other sonship than that granted to creatures, vanishes if we compare Christ’s words with the accusation which He was repelling. The Jews had said, “We stone Thee because that Thou, being a man, makest Thyself God.” To this Jesus replies, “The fact of My being a man does not essentially prevent Me from being also God. And if God called His servants gods, à fortiori, the name must be given to the Man to Whom the Father has given power over the whole world, Whom He has constituted the Heir of His dominions, and Who, in the Psalm quoted, stands out as God before the gods. And if I call Myself the Son of God, it is because I claim to be that Heir of God Who, in the Psalm, is introduced as the Judging God.” Cf. Franzelin, De Verb. Incarn., th. vii.

2. The Filiation of the Son of God is further determined in its true character by the epithets which Holy Scripture gives it. The Son of God is called “True Son” (1 John 5:20); “the own (ἰδίος) Son” (Rom. 8:32); the “only-begotten Son,” unigenitus, μονογενής (John 3:16, and 1:14); “the beloved Son” (Matt. 3:17, and Col. 1:13); “the only-begotten Son Who is in the bosom of the Father,” and there alone beholds God (John 1:18); “the Son born of the Father” (Heb. 5:5, from Ps. 2:7); “ex utero genitus” (Ps. 109:3, in the Vulg.); “proceeding from God,” ἐγὼ γὰρ ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐξῖλθον (John 8:42). If sometimes the Son of God is called “First-born” among many brethren, or from the dead, or of all creatures, the sense is that the Son of God, as only true Son, is not merely begotten by His Father before any creature received existence, but that He also is the exemplar, the principle, and the last end of all beings (Rev. 3:14), and especially of the adoption of rational beings into the Sonship of God. This idea is magnificently set forth in Col. 1:12–19, the classical text on the primogeniture of Christ: “Giving thanks to God the Father, … Who hath translated us into the kingdom of the Son of His love; … Who is the image of the invisible God, the First-born of every creature: for in Him were all things created in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible: … all things were created by Him and in Him (εἰς αὐτόν): and He is before all, and by Him all things consist.” On the ground of this original primogeniture now follows the other: “And He is the Head of the body, the Church: Who is the Beginning, the First-born from the dead: that in all things He may hold the primacy, because in Him it hath well pleased the Father that all fulness should dwell.”

These passages fully show that the formal and proper reason why Christ is called Son of God is not His wonderful generation and regeneration as man. Texts which seem to imply this ought to be interpreted so as to agree with the above.

3. The reality and perfection of the Sonship is further described when the Son is presented as the most perfect image of the Father, reproducing the glory, the Substance the Nature and the fulness of the Divinity of the Father, equal to the Father, and a perfect manifestation or revelation of His perfection. “His Son … Who, being the brightness of His glory, and the figure of His substance, and upholding all things by the word of His power” (Heb. 1:3); “Who, being in the form of God, thought it no robbery to be equal to God” (Phil. 2:6; see also Col. 1:15, 20, and 2:9; John 14:9).

II. The Son of God is represented in the New Testament as God just as His Father is, all the names and attributes of God being bestowed upon Him.

1. The substantive nouns “God” and “Lord,” are given to the Person Who is also named the Son of God, in such a manner that nothing but the possession of the Divine Essence can be signified by them.

(a) The name “God,” Θεός, besides the express affirmation that “the Word was God” (John 1:1), is applied at least five times to the Person of God the Son: John 20:28 (ὁ θεός μου); Heb. 1:8, quoting from Ps. 45, where ὁ θεός renders the Hebrew Elohim; “Waiting for the coming of the great God and our Saviour” (Tit. 2:13); “That we may know the true God, and may be in His true Son: This is the true God, and life eternal” (1 John 5:20; also Rom. 9:5). These expressions are the more significant because in the New Testament the name ὁ θεός is exclusively reserved for God. Besides this, there are in the New Testament many quotations from the Old Testament in which texts undoubtedly referring to God, because the ineffable name Jehovah is their subject, are applied to Christ For instance Heb. 1:6 = Ps. 97:7; Heb. 1:10–12 = Ps. 102; Mal. 3:1, quoted by Mark 1:2, Matt. 11:10, Luke 7:27. The explanation of the name Jehovah as “the First and the Last,” given in the Old Testament, is, in the New Testament, repeatedly applied to Christ, with the similar expressions, “Beginning and End,” “Alpha and Omega,” “Who is, Who was, and Who is to come” (Rev. 1:17; 21:6; 22:13).

