Article 2: Of God the Son — His Divine Sonship, Divinity, and the Logos

Article 2: Of God the Son

ARTICLE 2 OF GOD THE SON In the sublime text John I, 14: “Kcu 6 Adyo*

a) Taking the term in a higher sense, man can become a son of God only in the supernatural order, as we shall show in the treatise on Grace, where we speak of Justification. Cfr. Matth. V, 9: ” Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.” But, as Holy Scripture clearly intimates, this supernatural sonship of the creature is not a sonship in the strict sense of the term; it is based on adoption.8 Though this filiatio adoptiva is sharply contrasted with natural sonship,9 inasmuch as the Bible traces it to the fact of the creature’s ” regeneration of God,” 10 nay, even calls it a participation in the Divine Nature,11 it is to be remarked that the last-mentioned two notions never lose their accidental and analogous character, because they are conditioned by sanctifying grace, of which the filiatio adoptiva is the chief formal effect. b) The important question we have here to solve is whether ” Son of God ” is applied to Christ merely as an analogous term. In that case, though He would still outrank God’s other adopted children, Jesus would be no more than a primus inter pares. That He outranks all other men appears clearly enough from the fact that He alone is called in Holy Scripture, 6 vtb* rov ®eov, — the Son of God. There are texts in which mere creatures are referred to as ” sons of God,” but in all these texts the subject is either in the plural,12 or it is a colsAdoptio filiorum, vlodeffta> On supernatural adoption, see Sollier in the Catholic Encyclopedia, I, 148 sqq. 9 Filiatio naturalis. 10 Regeneratio, Gr. waXtyycveaia. Cfr. J. Pohle, s. v. ” Wiedergeburt,” in Herder’s Kirchenlexikon, XII, 1468 sqq., Freiburg 1901. 11 Cfr. 2 Pet. I, 4: ” 6ela$ koivtavol 4>tiac(o$.” 12 Cfr. Job I, 6: ” Filii Dei,” Hebr. fc^K; Rom. VIII, 15: ” Accepistis spiritum adoptionis filiorum Dei — You have received the spirit of adoption of sons.” lective term,15 or an indefinite singular really amounting to a plural.14 The only passage which seems to offer an exception is 2 Kings VII, 15: “Ego ero ei [scil. Salomoni] in patrem, et ipse erit mihi in filium — I will be to him [Solomon] a father, and he shall be to me a son,” but St. Paul expressly interprets this passage as referring typically to Christ: ” Cui dixit aliquando angelorum: … Ego ero Mi in patrem, et ipse erit mihi in filium? — For to which of the angels hath he said at any time: … I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son ? ” 15 In the light of these texts no one can deny that Christ is the Son of God in a higher sense than any angel or man. But there still remains a doubt as to whether Filius Dei is applied to Him as a proper name, or merely as an appellative; that is to say, whether He is the Son of God in the strict or merely in a figurative sense, f. e., by adoption.

2. Christ the Son of God in the Strict Sense of the Term. — The Socinians and the Rationalists, Hugo Grotius among others, allege that Filius Dei is merely an official title of the Messias, bearing ho intrinsic relation to any divine filiation; in other words, that Christ, in virtue of His supernatural birth from the Blessed Virgin Mary,16 is called “Son of God” in a higher, though not in an essentially different sense than other rational creatures. The French Abbe Alls Exod. IV, 22: ” Filius meus as the obedient son of the most primogenitus Israel — Israel is my High.” son, my firstborn.” 15 Heb. I, 5. 14 Ecclus. IV, 11: ” Et eris tu 16 Modern Rationalists notoriously [scil. misericors] velut filius altis- also deny the Virgin Birth. simi obediens — And thou shalt be

fred Loisy adopts this Rationalist error when he writes: “The title ‘Son of God’ was accepted by the Jews, by the Disciples, and by the Saviour Himself as a synonym for ‘Messias.’ ” 17 True, “Son of God” was the official title of the Messias; but it was a title based upon a reality, i. e., Christ’s Divine Sonship in the strict sense of the term. It is a mistake on the part of some Catholic theologians to concede the assertion of Rationalist exegetes that, while the true Divine Sonship of Jesus appears clearly enough from the Apostolic Letters and the Fourth Gospel, it cannot be proved from the Synoptics. The conduct of the Jews and our Saviour’s own reiterated declarations, as recorded in the Gospels of St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke, clearly prove the contrary. a) Though the Jews knew, and could not help knowing from their own sacred writings, that the future Messias would be God Himself, they were not accustomed to refer to Him of their own accord as “God/’ or “Son of God.” They called Him either “son of David,” 18 or “King of Israel,” 19 or “the Prophet,” 20 or “the Messias,” that is Christ = xp«nw). Nevertheless XI L’£vangile et L’Gglise, p. 62, especially pp. 320 sqq. as bearing on Paris 1902. Against Loisy see M. the point here under consideration. Lepin’s scholarly work Christ and 18 Cfr. Matth. IX, 27; XII, 23; the Gospel, or Jesus the Messiah XX, 30; XXI, 9; Mark XI, 10. and Son of God, Authorized Eng- 19 Matth. XXVII, 42. lish edition, Philadelphia 1910. See 20 John I, 21: VI, 14; VII, 40. V they logically concluded from Christ’s repeated references to Himself as Son of God, that He claimed with the Godhead, in other words, true Divinity.21 Similarly the Synoptics, by weaving into their story sayings that can apply to none other than the Son of God in the strictest sense of the term, or by accompanying their profession of faith in the “true Son of God” with a latreutic act of adoration, plainly demonstrate that they mean to apply the name to Jesus in its proper, not in a figurative, sense. When He was baptized in the Jordan,22 there came a voice from heaven, saying: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. The Greek text has: Outo? «mv 6 vto? pov 6 dycwnyTos, repeating the definite article to emphasize the unique role of the Son. Before the institution, or, more correctly, before the promise of the primacy, Peter had first to profess his faith in the Divine Sonship of Jesus. Matth. XVI, 15 sqq.: “Whom do you say that I am? Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God (

