Chapter III.

To the objection of the Arians, that two Gods are introduced by a unity of substance, the answer is that a plurality of Gods is more likely to be inferred from diversity of substance. Further, their charge recoils upon themselves. Manifold diversity is the reason why two men cannot be said to be one man, though all men are called individually man, where a unity of nature is referred to. There is one nature alone in them, but there is wholly a unity in the Divine Persons. Therefore the Son is not to be severed from the Father, especially as they dare not deny that worship is due to Him.

39. But the Arians maintain the following: If you say that, as the Father is the only true God, so also is the Son, and confess that the Father and the Son are both of one substance, you introduce not one God, but two. For they who are of one substance seem not to be one God but two Gods. Just as two men or two sheep or more are spoken of, but a man and a sheep are not spoken of as two men or two sheep, but as one man and one sheep.

40. This is what the Arians say; and by this cunning argument they attempt to catch the more simple-minded. However if we read the divine Scriptures we shall find that plurality occurs rather amongst those things which are of a diverse and different substance, that is, ἑτερούσια. We have this set forth in the books of Solomon, in that passage in which he said: “There are three things impossible to understand, yea, a fourth which I know not, the track of an eagle in the air, the way of a serpent upon a rock, the path of a ship in the sea, and the way of a man in his youth.”904    Prov. xxx. 18, 19. An eagle and a ship and a serpent are not of one family and nature, but of a distinguishable and different substance, and yet they are three. On the testimony of Scripture, therefore, they learn that their arguments are against themselves.

41. Therefore, in saying that the substance of the Father and of the Son is diverse and their Godhead distinguishable, they themselves assert there are two Gods. But we, when we confess the Father and the Son, in declaring them still to be of one Godhead, say that there are not two Gods, but one God. And this we establish by the word of the Lord. For where there are several, there is a difference either of nature or of will and work. Lastly, that they may be refuted on their own witness, two men are mentioned: But though they are of one nature by right of birth, yet in time and thought and work and place, they are apart; and so one man cannot be spoken of under the signification and number of two; for there is no unity where there is diversity. But God is said to be one, and the glory and completeness of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is thus expressed.

42. Such, indeed, is the truth of unity that, when the nature alone of human birth or of human flesh is indicated, one man is the term used for the many, as it is written: “The Lord is my helper, I will not fear what man can do unto me;”905    Ps. cxviii. 6. that is, not the one person of a man, but the one flesh, the one frailty of human birth. It added also: “It is better to trust in the Lord than to trust in man.”906    Ps. cxviii. 8. Here, too, it did not denote one particular man, but a universal condition. Then, immediately after it added, speaking of many: “It is better to put confidence in the Lord than to put confidence in princes.”907    Ps. cxviii. 9. Where man is spoken of, as we have already said, there the common unity of the nature, which exists between all is indicated; but where the princes are mentioned, there is a certain distinction between their different powers.

43. Amongst men, or in men, there exists a unity in some one thing, either in love, or desire, or flesh, or devotion, or faith. But a universal unity, that embraces within itself all things agreeably to the divine glory, is the property of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit alone.

44. Wherefore the Lord also, in pointing out the diversity that exists among men, who have nothing in common that can tend towards the unity of an indivisible substance, says: “In your law it is written that the testimony of two men is true.”908    S. John viii. 17. But though He had said, “The testimony of two men is true,” when He came to the testimony of Himself and His Father, He said not: “Our testimony is true, for it is the testimony of two Gods;” but: “I am One that bear witness of Myself, and the Father that sent Me beareth witness of Me.”909    S. John viii. 18. Earlier He also says: “If I judge, My judgment is true; for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent Me.”910    S. John viii. 16. Thus, both in one place and the other, He indicated both the Father and the Son, but neither implied the plurality, nor severed the unity of their divine Substance.

45. It is plain, then, that whatsoever is of one substance cannot be severed, even though it be not single, but one. By singleness I mean that which the Greeks call μονοτής. Singleness has to do with a person; unity with a nature. That those things which are of a different substance are wont to be called, not one alone, but many, though already proved on the testimony of the prophet, the Apostle himself has stated in so many words, saying: “For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth.”911    1 Cor. viii. 5. Dost thou see, then, that those who are of different substances, and not of the verity of one nature, are called “gods”? But the Father and the Son, being of one substance, are not two Gods, but “One God, the Father, of Whom are all things, and one Lord Jesus Christ, through Whom are all things.”912    1 Cor. viii. 6. “One God,” he says, “and one Lord Jesus;” and above: “One God, not two Gods;” and then: “One Lord, not two Lords.”913    1 Cor. viii. 4, 6.

