Chapter VIII.

Christ, so far as He is true Son of God, has no Lord, but only so far as He is Man; as is shown by His words in which He addressed at one time the Father, at another the Lord. How many heresies are silenced by one verse of Scripture! We must distinguish between the things that belong to Christ as Son of God or as Son of David. For under the latter title only must we ascribe it to Him that He was a servant. Lastly, he points out that many passages cannot be taken except as referring to the Incarnation.

99. Wherefore also it is plain how He calls Him Lord, Whom He knew as Father. For He says: “I confess to Thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth.”973    S. Matt. xi. 25. First Wisdom spoke of His own Father, and then proclaimed Him Lord of creation. For this reason the Lord shows in His Gospel that no lordship is exercised where there is a true offspring, saying: “What think ye of Christ? Whose Son is He? They say unto Him, The son of David. Jesus saith to them, How then doth David in spirit call Him Lord, saying: The Lord said unto my Lord: Sit Thou on My right hand”? Then he added: “If David in spirit then call Him Lord, how is He his son? And no man was able to answer Him a word.”974    S. Matt. xxii. 42–46.

100. With what care did the Lord provide for the faith in this witness because of the Arians! For He did not say: “The spirit calls Him Lord,” but that “David spake in spirit;” in order that men might believe that as He is his, that is, David’s son according to the flesh, so also He is his Lord and God according to His Godhead. Thou seest, then, that there is a distinction between the titles that are used of relationship and of lordship.

101. And rightly did the Lord speak of His own Father, but of the Lord of heaven and earth; so that thou, when thou readest of the Father and the Lord, mayest understand it is the Father of the Son, and the Lord of Creation. In the one title rests the claim of nature, in the other the authority to rule. For taking on Himself the form of a servant, He calls Him Lord, because He has submitted to service; being equal to Him in the form of God, but being a servant in the form of His body: for service is the due of the flesh, but lordship is the due of the Godhead. Wherefore also the Apostle says: “The God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory,”975    2 Cor. i. 3. that is, terming Him God of the adoption of humanity but the Father of glory. Did God have two Sons, Christ and Glory? Certainly not. Therefore if there is one Son of God, even Christ, Christ is Glory. Why dost thou strive to belittle Him who is the glory of the Father?

102. If then the Son is glory, and the Father is glory (for the Father of glory cannot be anything else than glory), there is no separation of glories, but glory is one. Thus glory is referred to its own proper nature, but lordship to the service of the body that was assumed. For if the flesh is subject to the soul of a just man as it is written: “I chastise my body and bring it into subjection;”976    1 Cor. ix. 27. how much more is it subject to the Godhead, of Which it is said: “For all things serve Thee”?977    Ps. cxix. 91.

103. By one question the Lord has shut out both Sabellians and Photinians and Arians. For when He said that the Lord spoke to the Lord, Sabellius is set aside, who will have it that the same Person is both Father and Son. Photinus is set aside, who thinks of Him merely as man; for none could be Lord of David the King, but He Who is God, for it is written: “Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve.”978    Deut. vi. 13. Would the prophet who ruled under the Law act contrary to the Law? Arius is set aside, who hears that the Son sits on the right hand of the Father; so that if he argues from human ways, he refutes himself, and makes the poison of his blasphemous arguments to flow back upon himself. For in interpreting the inequality of the Father and the Son by the analogy of human habits (wandering from the truth in either case), he puts Him first Whom he makes little of, confessing Him to be the First, Whom he hears to be at the right hand. The Manichæan also is set aside, for he does not deny that He is the Son of David according to the flesh, Who, at the cry of the blind men, “Jesus, Thou Son of David, have mercy on us,”979    S. Matt. xx. 30. was pleased at their faith and stood and healed them. But He does deny that this refers to His eternity, if He is called Son of David alone by those who are false.

104. For “Son of God” is against Ebion,980    Ebion recognized our Lord absolutely as man and no more. “Son of David,” is against the Manichees;981    I. 57 sc. “Son of God” is against Photinus,982    I. 6 sc. “Son of David” is against Marcion;983    II. 44. “Son of God” is against Paul of Samosata,984    His error was much the same as that of Ebion, except that he asserted that the Word descended from heaven and dwelt in Jesus. “Son of David” is against Valentinus;985    II. 44. “Son of God” is against Arius and Sabellius, the inheritors of heathen errors. “Lord of David” is against the Jews, who beholding the Son of God in the flesh, in impious madness believed Him to be only man.

105. But in the faith of the Church one and the same is both Son of God the Father and Son of David. For the mystery of the Incarnation of God is the salvation of the whole of creation, according to that which is written: “That without God He should taste death for every man;”986    Heb. ii. 9. that is, that every creature might be redeemed without any suffering at the price of the blood of the Lord’s Divinity, as it stands elsewhere: “Every creature shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption.”987    Rom. viii. 21.