mean: “Thou art not only the Christ, i. e., the Messias, but likewise the true Son of God.” This view is confirmed by our Saviour’s reply: “Beatus es, Simon Bar Iona, quia caro et sanguis non revelavit tibi, sed Pater meus, qui in coelis est — Blessed art thou, Simon BarJona, because flesh and blood [i. e., human reason] hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.” That is to say, Peter’s knowledge and his profession of faith in Christ’s Divine Sonship was owing to a direct revelation and the grace of faith.23 When the Disciples in the midst of the sea saw Jesus stretching out His hand and saving Peter, who at His Master’s bidding had ventured upon the angry waves, they were overpowered by the glorious miracle and “adored Him, saying: Indeed thou art the son of God.” 24 b) This argument is supported by Christ’s own testimony. The Synoptics tell us as distinctly as do SS. John and Paul, that not only did He always and everywhere assert His Divine Sonship, but He finally sealed it with His blood. When Caiphas adjured Him by the living God, saying: “Tell us if thou be the Christ the son of God,” 25 Jesus solemnly replied: “Thou hast 23 Cfr. Schanz, Kommentar Uber raverunt eum dicentes: Vere Filius das Evangelium des hi. Matthaus, Dei es (dXrjO&s Qeov vlbs cZ).” P. 375. Mainz 1879. 25 El ait el 6 Xpiar6st 6 vlbs rov 24Matth. XIV, 33: ” Qui autem GeoO. in navicula erant, venerunt et adoCHRIST’S DIVINE SONSHIP 55 said it.” 26 And when, in confirmation of His oath, the Saviour significantly assured His questioner that he would yet see Him sitting on the right hand of the power of God, and coming in the clouds of heaven to judge mankind, “the high priest rent his garments, saying: He hath blasphemed.,, 27 In asserting His Divine Sonship, therefore, Christ asserted His Divinity, and the Sanhedrin, regarding this assertion as blasphemous, acted with perfect consistency when they condemned Him to an ignominious death. According to the Gospel of St. Luke, they “brought him into their council, saying: If thou be the Christ, tell us — Si tu es Christus, die nobis/’ 28 and when Jesus had assured them that He would sit “on the right hand of the power of God,” they asked Him: “Art thou then the Son of God? (oh oiv d 6 vto? rov ©cou) ?” and He firmly and definitely answered: “You say that I am (vfuU Acy€T€, on cyw €t/«).” Whereupon He was led to Pilate, and they accused Him of claiming that He was “Christ the king,” 29 and that “He made Himself the Son of God.” 30 It is not too much to say, therefore, that Christ laid down His life for the truth of His solemn affirmation that He was really and truly “the Son of God.” The «2i> cZra*«Yes. 27 Matth. XXVI, 63 sqq. 28 Luke XXII, 66 sq. 20 Luke XXIII, 2: Dixit s Christum regem esse.’* so John XIX, 7: Filium Dei se fecit.” 56 THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT Fourth Gospel and the Epistles of St. Paul verify, continue, and complete the story of the Synoptics.81 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 irnproprius” Both call Christ His Heavenly Father’s “own Son” (Filius proprius, 1810s vtds). Rom. VIII, 32: Qui proprio Filio suo (tov l&lov vlov) non pepercit — He spared not even his own Son. John V, 18: ” Pat rem suutn liraTepa t&ov) dicebat Deum, aequalem se faciens Deo — Jesus also said God was his Father, making himself 81 Cfr. B. Bartmann, Das Himmelreich und sein Konig nach den Synoptikern, pp. 107 sqq., Paderborn 1904; M. Lepin, Christ and the Gospel, pp. 394 sqq. equal to God.” He is the Father’s ” beloved Son,” into whose kingdom we are translated.82 He is “the only begotten Son, Who is in the bosom, of the Father — Unigenitus Filius (6 ixovoyevrp vtos), qui est in sinu Patris” 83 the Son begotten by the eternal Father.84 This note of unicity, which is especially accentuated by St. John, plainly implies that the Father has no other son but Christ.36 Consequently Christ is truly the Son of God in precisely the same sense in which God is ” true God.” Cfr. 1 John V, 20: ” Scimus quoniam Filius Dei (6 vtos tov 0cov) venit, et dedit nobis sensum, ut cognoscamus verum Deum (tov aXrjOivov ®c6v) 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. I, 5 sq.: ” Cui enim dixit aliquando angelorum: Filius meus es tu, ego hodie genui tef … Et cum iterum introducit primogenitum (irpwro32 Cfr. Col. I, 13: * Qui nos 83 John I, 18; cfr. Lepin, op. tit., transtulit in regnum Filii dilectionis pp. 330 sqq. suae (a Hebraism for: Filii di- 34 Hcbr. V, 5. Cfr. Ps. II, 7. lecti sui; cfr. 2 Pet I, 17). 35 Cfr. John I, 14; III, 16, 18; 1 John IV, 9.

tokov) 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 again, when he 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. T 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 I, 12: ” Dedit eis potestatem filios Dei fieri, his qui creduni 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 I, 14) . Gal. IV, 4 sq.: * Misit Deus Filium suum (t6v vthv abrov) … ut adoptionem Uliorum {rqv vlodv alav) 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 86 Cfr. Dcut XXXIV, 10; Heb. [sc. Dei] tatnquam famulus (&s III, 1 iqq. Qep&iruv), . . • Christus vero tarn 87 Heb. Ill, 5 iq.i * Et Moyses quatn Filius in domo sua (&j vU>% quidtm fid * Us trot in iota domo eius M rbv qIkqv atirov)*

CHRIST’S. DIVINE SONSHIP the cognate conception of Christ as the image of God and splendor of His glory. Cfr. 2 Cor. IV, 4: “Imago Dei (“o>v Col. I, 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 (^airavyanfia t^s 8o&p) and as iigura substantiae eius (xa-pa-KTnp Trp virocrrddtnys avrov) “the brightness of the glory of God” and “the figure of his substance.” 38 Of these two terms the former expresses the (homoousia), the latter the personal selfexistence of the Son side by side with the Father. Both these truths are also taught in the Fourth Gospel: 89 ” The Word was God ” and ” the Word was with God.” That St. Paul 40 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.41 There he ascribes to Christ none but divine attributes: ” Portansque omnia verbo virtutis suae, purgationem peccatorum faciens, sedet ad dexter am 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.” 42 Therefore Christ is the ” image of the Divine Substance * in so far as He is strictly and truly the * Son of God,” which further 38 Heb. I, 3. xaPaKT^Pt cn Lcbreton, Les Ori89 John I, 1. gines du Dogme de la Triniti, p. 40 Hcb. I, 3. 348. 41 On the terms drrafryaafia and 42 Heb. I, 3. 5

appears from Heb. I, 2: ” Diebus istis [Deus] locutus est nobis in Filio, … per quern fecit et saecula — In these days [God] hath spoken to us by his Son, … by whom he also made the world.” 43 While the term 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),4* the locution xaPaKi:hp Woorao-cws avrov 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, povoyevrj?) alone is and always remains the ” firstborn ” (primogenitus, irpuTOTOKos) .45 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 43 Cfr. John I, 10, 3. 44Cfr. W. Humphrey, S. J., ” His Divine Majesty/’ pp. 433 sq., London 1897. 5 ” HpurSroKOS is not an exact translation of Primogenitus, though Homer, as Petavius says, may use tIktw for gigno. It is never used in Scripture for Only-begotten. We never read there of the First-born of God, or of the Father; but Firstborn of the creation, whether the original creation or the new.” — Newman, ” Causes of the Rise and Successes of Arianism ” in Tracts Theol, and Eccles., p. 204 n., London 1895. CHRIST’S DIVINE SONSHIP 6! 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 * primogcnitus omnis creaturae (ttpwtotokos irdar^ fCTto-ccos); from the point of view mentioned in the second place, He is * primogenitus ex mortuis (irpvTOTOKo*; Ik twv v€Kpwv) .* 46 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.48 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) .60

4. The of the Son of God with God. — In the Scriptural texts we 46 Col. I, 13 sqq. On the term 48 Col. I, 15-17. vptardroKOS see Lebreton, op. tit., 49 Col. I, 18-20. 47Cfr. Ecclus. XXIV, 5: ” Pri- Cfr. J. Lebreton, Les Origines du mogenita ante omnem creaturam — Dogme de la Trinity, pp. 30a sqq., Wisdom, the firstborn before all 397 sqq. creatures/’ pp. 302 sqq. BO Cfr. Heb. I, 5 sqq.; Apoc. I, 5.

have cited, the Divinity which is communicated to the Son by His divine y«wyns from the Father is not founded upon Ditheism, or the existence of two coequal gods, but on the numerical identity of the Divine Nature. This conclusion, which flows so manifestly from the monotheistic character of both the Old and the New Testament, is expressly confirmed in the Epistle to the Philippians,61 where St. Paul draws a neat distinction between the ” form of a servant ” (forma servi, fwPrj Sovkov) and the ” form of God ” (forma Dei, fwprj ©cov). By the former he means the truly human, and by the latter the truly divine nature of Jesus Christ, in the possession of which the Son of God is consubstantial or coequal with God (aequalis Deo, laa ®c#)« ” Qui [sciL Christus] cum in forma Dei esset, non rapinam arbitratus est, esse se aequalem Deo, sed semetipsum exinanivit formam servi accipiens … et habitu inventus ut homo — Christ Jesus, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant … and in habit found as a man.” — “Forma servi” in this context can mean nothing else than the human nature which the Son of God ” assumed,” 62 and in virtue of which He was ” found as a man.” ” Forma Dei,” on the other hand, plainly signifies the Divine Nature, which Christ possessed before he “took the form of a servant ” and before He ” emptied Himself,” and which to claim He did not need to think robbery, i. e., unjust usurpation. It is immaterial whether we take ” rapina” 51 Phil. II, 5 sqq. was made flesh, and dwelt among 52 John I, 14: “And the Word us.”

in its active sense as ” actus rapiendi,” or objectively as ” res rapta” 68 B. The Divinity of Christ If Christ is truly the Son of God, no special argument is required to show that He is Divine. Yet as Holy Scripture, aside from those passages which prove Christ’s Divine Sonship, also contains a number of texts which expressly assert His Divinity, it will be well to study these separately and to show how they confirm our thesis. We shall divide them into three distinct groups.