(b) The name “Lord” is more commonly given to the Son of God than the name God. When the Father and the Son are mentioned together, and the Father is called God, the Son is always called the Lord. The reason of this difference, after what has been said above, is not that the Son of God ought not to be called God as well as Lord. Where the Son is named Lord, He appears as manifesting in His Incarnation the dominion or sovereignty of God, Whose ambassador He is, and as the holder of a special sovereignty in His quality of Head of creation generally and of mankind in particular. On the other hand, God the Father, as the “unoriginated” holder of the Divine Nature, may be emphatically called God. Moreover, the way in which Holy Scripture applies the name of Lord to the Son of God, and the way in which it qualifies the same, clearly show that this name expresses in Christ a truly Divine excellence and dignity, just as the name God expresses the Divine Essence and Nature. Consequently, Lord in the New Testament is equivalent to Adonai in the Old. In the Old Testament the title “the Lord” had become a proper name of God; it would, therefore, never be applied without restriction and as a proper name to a person who did not possess the same Divine dignity. But no restriction is made; on the contrary, Christ is called “the only sovereign Ruler and Lord”—Dominator et Domimis, ὁ μόνος δεσπότης καὶ κύριος—(Jude 4); “the Lord of glory” (1 Cor. 2:8); “the Lord of Lords and King of Kings” (Rev. 17:14, and elsewhere). The sovereignty of the “Lord of all” necessarily extends to all that comes from God, and is the foundation of the unity of the Christian worship in opposition to the worship of many lords by the heathen (cf. 1 Cor. 8:5-6).

2. Not only are the substantive nouns “God” and “Lord” given to the Son of God, but likewise all the predicates which express attributes proper to God alone, are stated of Him. Christ Himself (John 16:15) claims all such predicates: “All things whatsoever the Father hath, are Mine.” And again, “All things that are Mine are Thine, and Thine are Mine” (Jn 17:10). “What things soever (the Father) doeth, these the Son also doeth in like manner” (Jn 5:19).

In detail, the Son is described as equal to the Father in the possession of that being and life in virtue of which God is the principle of all being and of all life outside of Him; in the possession of the attributes connected with such essential being and life; and particularly in the Divine dignity which makes God the object of adoration. “All things were made by Him [the Word], and without Him was made nothing that was made” (John 1:3; cf. Col. 1:16-17; 1 Cor. 8:6; John 8:25). “As the Father raiseth up the dead and giveth life, so the Son also giveth life to whom He will.… For, as the Father hath life in Himself, so He hath given to the Son also to have life in Himself” (John 5:21, 26; 1 John 1:2, etc.).

The texts in which the Son is represented as the principle through Whom (per quem, διʼ οὗ) all things are made, and the Father as the principle from Whom (ex quo, ἐξ οὗ) all things are made, do not deny the equality of the Son with the Father, but point to the different manner in which the Son possesses the Divine Nature, viz. as principium de principio; that is, as communicated to Him by the Father. This remark also solves most of the apparent difficulties arising from texts where Christ seems to object to certain Divine attributes being given to Him, as John 5:19; 7:16; Matt. 20:28. In Mark 13:32 the question is not whether the end of the world is known to the Son of God, but whether the knowledge is communicable.

The eternity of the Son is indicated where He is said to have existed before the world (John 1:1; 17:5, 18; 8:58); His omnipresence by the assertion that He is in heaven and on earth; His omniscience by His knowledge of the hearts of men and His prevision of the future; His omnipotence appears in the miracles which He worked by His own power, and also in the forgiveness of sin; He proclaims Himself the sovereign Teacher, Lawgiver, and Judge when He says, “All power is given to Me in heaven and in earth” (Matt. 28:18; John 5:22).