106. It is one thing to be named Son according to the divine Substance, it is another thing to be so called according to the adoption of human flesh. For, according to the divine Generation, the Son is equal to God the Father; and, according to the adoption of a body, He is a servant to God the Father. “For,” it says, “He took upon Him the form of a servant.”988    Phil. ii. 7. The Son is, however, one and the same. On the other hand, according to His glory, He is Lord to the holy patriarch David, but his Son in the line of actual descent, not abandoning aught of His own, but acquiring for Himself the rights that go with the adoption into our race.

107. Not only does He undergo service in the character of man by reason of His descent from David, but also by reason of His name, as it is written: “I have found David My Servant;”989    Ps. lxxxix. 20. and elsewhere: “Behold I will send unto you My Servant, the Orient is His name.”990    Zech. iii. 8. And the Son Himself says: “Thus saith the Lord, that formed Me from the womb to be His servant, and said unto Me: It is a great thing for Thee to be called My Servant. Behold I have set Thee up for a witness to My people, and a light to the Gentiles, that Thou mayest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth.”991    Isa. xlix. 5, 6. To whom is this said, if not to Christ? Who being in the form of God, emptied Himself and took upon Him the form of a servant.992    Phil. ii. 6, 7. But what can be in the form of God, except that which exists in the fulness of the Godhead?

108. Learn, then, what this means: “He took upon Him the form of a servant.” It means that He took upon Him all the perfections of humanity in their completeness, and obedience in its completeness. And so it says in the thirtieth Psalm: “Thou hast set my feet in a large room. I am made a reproach above all mine enemies. Make Thy face to shine upon Thy servant.”993    Ps. xxxi. 3, 11, 16. “Servant” means the Man in whom He was sanctified; it means the Man in whom He was anointed; it means the Man in whom He was made under the law, made of the Virgin; and, to put it briefly, it means the Man in whose person He has a mother, as it is written: “O Lord, I am Thy Servant, I am Thy Servant, and the Son of Thy hand-maid;”994    Ps. cxvi. 16. and again: “I am cast down and sore humbled.”995    Ps. xxxviii. 8.

109. Who is sore humbled, but Christ, Who came to free all through His obedience? “For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.”996    Rom. v. 19. Who received the cup of salvation? Christ the High Priest, or David who never held the priesthood, nor endured suffering? Who offered the sacrifice of Thanksgiving?997    Ps. cxvi. 13, 17.

110. But that is insufficient; take again: “Preserve My soul, for I am holy.”998    Ps. lxxxvi. 2. Did David say this of himself? Nay, He says it, Who also says: “Thou wilt not leave My soul in hell, neither wilt Thou suffer Thine Holy One to see corruption.”999    Ps. xvi. 10. The Same then says both of these.

111. He has added further: “Save Thy Servant;”1000    Ps. lxxxvi. 2. and, further on: “Give Thy strength to Thy servant, and to the Son of Thy handmaid;”1001    Ps. lxxxvi. 16. and, elsewhere, that is, in Ezekiel: “And I will set up one Shepherd over them, and He shall rule them, even My Servant David. He shall feed them, and He shall be their Shepherd. And I the Lord will be their God, and My Servant David a prince among them.”1002    Ez. xxxiv. 23, 24. Now David the Son of Jesse was already dead. Therefore he speaks of Christ, Who for our sakes was made the Son of a handmaiden in the form of man; for according to His divine Generation He has no Mother, but a Father only: nor is He the fruit of earthly desire, but the eternal Power of God.

112. And so, also, when we read that the Lord said: “My time is not yet full come;”1003    S. John vii. 8. and: “Yet a little while I am with you;” and: “I go unto Him that sent Me;”1004    S. John vii. 33. and: “Now is the Son of Man glorified;”1005    S. John xiii. 31. we ought to refer all this to the sacrament of the Incarnation. But when we read: “And God is glorified in Him, and God hath glorified Him;”1006    S. John xiii. 31. what doubt is there here, where the Son is glorified by the Father, and the Father is glorified by the Son?

113. Next, to make clear the faith of the Unity, and the Union of the Trinity, He also said that He would be glorified by the Spirit, as it stands: “He shall receive of Mine, and shall glorify Me.”1007    S. John xvi. 14. Therefore the Holy Spirit also glorifies the Son of God. How, then, did He say: “If I glorify Myself, My glory is nothing.”1008    S. John viii. 54. Is then the glory of the Son nothing? It is blasphemy to say so, unless we apply these words to His flesh; for the Son spoke in the character of man, for by comparison with the Godhead, there is no glory of the flesh.