1. The Divine Attributes of Christ. — A being that possesses divine attributes and performs divine acts, is truly divine. Christ, according to the New Testament Revelation, possesses divine attributes and performs divine acts. Consequently He is true God. The major premise of this syllogism, being merely a descriptive definition of God, needs no proof. From out of the profusion of Scriptural texts which can be cited in support of the minor, we select the following. 53 Cfr. St. Chrysostom, Horn, in an die Philipper, Freiburg 1899. — Philip., 7, n. 2: ” Hoc, inquam, The dogma of Christ’s Divine Sonex** aequalem Deo, non ex rapina ship is ably defended against the habuit, sed a natura, quamobretn attacks of the Modernists by M. seipsum exinanivit.” For a full Lepin, Christ and the Gospel (Engelucidation of Phil. II, 5 sqq., see Hsh tr.), pp. 263 sqq., Philadelphia K. J. Muller, Brief des hi. Paulus 19 10. a) The New Testament predicates self-existence, which is the fundamental attribute of the Godhead, in the same terms of Christ in which the Old Testament predicates it of Jehovah. Jesus said to St. John: 64 ” Noli timere, ego sum primus et novissimus (6 irpuTos ko\ 6 c^aro?) et vivus et fui mortuus — Fear not, I am the first and the last, and alive, and was dead.” 56 As causa prima the avTovaios is per se and by intestine necessity the finis ultimus of all creation. Now Christ says of Himself:56 “Ego sum a et w, primus et novissimus, principium et finis — I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.” Similarly St. Paul: 67 ” Tot irdvra hi ovtov Kal eh avrbv (Lktixttol — All things were created by him and in him.” Because of His aseity God is incomprehensible to the created intellect. Christ shares in this incomprehensibility. On the other hand He possesses a truly comprehensive knowledge of the Father. Cfr. Matth. XI, 27: “Nemo novit (cViyuwKci) Filium nisi Pater, … neque Patrem quis novit (cViyow/cci) nisi Filius, et cut voluerit Filius revelare — No one knoweth the Son but the Father: neither doth any one know the Father but the Son, and he to whom it shall please the Son to reveal him.” Note that the verb C7nyuw#cciv is stronger than simple yuw#c€tv; it denotes that comprehensive knowledge which is proper to the infinite God.58 b) Chief among God’s transcendental attributes of being is His absolute truth. Now Christ is the absolute, living Truth, as He Himself testifies: “Ego sum via et veriias et vita (fj aX^Oaa Kal r; fa^) — I am the 54 Apoc. I, 17 sqq. 56 Cfr. Apoc. II, 8. For comparison also read Is. XLI, 4: “Ego nirP primus et novissimus ego sum — I the Lord, I am the first and the last.” B6 Apoc. XXII, 13. 57 Col. I, 16. 58 Cfr. 1 Cor. XIII, 12 way, and the truth, and the life.”69 This (truth-) life is communicated to Him in virtue of His eternal generation by the Father; hence it is a divine life, and as such self-existent in character. John V, 26: ” Sicut enim Pater habet vitam in semetipso (cv iavrti), sic dedit [i. e., generando cotnmunicavit] et Filio habere vitam in semetipso (iv lavrw) — For as the Father hath life in himself, so he hath given to the Son also to have life in himself.” This process of communication, therefore, results in a differentiation, not of nature or essence, but of persons only. Cfr. 1 John I, 2: ” Annuntiamus vobis vitam aeternam (ttjv i

misit, verax (aXrjOrp) est; et ego, quae audivi ab eo, haec loquor in mundo — He that sent me is true: and the things I have heard of him, these same I speak in the world.* For this reason, too, He is absolute fidelity. Cfr. Matth. XXIV, 35: * Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.” Apoc. XIX, 1 1: ” Fidelis et verax — Faithful and true.” Apoc. Ill, 14: ” Haec dicit Amen, testis fidelis et verax, qui est principium creaturae Dei — These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, who is the beginning of the creation of God.” Christ’s substantial sanctity coincides with His ethical goodness and is based on His Divine Sonship. Cfr. Luke I, 35: ” Quod nascetur ex te Sanctum, vocabitur Filius Dei — The Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.* 62 In virtue of the Hypostatic Union His divine sanctity overflows into the human race. Cfr. Heb. VII, 26: * Talis enim decebat, ut nobis esset pontifex, sanctus, innocens, impollutus, segregatus a peccatoribus et excelsior coelis f actus — For it was fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners, and made higher than the heavens.” 63 c) Among God’s categorical attributes of being is omnipotence, which in the natural order manifests itself in the creation and preservation of the universe, while in the supernatural sphere it works miracles by its own power. In both respects Christ has given irrefragable proofs of His Divinity. He is, in the first place, the creator and preserver of the universe. Col. I, 16 sq.: 62 Cfr. Apoc. Ill, 7: Sanctus 63 This subject will be treated at et verus — The Holy one and the length in Christology. True one.

“In ipso (cv avT$) condita sunt universa in coelis et in terra, visibilia et invisibilia, sive throni sive dominationes sive principatus sive potestates: omnia per ipsum (81’ ovtov) et in ipso (cfe ovtov) creata sunt, et ipse est ante omnes (wpo icovTOiv) et omnia in ipso constant — For in him were all things created in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, or dominations, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him and in him, and he is before all, and by him all things consist.” This text contains three separate and distinct propositions: (1) All things were created in the Son; that is to say, according to the counsels of Christ and in virtue of His omnipotence. (2) All things were made through the Son (per ipsum), i. e., the Son was not merely the instrument of creation, but its true creative cause.64 (3) All things were made in reference to the Son (cfe ovtov), that is to say, He is the final end of the whole created universe. Consequently He is true God, and as such “before all ” (ante omnes) i. e., eternal, and at the same time the preserver of the universe. Heb. I, 3: * Portans omnia verbo virtutis suae — Upholding all things by the word of his power.* Holy Scripture throughout both Testaments regards the working of signs and miracles in one’s own name and by one’s own power as a sure proof of omnipotence. The miracles of Christ proceed from His own omnipotence, not from any derived or communicated power; — except in this sense that God the Father has communicated this power to Him as His Son by a truly divine yiwrj(n

— The Son cannot do any thing of himself, but what he seeth the Father doing: for what things soever he doth, these the Son also doth in like manner.* In this sense Christ possesses the power of raising the dead. John V, 21: * Sicut Pater suscitat mortuos et vivificat, sic et Filius, quos vult, vivificat — For as the Father raiseth up the dead and giveth life: so the Son also giveth life to whom he will.” Therefore He is able to say: ” Et ego resuscitabo eum (a.vao’TTjO’u) ovtov cyo>) Ifl flOVtSSlfHO die — And I will raise him up in the last day.* 65 When the leper adored him, Christ did not object. Matth. VIII, 2 sqq.: * Et ecce leprosus veniens adorabat eum (irpovtKvvti auTw), dicens: Domine, si vis, potes me mundare. Et extendens Iesus manum, tetigit eum dicens: Volo, mundare — And behold a leper came and adored him, saying: Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean. And Jesus stretching forth his hand, touched him, saying: I will, be thou made clean.” Christ’s omnipotence is the source of the universal sovereignty to which He lays claim. As God alone is Lord of life and death, heaven and hell, so Christ holds ” the keys of death and of hell.” Apoc. I, 18: ” Et habeo claves mortis et inferni” 66 He is the TravTOKpaTwp 67 to whom all creatures, including the angels, are subject,68 and as such is ” the Lord of lords, and King of kings.” Apoc. XVII, 14: Agnus vincet illos, quoniam dominus dominorum est et rex regum 69 As we have but one God the Father, so we have but one Lord Jesus Christ. I Cor. VIII, 6: “Nobis tamen unus est Deus Pater, ex quo omnia et nos in ilium, et unus Dominus (els /cvpios) Iesus Christus, per quern omnia et nos per ipsum (8ia ov ra 65 John VI, 40. 68 1 Pet. Ill, 22. •6 Cfr. also Apoc. Ill, 7. 6» Cfr. also Apoc. XIX, 16. 67 Apoc. I, 8.