46. Plurality, therefore, is excluded, but the unity is not destroyed. But as, on the one hand, when we read of the Lord Jesus, we do not dissociate the Father, as I have already said, from the prerogative of ruling, because He has that in common with the Son; so, on the other hand, when we read of the only true God, the Father, we cannot sever the Son from the prerogative of the only true God, for He has that in common with the Father.

47. Let them say what they feel or what they think, when we read: “Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve.”914    S. Matt. iv. 10. Do they think Christ should not be worshipped, and that He ought not to be served? But if that woman of Canaan who worshipped Him,915    S. Matt. xv. 25. merited to gain what she asked for, and the Apostle Paul, who confessed himself to be the servant of Christ in the very outset of his letters, merited to be an Apostle “not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ;”916    Gal. i. 1. let them say what they think should follow. Would they prefer to join with Arius in a league of treachery, and so show, by denying Christ to be the only true God, that they consider He should neither be worshipped nor served? Or would they sooner go in company with Paul, who in serving and worshipping Christ did not disown in word and heart the only true God, Whom he acknowledged with dutiful service?

CAPUT III.

Arianis contra urgentibus Deos induci duos ex unitate substantiae, respondetur pluralitatem ex diversitate potius inferri, proindeque in ipsos recidere suam accusationem. Diversitatem multiplicem in causa esse cur duo homines unus homo dici non possint; cum tamen omnes homines singulariter homo dicantar, ubi naturae unitas indicatur. Solam in his naturam unam esse; at omnimodam in personis divinis unitatem: a Patre igitur non separandum Filium; maxime cum ei debitam esse adorationem negare non audeant.

0657C

40. Sed asserunt Ariani: Si solum verum Deum sicut Patrem, ita et Filium dicitis, et unius substantiae Patrem et Filium confitemini, non unum Deum, sed duos deos inducitis; quia qui unius substantiae sunt, non unus Deus, sed duo dii videntur esse, sicut duo homines, aut duae oves, pluresve dicuntur: homo autem et ovis nec duo homines dicuntur, nec duae oves, sed unus homo, et una ovis.

41. Haec Ariani dicunt, et hac disputatione versuta simpliciores capere nituntur. Tamen si legamus Scripturas divinas, inveniemus pluralitatem magis 0657D in ea cadere, quae diversae discretaeque substantiae sunt, hoc est, ἑτερουσία. Idque in Salomonis libris habemus expressum, eo loco scilicet in quo dicit: Tria sunt autem impossibilia intelligere, et quartum quod non cognosco; vestigia aquilae volantis, et vias serpentis super petram, et semitas navis navigantis, et vias viri in juventute (Prov. XXX, 18, 19). Utique aquila et navis et serpens unius non sunt generis atque naturae, sed differentis discretaeque substantiae, et tamen tria sunt. Contra se igitur sua esse intelligunt argumenta testimoniis Scripturarum.

42. Itaque dicendo Patris et Filii discretam esse 0658A substantiam, differentemque deitatem, duos utique ipsi deos asserunt: nos autem cum et Patrem confitemur, et Filium; asserendo tamen unius esse deitatis non duos deos, sed unum Deum dicimus. Et hoc Dominicis eloquiis approbamus; quia ubi plures sunt, ibi aut naturae aut voluntatum et operationum est differentia. Denique ut suis sibi testimoniis revincantur, duo homines dicuntur; quia licet unius naturae sint jure nascendi, tamen et tempore et cogitatione et opere et loco distant: et ideo non potest unus homo dici in significatione et numero duorum; quia unitas non est, ubi est diversitas: unus autem Deus dicitur, et Patris 559 et Filii ac Spiritus sancti gloria et plenitudo signatur.