114. Let them cease from their wicked objections which are but thrown back upon their own falseness. For they say, it is written: “Now is the Son of Man glorified.” I do not deny that it is written: “The Son of Man is glorified.” But let them see what follows: “And God is glorified in Him.” I can plead some excuse for the Son of Man, but He has none for His Father; for the Father took not flesh upon Himself. I can plead an excuse, but do not use it. He has none, and is falsely attacked. I can either understand it in its plain sense, or I can apply to the flesh what concerns the flesh. A devout mind distinguishes between the things which are spoken after the flesh or after the Godhead. An impious mind turns aside to the dishonour of the Godhead, all that is said with regard to the littleness of the flesh.

CAPUT VIII.

Christo in quantum verus est Dei Filius, Dominum non esse, sed in quantum homo est; ut verbis ejusdem modo Patrem, modo Dominum compellantis significatur. Quot haereses uno jugulentur Scripturae versiculo. Distinguenda igitur quae Christo vel ut Dei vel ut Davidis filio conveniant; illi enim sub ultimo tantum nomine ascribendum, quod servus fuerit. Ad extremum complures locos demonstrat non nisi secundum incarnationem accipi posse.

0668D

100. Unde et evidens est quomodo dominum dicat, 0669A quem Patrem novit; ait enim: Confiteor tibi, Pater, Domine coeli et terrae (Matth. XI, 25). Ante Patrem dixit Sapientia suum, postea creaturae Dominum nuncupavit. Itaque dominatum non esse ubi vera progenies est, ipse Dominus ostendit in Evangelio suo, dicens: Quid vobis videtur de Christo? cujus Filius est? Dicunt ei: David. Ait illis Jesus: Quomodo ergo David in spiritu vocat eum Dominum, dicens: Dixit Dominus Domino meo: Sede a dextris meis? Et addidit: Si ergo David in spiritu vocat eum Dominum, quomodo filius ejus est? Et nemo poterat ei respondere verbum (Matth. XXII, 42 et seq.).

101. O quam caute propter Arianos etiam in hoc testimonio Dominus fidei prospexit! Non enim dixit: Vocat eum spiritus dominum: sed quia David dixit in 0669B spiritu; ut cujus secundum carnem 569 Filius est, David scilicet, ejus etiam secundum divinitatem et Dominus et Deus crederetur. Vides igitur quia nomen pietatis et dominii discretum est.

102. Et bene Dominus suum quidem Patrem coeli autem et terrae Dominum praedicavit; ut tu cum legis et Patrem et Dominum, intelligas Patrem Filii, et Dominum creaturae. In alio praerogativa naturae est, in alio auctoritas potestatis; formam enim servi accipiens, eo utique Dominum vocat, quo servitutem suscepit, aequalis in Dei forma, servus in corporis: servitus enim carnis, dominatus autem divinitatis est. Unde et Apostolus ait: Deus Domini nostri Jesu Christi, pater gloriae (II Cor. I, 3), hoc est, Deum assumptionis humanae asserens, Patrem autem gloriae. 0669C Num enim duos filios habuit Deus Christum et gloriam? Minime. Ergo si unus Dei Filius Christus, utique Christus est gloria. Quid autem ei derogas, qui Patris gloria est?

103. Si ergo et Filius gloria est, et Pater gloria; quia Pater gloriae non potest aliud esse quam gloria: non divisio gloriarum, sed una est gloria. Itaque ad proprietatem naturae gloria refertur, dominatus autem ad suscepti corporis servitutem. Si enim caro etiam justi animae subdita est, sicut scriptum est: Castigo corpus meum, et servituti redigo (I Cor. IX, 27), quanto magis subjecta et divinitati, de qua dicitur: Quoniam universa serviunt tibi (Psal. CXVIII, 91)?

104. Una autem quaestione et Sabellianos et Photinianos et Arianos Dominus exclusit. Nam cum Dominum 0669D dixisse Domino dicit, Sabellius excluditur, qui eumdem Patrem vult esse quem Filium. Excluditur Photinus, qui secundum carnem judicat; quia dominus David regis non poterat esse, nisi qui Deus 0670A est; scriptum est enim: Dominum Deum tuum adorabis, et illi soli servies (Deut. VI, 13). Numquid contra Legem propheta sentiret, qui sub Lege regnaret? Excluditur Arius, qui Filium sedere audit ad dexteram Patris; ut si ex usu argumentetur humano, ipse se perimat, et venenum sacrilegae disputationis suae in se refundat, ut dum inaequalitatem Patris et Filii ex consuetudine hominum interpretatur, in utroque a vero devius, eum praeferat cui derogat, confessurus priorem quem audit ad dexteram. Excluditur etiam Manichaeus: non enim negat esse se David filium secundum carnem; ut pote qui clamantibus caecis: Jesu, fili David, miserere nobis (Matth. XX, 30); et delectatus est fide, et stetit et curavit eos: sed negat hoc suae esse aeternitatis, si David solius filius 0670B a perfidis nominetur.