irdvra Kal r^uU hC avrov) — 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.” Two other divine attributes not shared by any creature are absolute immutability, and eternity which flows therefrom. Both of these are ascribed by Holy Scripture to Christ. What the Psalmist says of the immutability of Jehovah,70 ” Ipsi peribunt, tu autem permanes — They shall perish, but thou remainest,,, St. Paul applies without limitation to Jesus.71 That Christ is eternal can be deduced from the Scriptural teaching that He existed before time. John the Baptist confessed: 72 ” He was before me (Trpwro’s pov rjv),” and Christ Himself confirmed this assertion by His solemn declaration: 78 ” Antequam Abraham fieret, ego sum (irplv ‘APpa&ix yevevOaiy cyw ci/u) — Before Abraham was made, I am.” St. Augustine commentates this text as follows: ” Non dixit: antequam Abraham esset, ego eram, sed: antequam Abraham fieret, qui nisi per me non fieret, ego sum. Neque hoc dixit: antequam Abraham fieret, ego factus sum. In principio enim fecit Deus coelum et terram; nam in principio erat Verbum. Antequam Abraham fieret, ego sum. Agnoscite creatorem, discernite creaturam — He said not, Before Abraham was, I was; but, Before Abraham was made (and he could not be made but by Me), I am. Neither said he this: Before Abraham was made, I was made. For, In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth: namely, in the beginning was the Word. Before Abraham was made, I am. Acknowledge the Creator, discern the creature.” 74 Cfr. 70 Ps. CI, 27 sqq. 73 John VIII, 58. 71 Hcb. I, 10 sqq. 74 Tractatus in Ioa., 43, n» 17. 72 John I, 15. Browne’s translation, I, 586.

also the famous passage in Christ’s prayer for His disciples: 75 ” Et nunc clarified me tu, Pater, apud temetipsum claritate, quam habui prius, quam mundus esset, apud te (777 $o£r/, rj d\ov irpo tov tov Kovfiov elvcu, icapa croi) — And now glorify thou me, O Father, with thyself, with the glory which I had, before the world was, with thee.” As Cardinal Toletus pertinently observes, this passage has reference to the divine glory which Christ enjoyed as God together with His Father from all eternity. Therefore His Ascension was merely a return to ” where he was before,” 76 or, more correctly, where “He always is.” Cfr. John III, 13: “Nemo ascendit in coelum, nisi qui descendit de coelo, Filius hominis, qui est in coelo — And no man hath ascended into heaven, but he that descendeth from heaven, the Son of man who is in heaven.” 77 Hence for Christ to be ” in Heaven ” means to be •” in the bosom of the Father,” i. e., to be the true Son of God from all eternity. Eternity for Him is merely the past, present, and future combined in an unchanging life. Heb. XIII, 8: * Iesus Christus heri et hodie, ipse et in saecula — Jesus Christ, yesterday, and to-day, and the same for ever.* In His relation to space, and to the world of pure spirits, Christ is endowed with omnipresence, and particularly with that power of indwelling in the souls of the just which is peculiar to God. St. Paul probably means to emphasize His omnipresence when he says:78 “Qui descendit, ipse est et qui ascendit super omnes coelos, ut impleret omnia (Iva ir\rfpw

the phrase to ” fill all things ” is meant to indicate the fulfilment of the prophecies relating to Christ’s Ascension. Cf r. John XIV, 23: n Pater meus diliget eum, et ad eum veniemus et mansionem apud eum (pjovqv trap* avTw) faciemus — My Father will love him, and we will come to him, and will make our abode with him.” No mere creature could, without committing blasphemy, thus put himself on a level with God, and promise to indwell with God in the souls of the just; and none but God Himself could solemnly promise: ” Et ecce ego vobiscum sum omnibus diebus usque ad consummationem saeculi — And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.7* Only a believer in the Divinity of Jesus can exclaim with St. Paul: * Vivit veto in me Christus — But Christ liveth in me.* 80 d) Among the operative attributes of God the most important is probably omniscience. As God alone can adequately comprehend His own Essence, so likewise only a truly divine Son can adequately comprehend the divine Father. Cfr. John X, 15: ” Sicut novit (yuwicci) me Pater, et ego agnosco (yiva>cr/ca>) Pattern — As the Father knoweth me, I know the Father.” And again: “Ego scio eum (eya> olSa avrov), quia ab ipso sum (wap* avrov €ifii), et ipse me misit — I know him, because I am from him, and he hath sent me.”81 This argues an intimate knowledge such as no creature can. possess. John VI, 46: ” Non quia Patrem vidit quisquam, nisi is qui est a Deo (« firj 6 &v wapa rov (Steov), hie vidit Patrem (ovtos iwpatce rov iraripa) — Not that any man hath seen the Father; but he who is of God, he hath seen the Father.” This intuitive vision has its source in 79 Matth. XXVIII, 20. Cfr. also 80 Gal. II, 20. John XIV, 16; XV, 5 sqq.; XVI, 13 si John VII, 29. •qq.