3. If the Son of God is truly such, if He is God and Lord, if He possesses the attributes proper to God alone, Divine honour should certainly be paid to Him. We find Him laying claim to this honour, “that all may honour the Son as (καθὼς) they honour the Father” (John 5:23). And the Apostle declares that it is due: “In the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those that are in heaven, on earth, and under the earth” (Phil. 2:10). See Card. Newman’s Athanasius, i. p. 144. On the Divine attributes and works of Christ, consult Bellarmine, Controv. de Christo, l. i., c. 7, 8; Greg. of Valentia, De Trin. l. i. On His Divine dignity see Franzelin, De Verb. Incarn., th. v.; Knoll. De Deo, § 86.

III. The likeness of the Essence of the Son to that of the Father, implied in His Sonship and Divinity, necessarily consists in a perfect and indivisible unity of Essence. For there can be but one God, and the Son is spoken of as the God (ὁ Θεός), consequently as one with the Father. The same unity of Essence is formally affirmed by Christ: “I and the Father are one,” ἕν ἐσμεν (John 10:30). “Believe the works, that you may know and believe that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father” (Jn 10:38). The unity could not be affirmed so absolutely if it did not refer to real identity of being; and the mutual immanence or περιχώρησις, of which the Saviour speaks (Jn 10:38) is only conceivable on the hypothesis of absolute identity of Essence and Nature.

IV. The whole doctrine on the Son of God is magnificently summed up in the prologue to the Gospel of St. John. The Evangelist represents the Second Person of the Trinity as He was before and independently of the Incarnation, viz. as He is in Himself. He is introduced as ὁ λόγος, Verbum, the Word, emphatically, in which the fulness of the Divine Wisdom is substantially expressed and personified, which, therefore, is one and the same substance with God, and not a new being. This Word is “with God”—that is, a Person distinct from the God Who speaks the Word; but, being the expression of His truth and wisdom, the Word is of the same Substance as the Divine Speaker. As a Person by Himself, but yet of the same Substance as God, the Word is “God” (θεός, without the article)—that is, possessor of the Divine Nature, and as truly God as the Divine Person of Whom and with Whom the Word is. As possessor of the Divine Nature, the Word is the principle of all extra-Divine existence, life, and knowledge, and therefore in Himself “the Life” that enliveneth all, and “the Light” that enlighteneth all. The Word existed “in the beginning”—that is, before any created thing,—and was Itself without beginning, like the Divine Wisdom of which It is the expression; and It existed, positively and eminently “in the beginning”—that is, before all creatures, of which the Word of Wisdom is the principle and which are made by Its power. The Word, therefore, is not created or made in time, but generated from all eternity out of the Wisdom of the Father as His only Word, and hence It is called “the only begotten of the Father” (Jn 1:14), Who indeed came down into the flesh with the plenitude of His grace and truth, but, at the same time, remained in the bosom of the Father (Jn 1:18).

V. It cannot be denied that the New Testament presents many difficulties against the Filiation, Divinity, and identity of Essence of God the Son. In general these difficulties arise from expressions used in a symbolical, analogical, or metaphorical sense, the true literal sense of which ought to be determined from the nature of the subject-matter; or they arise from the fact that the Son of God is commonly spoken of as God-man, and consequently is made the subject of many new attributes which could not be predicated of Him if He was only God. Other predicates, attributable to Him in virtue of His Divinity or of His origin from the Father, receive, as it were, a new shade or colouring when applied to the God-man, and are expressed in a way otherwise unallowable. In some passages, e.g. those relating to the sending of the Son by the Father, all the above causes of difficulties are at work. This Divine mission is entirely unlike human missions; it refers to the Person of the Son either before the Incarnation, or in the Incarnation, or to the functions of His human nature after the Incarnation. In the first two cases the mission is not an act of authority on the part of the Father, but rests simply on the relation of origin between Father and Son. In the last case only such an authority can be understood as is common to Father and Son over the human nature in Christ (cf. infra, § 108). The same reflections apply to all the texts in which the Son is said to “receive” from the Father, to obey Him, to honour Him, or, in general, to acknowledge that the Father is His Divine principle. Such texts admit of various interpretations, which accounts for the diversity of explanations given by the Fathers and the Theologians.