43. Denique tanta veritas unitatis est, ut etiam 0658B quando natura sola generationis aut carnis significatur humanae, et unus homo de multis dicatur, sicut habes: Dominus mihi adjutor, non timebo quid faciat mihi homo (Psal. CXVII, 6), id est, non una persona hominis, sed una caro, et una fragilitas generationis humanae. Et addidit: Bonum est sperare in Domino, quam sperare in homine (Ibid., 9). Nec hic utique specialem hominem, sed generalem conditionem designavit. Denique statim subjecit de pluribus: Bonum est confidere in Domino, quam confidere in principibus (Ibid., 9). Sed ubi homo dicitur, naturae interdum, ut supra diximus, communis inter omnes unitas significatur: ubi principes, variarum quaedam differentia potestatum est.

44. Sed inter homines aut in hominibus unius alicujus 0658C rei unitas est, aut charitatis, aut cupiditatis, aut carnis, aut devotionis et fidei: generalis autem unitas, et quae in se secundum divinitatis gloriam complectitur omnia, solius est Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti.

45. Unde et Dominus cum diversitatem inter se hominum designaret, qui nihil habent inter se quod possit ad unitatem individuae substantiae pertinere: In lege vestra, inquit, scriptum est, quod duorum hominum testimonium verum est (Joan. VIII, 17). Et cum praemisisset: Duorum hominum testimonium verum est; ubi venit ad suum et Patris testimonium, non dixit: Verum est testimonium nostrum, quia duorum deorum testimonium est; sed: Ego, inquit, sum qui testimonium perhibeo de me ipso, et testimonium perhibet de me, qui misit me, Pater (Ibid., 18). Supra 0658D quoque similiter ait: Et si judico ego, judicium meum verum est, quia solus non sum, sed ego et qui misit me Pater (Ibid., 16). Itaque et infra ut supra et Patrem significavit et Filium, nec pluralitatem admiscuit, nec divinae unitatem substantiae separavit.

46. Evidens est igitur quia quod unius est substantiae, separari non potest, etiamsi non sit singularitatis, sed unitatis. Singularitatem hanc dico, quae Graece μονοτὴς dicitur. Singularitas ad personam pertinet, unitas ad naturam. Ea vero quae diversae substantiae sunt, non solum unum, sed etiam plura dici solere, licet jam et prophetico claruerit testimonio; 0659A expressius tamen ipse Apostolus declaravit dicens: Nam etsi sunt qui dicantur dii, sive in coelo, sive in terra (I Cor. VIII, 5). Vides igitur quia hi qui ex diversis substantiis sunt, et non ex unius veritate naturae, dii appellantur? Pater autem et Filius, quia unius substantiae sunt, non duo dii, sed Unus Deus, Pater ex quo omnia, et unus Dominus Jesus Christus, per quem omnia (Ibid., 6). Unus, inquit, Deus Pater, et unus Dominus Jesus; et supra: Unus Deus, non duo dii (Ibid. 4); et infra: Unus Dominus, et non duo.

47. Pluralitas ergo excluditur, non unitas sequestratur. Sed quemadmodum cum legimus Dominum Jesum, nec Patrem, ut supra diximus (Lib. II, cap. 5), a dominationis jure secernimus, quod ei commune 560 cum Filio est: ita cum legimus solum verum 0659B Deum Patrem, nec Filium a solius veri Dei jure possumus separare, quod ei commune cum Patre est.

48. Aut dicant quid aliud sentiant, quidve arbitrentur, cum legimus: Dominum Deum tuum adorabis, et ipsi soli servies (Matth. IV, 10), utrum Christum non adorandum, et Christo non existiment serviendum? Quod si illa quae adoravit eum Chananaea (Matth. XV, 25), impetrare meruit quod poposcit; et Paulus apostolus, qui servum se Christi prima scriptorum suorum praefatione profitetur (Rom. I, 1), apostolus esse meruit, non ab hominibus neque per hominem, sed per Jesum Christum; dicant quid arbitrentur sequendum, utrum cum Ario malint sibi societatem esse perfidiae; ut solum et verum Deum Christum negando, ostendant quia nec adorandum 0659C eum, nec serviendum ei judicent: an vero consortium malint habere cum Paulo, qui serviendo atque adorando etiam Christum, utique solum verum Deum voce affectuque non diffitebatur, quem pio servitio fatebatur.