Christ’s divine ylwqai*. Civ. John I, 18: ” Deum nemo vidit unquam; unigenitus Filius, qui est in sinu Patris, ipse enarravit — No man hath seen God at any time: the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.” Christ’s divine selfcomprehension necessarily implies an adequate knowledge of all things external to the Godhead. For if, as St. Paul assures us, * in him dwelleth all the fulness of thev Godhead corporeally,* 82 it is evident that * in him are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.* 88 It is by this standard, therefore, that His knowledge of all things, even the most hidden, must be gauged. Thus He was able to assure Nathanael: ” Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee.” 84 Whereupon the new Apostle, struck by Christ’s wonderful knowledge, exclaimed: ” Thou art the Son of God, thou art the King of Israel.” 85 If cardiognosis is an exclusive prerogative of the Godhead,86 Christ is true God. For He applied to Himself the words of Jeremiah: “I am the Lord who search the heart,” 87 when He said: ” All the churches shall know that I am he that searcheth the reins and hearts.”88 More than once in fact did He demonstrate that He possessed this attribute of Divinity. Cfr. Luke IX, 47: “At Iesus videns cogitationes cordis illorum 82 Col. II, 9: “In ipso inhabitat tmnis plenitudo divinitatis corporahter (h air$ Karoucei vav to irXtpu/xa t^j 6c6ttitos aufiart83 Col. II, 3: In quo [Christo] sunt omnes thesauri sapientiae et sciential absconditi. 84 John I, 48: * Priusquam te Philip pus vocarett cum esses sub ficu, vidi te.’* 85 John I, 49: * Tu es Filius Dei, $u es rex Israel.” 86 As we have shown in the first volume of this series, God: His Knowability, Essence, and Attributes, pp. 359 sqq. 87jer. XVII, 10: “Ego Dominus Jflfp scrutans cor et probans renes” 88 Apoc. II, 23: * Et scient omnes ecclesiae, quia ego sum scrutans renes et cor da.* (tSwv tov 8uL\oyi(Tfwv Trj? KapStas avrwv) — But Jesus seeing the thoughts of their heart.” With vision wondrous clear He foresees free future events, as, e. g., His betrayal at the hands of Judas, Peter’s denial, the flight of His disciples, His Passion, Resurrection, and Ascension, the destruction of Jerusalem, etc. His ” Woe to thee, Corozain, woe to thee, Bethsaida ” 89 shows that He also possesses the scientia futuribilium.90 2. Christ’s Title to Divine Honors. — No mere creature can claim divine honors without incurring the awful crime of idolatry. But Christ claims and receives divine honors. Therefore, He is true God. This syllogism rests on the supposition — which it is the business of N apologetics to prove — that Christ was neither an . impostor nor a megalomaniac, but, on the contrary, a morally altogether superior and physically normal being. We also assume it as a datum furnished by fundamental theology,91 that His Apostles and Disciples were neither fools nor knaves, but men who knew the facts of Christ’s career and who were sincere in worshipping Him as God. a) Christ laid claim to divine honors. John V, 22 sq.: “Pater … omne indicium dedit Filio, ut omnes honorificent Filium, sicut honorificant Patrewi (fva Travrcs Ti/Maai tov viov, /ca0a>s TtftaJct tov TraTtpa) 80 Matth. XI, 21 sqq. sence, and Attributes, pp. 361 sqq. 80 On the ” scientia futuribilium/’ 01 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, op. ext., pp. as a divine attribute, see Pohle- 7 sq. Preuss, God: His Knowability, Es74 THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT — The Father … hath given all judgment to the Son, that all men may honor the Son, as they honor the Father.” Here Jesus plainly exacts for Himself, as Son, the same worship which He demands for His Father. The context proves that the adverb KaOw is meant to express not merely similitude but equality; for in the same chapter of St. John’s Gospel from which the passage is taken, Christ distinctly asserts and defends His coequality with the Father, and ” the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he … said God was his Father, making himself equal to God.” 02 He never was known to refuse divine worship when offered to Him, but accepted it without protest.98 His Apostles, too, particularly St. Paul and St. John, insist that Christ is entitled to divine honors. Rom. XIV, 10 sq.: ” Omnes enim stabimus ante tribunal Christi; scriptum est enim: Vivo ego, dicit Dominus, quoniam mihi Hectetur omne genu et omnis lingua conhtebitur Deo — We shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. For it is written: As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.”94 This can only mean that all men will one day appear before the judgment seat of Jesus Christ and be compelled to worship Him as God. The same thought is expressed yet more effec tively in another Pauline text: 95 ” Donavit Mi nomen, quod est super omne nomen, ut in nomine Iesu omne genu Hectatur coelestium, terrestrium et infernorum; et omnis lingua confiteatur, quia Dominus Iesus Christus in gloria est Dei Patris — 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 02 John V, 1 8. M Cfr. Is. XLV, 23 »q. 93Cfr. Matth. XIV, 33; VIII, 2 95 Phil. II, 9 «Qq. #» a/.

earth, and under the earth; and that every tongue should confess that the Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father.,, 06 If Christ is true God, then the prayers directed to Him must be equally efficacious as those addressed to the Father. Holy Scripture plainly teaches that they are. John XIV, 13: ” Quodcunque petieritis Pattern in nomine meo, hoc faciam [not: faciet], ut glorificetur Pater in Filio — Whatsoever you shall ask the Father in my name, that will I do: that the Father may be glorified in the Son.” John XIV, 14: “Si quid petieritis me in nomine meo, hoc faciam — If you shall ask me any thing in my name, that will I do.” In the hour of death no man may, without grievous sin, commend his soul to any creature. Christ commends His into the hands of His Heavenly Father. Luke XXIII, 46: “Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit.” And the dying protomartyr Stephen unhesitatingly cries out: ” Domine Iesu, suscipe spiritum meum — Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” 97 b) The Godhead is the sole formal object of the three theological virtues. But Holy Scripture represents Christ as a Supreme Being, to whom all men owe faith, hope, and charity. Consequently, He is true God. Jesus Himself requires men to believe in Him with the same faith which they have in God. In this connection it is well to remember that there is an important distinction between credere alicui and credere in aliquem. We may 96 On the adoration of the ” slain Lamb,” i. e., Christ in Heaven, cfr. Apoc. V, 1 1- 1 3. 07 Acts VII, 58. 6 r

believe a creature, but we believe in God alone. Cfr. John XIV, i: ” Creditis in Deum, et in me credite (7rtOT€V€Tc cts tov cov, #c ouScvt) salus; nec enim aliud nomen est sub coelo datum hominibus, in quo oporteat nos salvos fieri — Neither is there salvation in any other; for there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved.” 99 Christ is likewise the object of that theological charity (“amor super omnia”) to which God alone can lay claim. Matth. X, 37: ” He that loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me.* Whatever interferes with the love of Christ is to be treated as an obstacle in the way of salvation. Luke XIV, 26: *Si quis venit ad me et non odit patrem suum et matrem et uxorem et filios et fratres et sorores, adhuc autem et ani•8 x Tim. I, 1: ” Paulus, apo- formation on this point we must stolus Iesu Christi, … spei no- refer the student to the dogmatic strae.” treatise on Grace. 99 Acts IV, 12. For further in 

mam suam, non potest esse mens discipulus — If any man come to me and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.” The Father rewards us with His love if we love Christ. Cf r. John XIV, 23: ” Si quis diligit me, … et Pater mens diliget eum, et ad eum veniemus et mansionem apud eum faciemus — If any one love me, … my father will love him, and we will come to him and make our abode with him.” 100 St. Paul’s anathema against all those who ” love not our Lord Jesus Christ,” 101 would be wantonly criminal if Christ were not true God. And it is only on this same assumption that the love of Christ can be called * a life in Christ.* Phil. I, 21: * Mihi enim vivere Christus est, et mori lucrum — For to me, to live is Christ: and to die is gain.* 2 Cor. V, 14 sq.: ” Caritas enim Christi urget nos, … ut et qui vivunt, iam non sibi vivant, sed ei, qui pro ipsis mortuus est et resurrexit — For the charity of Christ presseth us, … that they also who live, may not now live to themselves, but unto him who died for them and rose again.” St. Paul boldly identifies “caritas Christi” with “caritas Dei,* and says, nothing should separate us from it. Rom. VIII, 35 sqq.: *Quis ergo nos separabit a caritate Christi ? Tribulatio, an angustia, an fames, an nuditas, an periculum, an persecutio, an gladius? … Certus sum enim, quia neque mors neque vita neque angeli … neque creatura alia poterit nos separare a caritate Dei, quae est in Christo Iesu Domino nostro — Who then shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall 100 Cfr. also John XIV,

21. Christum, sit anathema — If any 101 1 Cor. XVI, 22: * Si quis man love not our Lord Jesus Christ, non amat Dominum nostrum lesum let him be anathema.*

tribulation? or distress? or famine? or nakedness? or danger? or persecution? or the sword? … For I am sure that neither death nor life nor angels … nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Consequently Christ and God are one. c) Christ’s adorableness, and consequently His Divinity, can be demonstrated also from the fact that Baptism is conferred in His name conjointly with that of the Father and We shall not enter into the Scholastic controversy whether by a special privilege the Apostles baptized in the name of Christ only, instead of employing the Trinitarian formula which Jesus Himself gave to them, as recorded in the twenty-eighth chapter of St. Matthew’s Gospel.102 This and other similar questions do not concern us here. They belong to the dogmatic treatise on Baptism. The very fact that Baptism used to be called * Baptism in Christ’s name * is proof that the early Christians believed in the Divinity of our Lord. Nor does it make the slightest difference whether the Sacrament was originally administered ” hn r

e ovo/um tov Irjaov Xpurrov,” 104 for both formulas clearly emphasize the authority and power of Christ to forgive sins; — or ” ch to ovofxa tov Kvplov ‘Irjaov” 105 which particularly accentuates the consecration and devotion of the 101 A brief account of this con- ios Acts II, 38. trovcrsy will be found in Fr. Fan- i04Acts X, 48. ning*s article on ” Baptism ” in the 105 Acts VIII, 16. Catholic Encycloptdia, Vol. II, p. 263.