WILHELM, J. – SCANNELL, T. B., A Manual of Catholic Theology: Based on Scheeben’s “Dogmatik”, I, Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co., Ltd.; Benziger Bros., London; New York; Cincinnati; Chicago 1909Fourth Edition, Revised.

The Teaching fo St John and St Paul on Christ’s Divine Sonship

 3. THE TEACHING OF ST. JOHN AND ST. PAUL ON CHRIST’S DIVINE SONSHIP.—The Saviour’s favorite disciple, the meek and gentle John, both in character and temperament differed radically from the fiery Paul; yet their teaching in regard to Christ agrees in every essential detail, and it may be truly said that the Johannine Christology is characterized by a Pauline depth of thought, while the teaching of St. Paul has a distinctly Johannean tinge. Both Apostles are at one in affirming that the Divine Sonship of Christ is a true sonship in the strict sense of the term, and therefore essentially different from the sonship predicated of angels and men..

a) The epithets applied to Jesus by both SS. John and Paul are with quite evident intent so chosen as to exclude absolutely the “sensus improprius.”

Both call Christ His Heavenly Father’s “own Son” (Filius proprius, ἴδιος υἱός). Rom. 8:32: “Qui proprio Filio suo (τοῦ ἰδίου υἱοῦ) non pepercit—He spared not even his own Son.” John 5:18: “Patrem suum (πατέρα ἴδιον) dicebat Deum, aequalem se faciens Deo—Jesus also said God was his Father, making himself equal to God.” He is the Father’s “beloved Son,” into whose kingdom we are translated. He is “the only begotten Son, Who is in the bosom of the Father—Unigenitus Filius (ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός), qui est in sinu Patris,” the Son begotten by the eternal Father.34 This note of unicity, which is especially accentuated by St. John, plainly implies that the Father has no other son but Christ. Consequently Christ is truly the Son of God in precisely the same sense in which God is “true God.” Cfr. 1 John 5:20: “Scimus quoniam Filius Dei (ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ) venit, et dedit nobis sensum, ut cognoscamus verum Deum (τὸν ἀληθινὸν Θεόν) et simus in vero Filio eius—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.”

b) These texts appear still more significant if collated with certain other Scriptural passages, which expressly declare that the Divine Sonship of Christ is a sonship in the strict and proper sense of the term.

If there existed any higher beings who, as “sons of God,” might claim precedence of Christ, they would certainly be the angels of Heaven. Now we have the distinct teaching of St. Paul that the angels are bound to adore Christ as “the Son of God” and “the firstborn of the Father.” Hebr. 1:5 sq.: “Cui enim dixit aliquando angelorum: Filius meus es tu, ego hodie genui te?… Et cum iterum introducit primogenitum (πρωτότοκον) in orbem terrae, dicit: Et adorent eum [sc. Christum] omnes angeli Dei—For to which of the angels hath he said at any time: Thou art my Son, today I have begotten thee.… And when he again bringeth in the first begotten into the world, he saith: And let all the angels of God adore him.” Among the many favored children of grace, especially the prophets and the Lord’s anointed, whom Sacred Scripture sometimes calls “sons of God,” or even “gods,” because of their exalted dignity, in the opinion of the Jews and of St. Paul none was greater than Jehovah’s favorite servant, Moses. And yet St. Paul, comparing him with Christ, says that Moses is merely a “faithful servant in the house of God,” while Jesus is “as the Son in his own house.” It is only in the light of these facts that we are able fully to appreciate the further teaching of SS. John and Paul, that, as the heavenly Fatherhood of God is the prototype of all created paternity, so the Divine Sonship of Christ is the exemplar of all derived or adoptive sonship. Cfr. John 1:12: “Dedit eis potestatem filios Dei fieri, his qui credunt in nomine eius [scil. unigeniti a Patre]—He gave them power to be made the sons of God, to them that believe in his name” (i.e., in the name of the Only-begotten of the Father. John 1:14). Gal. 4:4 sq.: “Misit Deus Filium suum (τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ) … ut adoptionem filiorum (τὴν υἱοθεσίαν) reciperemus—God sent his son … that we might receive the adoption of sons.”