baptized convert to Jesus as man’s final end. In matter of fact no man could without committing idolatry allow himself to be baptized in the name of any creature; for no one but God can forgive sins and exact absolute subjection and divine worship. Cfr. 1 Cor. I, 13: ” Numquid Paulus crucifixus est pro vobisf Aut in nomine Pauli baptizati estisf — Was Paul crucified for you? or were you baptized in the name of Paul? ” 3. Holy Scripture Expressly Calls Christ “God.” — Having demonstrated the Divinity of Christ, it will serve to confirm our argument to note that Holy Scripture in several places expressly refers to Him as God. a) If the Tetragrammaton rop is God’s incommunicable proper name, which expresses His Divine Essence,106 then a Being that is identical with the Old Testament Yahweh must be true God. Now Jesus Christ is identical with the Old Testament Yahweh. Therefore He is true God. In his Epistle to the Hebrews, St. taul says: ” Et cum iterum introducit primogenitum [sc. Christum] in orbem terrae, dicit: Et adorent eum omnes angeli — And again, when he bringeth in the first begotten into the world, he saith: And let all the angels of God adore him.” 107 This text not only proves that Christ is true God; it also proves that He is Yahweh. For, in the passage which St. Paul here quotes,108 the 108 See Pohle-Preuss, God: His 107 Heb. I, 6. Knowability, Essence, and Attri- 108 Ps. XCVI, 7. butes, pp. 135 8qq. Psalmist describes how Jehovah appeared on earth for the purpose of founding a kingdom; how He reappears as the terrible Judge; how the heavens declare His justice and all the people behold His glory, and how those are confounded who adore graven things and glory in their idols. Then there follows the exhortation (verse 7): ” Adore him (i. c, nw ), all you angels.” Consequently Christ is the Jehovah of whom David speaks in this Psalm. We read in the Messianic Psalm XLIV, which is ascribed to the sons of Core: * Sedes tua, Deus ( Dv6«) in saeculum saeculi — Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever.* 109 The Rationalist exegetes, who take the word Deus in this text for a nominative instead of a vocative, disregard both the dignity of God and Scriptural usage. If their interpretation were correct, the meaning of the text would be: Thy seat, or throne (i. e., according to the Rationalist conception, the throne of an earthly king), is God Himself for ever and ever. Though Holy Scripture sometimes refers to creatures (e. g., heaven and hell, angels and men) as the seat or throne of God, it nowhere designates God as the seat or throne of man, e. g., of an earthly prince. This interpretation is positively untenable in the light of Heb. I, 8: “Ad Filium [scil. Christum] autem dicit: Thronus tuus, Deus, in saeculum saeculi (6 Opovo? aov, 6 0co5, ets rov cuwva tov awSvos),” where the text Ps. XLIV, 7 is used to show Christ’s superiority over the angels. That St. Paul intends 6 ®co’s for a vocative is plain from New Testament Greek usage, as the student may see from a comparison of such texts as Matth. XI, 26; 100 Ps. XLIV, 7. On this pas- S. J., Christ in Typ* and Prophecy, sage, and the whole Psalm of which Vol. II, pp. 36 sqq., New York it forms a part, cfr. A. J. Maas, 2895.

Mark V, 41; Luke VIII, 54; John XIX, 3; Eph. VI, 1; Col. Ill, 18; Heb. X, 7; Apoc. VI, 10. Consequently Ps. XLIV, 7, can only mean: “Thy throne, O God stands for ever/’ Since the sons of Core never employ the term ” Elohim ” except when they wish to designate the true God, it follows that Christ bears the Divine Name D”6», i. e., 0e6s = God. The hardness of heart which the Jews manifested in spite of the many wonderful miracles wrought by our Saviour, St. John attributes to the prophecy of Isaias 110 and adds: ” Haec dixit Isaias, quando vidit gloriam eius et locutus est de eo — These things said Isaias, when he saw his glory and spoke of him [Christ] .” 111 Turning to the sixth chapter of Isaias, we read: ” Vidi Dominant sedentem super solium excelsum… . Seraphim clamabant alter ad alteram et dicebant: Sanetus, Sanctus, Sanctus Dominus exercituum nirv), plena est omnis terra gloria eius — I saw the Lord sittingvupon a throne high and elevated… . The seraphims … cried to one another: Holy, holy, holy, the Lord God of hosts, all the earth is full of his glory.” 112 Hence, according to St. John, Christ is ” God ” (Dominus, and “Lord of hosts” (Dominus exercituum, It should also be noted that St. Mark, in the beginning of his Gospel,118 refers the well-known exhortation of Isaias: 114 ” Parate viam Domini — Prepare ye the way of the Lord,” to John the Baptist, as the precursor of the ” Lord,” thereby acknowledging the latter to be ” Jehovah.” In Mark I, 2, we have a citation from Malachias (attributed to Isaias), in which Jehovah 110 Is. VI, 9 sqq. 113 Mark I, 3. 111 John XII, 41. 114 Is. XL, 3. 112 1s. VI, x sqq.

Himself is quoted as prophesying: ” Ecce ego mitto angelum meum et praeparabit viam ante faciem meant — Behold I send my angel, and he shall prepare the way before my face.” 115 Now this angel is none other than John the Baptist, who, as a precursor, is to “prepare the way before the face of Jehovah,” i. e., Christ. As Christ116 also applies this text to the Baptist, resp. to Himself, we have a double warrant for the assertion that the Jehovah of Malachias is identical with Jesus. b) Christ is expressly called “God” in at least four New Testament texts. A fifth occurs in the prologue of St. John’s Gospel, but we defer the discussion of it to the next Section, where we shall treat explicitly of the Logos.

stood before him, but Almighty God in Heaven. It is obvious from the context that Thomas desired to make a profession of faith not simply in the Resurrection of Christ, but also in His Divinity, for which the Resurrection furnishes such a triumphant argument It is in this sense that Christ replies to him: ” Quia vidisti me, Thotna, credidisti; beati, qui non viderunt et crediderunt — Because thou hast seen me, Thomas, thou hast believed; blessed are they that have not seen, and have believed.* 117 P) Christ is again expressly called God in Tit. II, 13: Exspectantes beatam spent et adventum gloriae magni Dei et Salvatoris nostri IesU Chvisti (T°v peydkov ©cov real (Tuyrijpos fjimv ‘Irprov Xpurrov) — Looking for the blessed hope and coming of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ/’ St. Paul does not mean to distinguish two separate persons — the ” great God/’ or Father, and ” Our Saviour Jesus Christ.” He is speaking solely of Christ, who is both “the great God” and “our Saviour;” else he would repeat the definite article and express himself like this: Tov pyd\ov ©cov #c

Ethiopian translation has dropped the koI without in the least changing the signification of the text. But there is also a strong objective reason for applying the phrase “the great God” to Jesus Christ. For in speaking of the ” coming of the glory of the great God,” the Apostle can only mean Christ, because Holy Scripture tells us nothing of an epiphany of the Father, and we know that the second coming (parousia) of Christ will coincide with the Last Judgment. y) An equally cogent argument can be construed from i John V, 20: “Scimus quoniam Filius Dei venit et dedit nobis sensum, ut cognoscamus verum Deutn et simus in veto Filio eius: hie est verus Deus et vita aeterna — 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. This is the true God and life eternal.” Here the Divinity of Christ, which is logically deducible from the fact that He is a true Son of the true God, is expressly reaffirmed in the concluding phrase: This is the true God — aXqOuA* @co*. It is contrary to the rules of logic and grammar alike to refer the phrase ” This is the true God and life eternal,” not to the immediately preceding word ” Filio/’ but to the more remote “verum Deum” (/. e., Pattern). In that case Me — ckcEvos should be the pronoun used, not hie — outos. To refer the demonstrative pronoun hie — oiTos to the determinative pronoun eius would offend against the idiom of the Latin language. If

Erasmus were right in his assumption that the phrase, ” The true God and life eternal ” designates the Father, not the Son, St. John would have made himself guilty of an insufferable tautology, vis.: * Verus Deus est verus Deus.* Moreover, the aim of St. John’s First Epistle, which was written as a prologue to his Gospel, is not to demonstrate the Godhead of the Father, which no one denied, but the Divinity of the Son, who had appeared corporeally in Christ. It is furthermore to be noted that the “true God” whom St. John has in mind, is also called “eternal life” (ovros coriv 6 aXrjOivbs ©cos Kal fan; awmos). Now St. John never means the Father but invariably the Son when he uses the phrase ” eternal life.” Consequently Christ is as certainly “verus Deus” as is His Father. Cfr. 1 John I, 2: ” Annuntiamus vobis vitam aeternam, quae erat apud Patrem et apparuit nobis — We declare unto you the life eternal, which was with the Father, and hath appeared to us.” 119 1 John V, 11: “Vitam aeternam dedit nobis Deus, et haec vita in Filio eius est. Qui habet Filium, habet vitam; qui non habet FHium, vitam non habet — God hath given to us eternal life. And this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son, hath life. He that hath not the Son, hath not life.” The last vestige of possible doubt is removed by the Greek text, which reads thus: ” Kcu Ic/acv cv to) aXrjdww iv tw vtw avrov ‘Irjaov X/hoto>* oiitos cotiv 6 a\rj$iv6s ®eos kol fry atwvtos.” The demonstrative pronoun clearly points to Jesus Christ. 8) The “crux Rationalistarum” is the famous doxology, Rom. IX, 5: “Ex quibus [scil. Isra110 Cfr. also John I, 4; XI, 25; XIV, 6.

elitis] est Christus secundum carnern, qui est super omnia Deus benedictus in saecula (*

shal in confirmation of this statement, Cardinal Franzelin122 added thirty others, while Hurter123 enriched the list with fourteen more. This practically unanimous consent of the Fathers loses none of its force by the circumstance that some of them (in a very correct sense) assert that the epithet 6 cVl iravrw ©cos belongs solely to the Father, because the Father alone, as the First Person of the Blessed Trinity, is unoriginate (avapxo?) and at the same time the principle of the Son (apxq Trp apxrj’s). Thus Athanasius,12* Basil,125 and Gregory of Nyssa.126 However, since these Fathers did not have in mind the Epistle to the Romans, but that to the Ephesians, in which St. Paul writes: * Unus Deus et Pater omnium qui est super omnes (6 cVl irdvTmv) — One God and Father of all, who is above all,* 127 we can reasonably assume that they do not mean to contradict the other Fathers. This assumption is rendered still more probable by the fact that these same apparently dissentient Fathers elsewhere expressly interpret the doxology as referring to Christ.128 For the rest, such unsuspected witnesses as Rosenmiiller and the editor of the new edition of H. A. W. Meyer’s voluminous commentary on the various books of Sacred Scripture, B. Weiss, admit that the Rationalist interpretation involves a violation of the rules of Greek grammar. In fact it would be just as unnatural and ungrammatical to write 6 wv cVl ttclvtwv ©cos, instead of 6 ©cos 6 wv cVl TTctvrwv, as it would be natural and gram122 De Verbo Incarnato, thes. 9. 127 Eph. IV, 6. Cfr. Newman, 128 Opuscula Pat rum, XVI, p. Athanasius, II, 348 sq., 9th cd., 240, 2nd ed., Oeniponte 1895. London 1903. 124 Ad Strap., Ep. 1, n. 28. 128 Athanas., Ep. ad EpicU, n. xo; i2tt£/>., 38, n. 4. Basil, Contr. Eunom., IV, n. 2; 12« Contr. Apoll., n. 77. Greg. Nysa., Contr, Eunom., L X.

matical to resume by 6 wv the immediately preceding subject, namely, 6 X/>iords. Be it noted in conclusion that Christ’s standing epithet in the pages of the New Testament is not “God” (Deus, but rather “Lord” (Dominus, Kupios), as can easily be gathered from a perusal of the Apostolic Epistles. But inasmuch as “Dotninus* corresponds exactly to the Hebrew n\n.l and 7^, the texts in which Jesus is called Lord prove His Divinity quite as cogently as those in which He is called God.” C. The Logos Whereas the Synoptics portray Christ mainly on His human side, St. Paul emphasizes the Godman, and St. John, who was the Saviour’s favorite disciple, raising his eagle eye to the very Heavens, shows us Christ subsisting before all time in His Divine Nature as the “Word of God” (Verbutn, 6 Ao>). This term12* is of the utmost importance for the proper understanding of the mystery of the Blessed Trinity.. The use of the term ” Logos ” is peculiar to St. John.130 The attempt to trace the Johannine Logos to the teaching of the Jewish philosopher Philo has proved abortive. Aside 120 ” Logos, verbum, being a term already used in the schools of heathen philosophy, was open to various misunderstandings on its appearance in the theology of revealed teaching. In the Church it was both synonymous with and corrective of the term ‘Son’; but heretics had almost as many senses of the term as they had sects.” — Newman, Athanasius, II, 337, 445 sq«|., 9th ed., London 1903. Cfr. J. Lebreton, Les Origines du Doyme de la TrinitS, Book 1, Paris 191 o; E. Krebs, Der Logos als Heiland im ersten Jahrhundert, Freiburg 191 o. 180 Cfr. John I, 1 sqq.; z John I, x; V, 7; Apoc. XIX, 23. from the name there is absolutely no similarity between the two conceptions; rather an irreconcilable opposition. It is far more reasonable to regard the teaching of St. John on the Logos as an inspired development of the doctrine of ” Uncreated Wisdom ” which is set forth in of the Old Testament. May we not also assume that St. John was directly enlightened by Him on whose bosom he was privileged to lean?131 The most important portion of the Johannean Gospel, as bearing on the dogma of the Blessed Trinity, is the prologue, which distinctly asserts the personality, the hypostatic difference, and the Divinity of the Logos, who is Christ, the Son of God made flesh. i. The Logos a Real Person. — The Fourth Gospel begins thus: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God apxjj 6 Aoyos Kat 6 Aoyos rjv tt/oo? tov ®cov)# Inasmuch as St. John distinguishes very clearly between the “Word” and “God,” the “Word with God” (apud Deutn) cannot be an absolute divine attribute, e. g., personified wisdom or omnipotence; for wisdom and omnipotence are not “with God” but in God. This is clearly apparent from the whole context of the prologue, especially I, 14: “And the Word was made flesh.” It would be impossible for the Divine Nature, or for any one of its attributes, to “become flesh,” because the Divine Nature, as such, is incapable of entering into union with a finite substance, and 131 John XIII, 23. go THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT hence cannot form an undivided synthesis with human nature. Consequently the Logos is truly a person and not a mere personification.

2. The Logos as Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, Distinct From the Father. — That the Logos must be conceived as the Second Person of the Divine Trinity, appears from the opposition between and p° ™ ®<6v. The one is “God,” the other is “with God” as His Logos, and as such is likewise God.132 But the Evangelist continues: “He came unto his own («* t&a)^ and his own (°* h i. e., the children of Israel) received him not.” Whence it again appears, first, that the Logos is a real Person, and, secondly, that He cannot be the Father, because the Father never “came into this world.” 133 Consequently, the Logos must be a different Person from the Father. This conclusion is made certain by verses 14 and 18, in which the Logos is identified with the Son of God. John I, 14: “Et Verbum (° Ao’yos) caro factum est et habitavit in nobis; et vidimus gloriam eius [scil. Verbi], gloriam quasi unigeniti a Patre («* /ovoycvow ™p irarpo^) — And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw his glory, the glory as it were of the only begotten of the Father.” John I, 18: “Unir genitus Filius (° povoycrqs vi6^9 qui est in sinu 183 John I, z. 188 John I, 9. THE LOGOS 9i Patris, ipse enarravit — The only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.” If the Logos is identically the same Person as the “Son in the bosom of the Father/’ there is between the Logos and the Father the same relative opposition which exists between the Son and the Father, and consequently the Logos cannot be identical with the Father. He must be an independent Hypostasis.