c) The teaching of St. John culminates in the notion of the Divine Logos; that of St. Paul in the cognate conception of Christ as the image of God and splendor of His glory. Cfr. 2 Cor. 4:4: “Imago Dei (εἰκὼν Θεοῦ);” Col. 1:15: “Imago Dei invisibilis.” With an unmistakable allusion to St. John’s teaching on the Divine Logos, the Apostle of the Gentiles defines this “image of the invisible God” as splendor gloriae (ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης) and as figura substantiae eius (χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ)—“the brightness of the glory of God” and “the figure of his substance.”

Of these two terms the former expresses the consubstantiality (homoousia), the latter the personal self-existence of the Son side by side with the Father. Both these truths are also taught in the Fourth Gospel: “The Word was God” and “the Word was with God.” That St. Paul40 employs the phrases “brightness of his glory” and “figure of his substance” not in any creatural sense, but absolutely, is made manifest by the second part of the sentence in which they occur. There he ascribes to Christ none but divine attributes: “Portansque omnia verbo virtutis suae, purgationem peccatorum faciens, sedet ad dexteram maiestatis in excelsis—Upholding all things by the word of his power, making purgation of sins, [Christ] sitteth on the right hand of the majesty on high.” Therefore Christ is the “image of the Divine Substance” in so far as He is strictly and truly the “Son of God,” which further appears from Heb. 1:2: “Diebus istis [Deus] locutus est nobis in Filio, … per quem fecit et saecula—In these days [God] hath spoken to us by his Son, … by whom he also made the world.” While the term ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης represents the Father as “light,” and the Son as the reflection of this light (for this reason He is called lumen de lumine as well as Deus de Deo), the locution χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ complements the former by emphasizing the independent subsistence of the Son of God (i. e., Christ) in His relative opposition to God the Father,—a point which the Fathers of the Church did not fail to insist upon in their early conflicts with Photinus and Sabellius.

d) The Scriptural teaching so far developed furnishes us with a key for interpreting those numerous texts which speak of the primogeniture of Christ.

The “only begotten Son” (unigenitus, μονογενής) alone is and always remains the “firstborn” (primogenitus, πρωτότοκος). No creature can claim to be His equal in birth or dignity. St. Paul’s teaching on this head is most clearly developed in his Epistle to the Colossians. There he distinguishes in Christ a twofold “right of the firstborn”: the one divine, the other human; the former based upon the title of creation, redemption, and final end; the latter on Christ’s prerogative as the mystic head and reconciler of His Church, which consists of sinful men. From the first-mentioned viewpoint He is “primogenitus omnis creaturae (πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως)”; from the point of view mentioned in the second place, He is “primogenitus ex mortuis (πρωτότοκος ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν).” In both respects Christ is no mere creature, but very God. For like unto the Hypostatic Wisdom of the Old Testament,47 He possesses, as “the firstborn of every creature,” an eternal, divine existence, and is equipped with creative power, whereby He has created and upholds the universe together with the realm of angels. As the “firstborn from the dead,” on the other hand, He is “the head of the body [of] the church,” absolute “beginning,” the one “who holds in all things the primacy,” the possessor of “the fullness of all perfection,” and lastly “the reconciling mediator through the blood of His cross, of the things that are on the earth and the things that are in heaven,”—all of which can be true only on the supposition that Christ as the Firstborn is at the same time the true and genuine Son of God, and therefore Himself God.49 According to St. Paul, therefore, Christ’s human primogeniture is based upon His divine primogeniture, which in turn coincides with His unigeniture (primogenitus ═ unigenitus).

POHLE, J. – PREUSS, A., The Divine Trinity: A Dogmatic Treatise, Dogmatic Theology, B. Herder, St. Louis, MO 1915.