3. The Logos as a Divine Person, or God. — The fifth of the Scriptural texts 134 in which the Logos is expressly called “God,” is John I, 1: “In principio erat Verbum, et Verbum erat apud Deum, et Deus erat Verbum — In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.* In the last clause of this sentence Verbum” is the subject and “Deus” the predicate, as a glance at the Greek text: ©co 6 Ao’yos, tells. Therefore the meaning of the clause is: “The Logos was God.” But why did St. John thus transpose subject and predicate? His reason for doing so appears from the context: co Adyos irpbs rbv ©cov, #ccu ©co? rjv 6 Adyos. By bringing T°v ®cw and into juxtaposition, the Evangelist desired to emphasize the of the Logos with God the Father, “with” whom He was “from the beginning.” Positively to exclude the 184 Cfr. supra, p. 82. 7 thought that the two might be identical in Person, St. John insists: 135 Outo? (i. e., * Aoyos) iv apxrj Tr/jos tov OcoV; that is to say, the Logos is indeed “God”; but He is likewise “with God.” Even if the Logos were not expressly called “God,” His Divinity could be inferred from the divine attributes ascribed to Him by the Evangelist. a) The Logos is the Creator of all things without exception. John I, 3: “Omnia per ipsum facta sunt, et sine ipso factum est nihil, quod factum est — All things were made by him: and without him was made nothing that was made.” John I, 10: “In mundo erat, et mundus (6 ko

the fact that “all things were made by him” by adding: ” And without him was made nothing that was made.” 137 If absolutely nothing was created without the Logos, the Logos Himself must either be increate, or His own creator, which would involve a contradiction. * Quomodo potest fieri/’ says St. Augustine, * ut Verbum Dei factum sit, quando Dens per Verbum fecit omnia? Si et Verbum Dei ipsum factum est, per quod aliud Verbum factum est? … Non enim per se ipsum fieri potuit, per quod facta sunt omnia. Crede ergo Evangelistae. Poterat enim dicere: In principio fecit Deus Verbum, quomodo dixit Moyses: In principio fecit Deus coelum et terram — How could the Word of God be made, when by the Word God made all things? If the Word of God was itself also made, by what other Word was it made? … For that by which all things are made, could not be made by itself. Believe then the Evangelist. For he might have said: In the beginning God made the Word; just as Moses said: In the beginning God made the heavens and the earth.* 138 b) The Logos is eternal. Cfr. John I, I sq.: * In the beginning (cV apxg) was the Word… . The same was in the beginning (cv apxfi) with God.” A preexistence which antedates time and creation is equal to absolute eternity. To say that the Logos began to be ” with God ” at some certain time, would be tantamount to asserting that the Father began out of His own substance to beget “the only begotten Son in His bosom.” 139 Consequently the Son must be coeternal with the Father. This is further confirmed by a con187 John I, 3: U&pTa 6V airov Card. Newman, Athanasius, II, 27$ fyevero. kclI xwpis avrov iyever* sqq. ovtik tv (nihil = nothing whatever), £ yiyovty. On this passage, cfr. 138 Tract, in Ioannem, I, n. 11. 188 John I, 18.

sideration of that attribute of the Divine Logos which may be designated as His divine immanence. By ” Word of God ” ( Verbum, Aoyos) we may understand either the external word of God {verbum oris s. externum), i. e., Divine Revelation; or His internal, immanent word (verbum mentis s. internum). The former, which is something impersonal, accidental, created, temporal, extra-divine, is not mentioned by St. John in the prologue of his Gospel. The Word of which he speaks is manifestly the internal Word, which, being an intrinsic product of generation, immanent in the intellect of the begetting Father, forms part of the Divine Essence. Consequently the Logos is coeternal with the Essence of the Godhead. c) Lastly, the Logos is the author of the Supernatural, and as such must be God. In Himself “the true light ” 140 and ” the life,” 141 He is in His external manifestation *the light [that] shineth in the darkness/‘142 and the principle of our adopted sonship.148 John I, 12: * Quotquot autem receperunt eum, dedit eis pot est at em filios Dei fieri (ISwkcv ovtoU l&vaLav tc’kvo, 0cou yevcVflcu), his qui credunt in nomine eius (ek to ovopa avrov) — But as many as received him, he gave them power to be made the sons of God, to them that believe in his name.” Belief in the Logos is a necessary condition of salvation and eternal beatitude. Consequently the Logos is God. From the fulness of His grace we must all draw; it is from Him we receive grace and truth. Cfr. John I, 16 sq.: ” Et de plenitudine eius nos omnes accepimus, et gratiam pro gratia; quia lex per Moysen data est, gratia et Veritas (i) x«Pw 140 John I, 4, 7, 9. 148 Cfr. the article ” Adoption, 141 John I, 4. Supernatural/’ in the Catholic En» 142 John I, s, 9. cyclopedia, Vol. I, pp. 148 sqq. X

koI i) a\fj0€ia) per Iesum Christum facta est — And of his fulness we have all received, and grace for grace. For the law was given by Moses; grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.” The Logos is the author both of nature and of the Supernatural, and therefore very God. The Logos appeared corporeally on earth in Jesus Christ, for it is to Him and to Him alone that we can apply such Scriptural passages as: ” ” He came unto his own,” “4 * He was in the world,* 145 ” John … gave testimony of [Him],” 146 and, lastly,147 ” The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.” 148 This ” Word made flesh,” which is for the first time called “Jesus Christ” in John I, 17, is “the only begotten Son of God.” 149 Hence Christ is both the Logos and the Son of God. With John I, 15, therefore, begins the story of the life of Jesus Christ.160 ^ Readings: — On the theology of the Son: J. E. Stadler, Vber die Identitdt der Idee der Weisheit mit der des Wortes, Minister 1832; E. Bougaud, The Divinity of Christ (translated by Currie) New York 1906; *L. Atzberger, Die Logoslehre des h. Athanasius, Munchen 1880; M. Beyr, Trinitatis in Unitate Dei Salus Mundi per Iesum Christum Redempti, Graz 1875; K. Muller, Gottliches Wissen und gottliche Macht des johanneischen Christus, Freiburg 1882; *P. Keppler, Die Komposition des J ohannesevangeliums, Freiburg 1884; G. A. Muller, Christus bei Josephus Flavius, 2nd ed., Innsbruck 1896; Simar, Theologie des h. Paulus, 2nd ed., Freiburg 1883; *Franzelin, De Verbo Incarnato, thes. 2-9, ed. 4, Romae 1893; G. B. Tepe, Instit. Theolog., Vol. II, pp. 234 sqq., Parisiis 1895; J. B. Bartmann, Das Himmelreich und sein Konig nach den Synoptikern, Paderborn 1904; H. Schell, Jahwe 144 John I, ix. 145 John I, 10. 146 John I, 6 sq. 147 John I, 6 sqq. 148 John I, 14. l4»John I, 14. 18. 150 Cfr. K. Weiss, Der Prolog des hi, Johannes, Freiburg 1899; Belser, ” Der Prolog des JohannesevangeHums” in the Theologische Quartalschrift of Tubingen, 1903, pp. 483 sqq.; J. Lebrcton, Les Origines du Dogme de la Triniti, pp. 382 sqq., Paris 19 10.