105. Nam Filius Dei est contra Hebionem, Filius David est contra Manichaeos: Filius Dei est contra Photinum, Filius David est contra Marcionem: Filius Dei est contra Paulum Samosatenum: 570 Filius David est contra Valentinum: Filius Dei est contra Arium atque Sabellium gentilis erroris haeredes: Dominus David est contra Judaeos, qui Dei Filium in carne cernentes, hominem tantummodo impio furore credebant.

106. Sed Ecclesiastica fide et Dei Patris et David idem atque unus est Filius; quia incarnationis Dei mysterium universae salus est creaturae; secundum quod scriptum est: Ut sine Deo pro omnibus gustaret mortem (Hebr. II, 9), id est, quod creatura omnis 0670C sine passione aliqua divinitatis Dominici sanguinis redimenda sit pretio, ut alibi habet: Omnis creatura liberabitur a servitute corruptionis (Rom. VIII, 21).

107. Aliud est igitur secundum divinam substantiam, aliud secundum susceptionem carnis Filium nominari: nam secundum generationem divinam Deo Patri aequalis est Filius, et secundum susceptionem corporis Deo Patri servus est; quia formam servi, inquit (Phil. II, 7), accepit: unus tamen atque idem est Filius. Contra autem sancto patriarchae David secundum gloriam suam Dominus est, secundum corporalis successionis seriem filius est, non deficiens a se, sed nostrae jus sibi adoptionis acquirens.

108. Nec solum ex genere David servitutem suscepit 0670D in persona hominis; sed etiam ex nomine, sicut habes: Inveni David servum meum; et alibi: Ecce ego mittam ad vos servum meum (Zach. III, 8), Oriens nomen est ei (Ibid. VI, 12). Et ipse Filius 0671A ait: Sic dicit Dominus, qui finxit me ex utero servum sibi, et dixit mihi: Magnum tibi est vocari puerum meum. Ecce posui te in testamentum generis mei, in lucem gentium; ut sis in salutem usque ad extremum terrae (Esai XLIX, 6 et seq.). Cui hoc dicitur, nisi Christo? qui cum in forma Dei esset, exinanivit se, et formam servi accepit (Phil. II, 6). Quid est in Dei forma, nisi in divinitatis plenitudine?

109. Disce igitur quid sit: Formam servi accepit, id est, plenitudinem perfectionis humanae, plenitudinem obedientiae. Ideoque dicit in psalmo trigesimo: Statuisti in loco spatioso pedes meos. Super omnes inimicos meos factus sum opprobrium. Illustra faciem tuam super servum tuum (Psal. XXX, 9, 12 et 17). Servus dictus est homo, in quo sanctificatus est: 0671B servus homo, in quo unctus est: servus homo, in quo factus sub Lege, factus ex Virgine est; et ut compendio dicam, servus dictus est, in quo matrem habet, sicut scriptum est: O Domine, ego servus tuus, ego servus tuus, et filius ancillae tuae (Psal. CXV, 7); et alibi: Afflictus sum et humiliatus sum nimis (Psal. XXXVII, 9).

110. Quis nimis humiliatus est, nisi Christus, qui venit ut omnes liberaret per obedientiam? Sicut enim per inobedientiam unius hominis peccatores constituti sunt plurimi, ita et per unius obedientiam justi constituentur multi (Rom. V, 19). Quis calicem 571 salutarem (Psal. CXV, 13) accepit, Christus princeps sacerdotum, an David, qui neque sacerdotium habuit, neque passionem subiit? Quis sacrificavit 0671C hostiam laudis?

111. Sed si hoc parum est, accipe aliud: Custodi animam meam, quoniam ego sanctus sum (Psal. LXXXV, 2). Numquid de se hoc diceret David? Sed ille dicit, qui ait: Non derelinques animam meam in inferno, nec dabis sanctum tuum videre corruptionem (Psal. XV, 10). Idem ergo utrumque dicit.

112. Addidit vero: Salvum fac servum tuum (Psal. LXXXV, 2); et infra: Da postestatem puero tuo, et filio ancillae tuae (Ibid. 16); et alibi, id est, in Ezechiele: Et suscitabo super eos pastorem unum, et reget eos servus meus David. Ipse pascet eos, et erit eorum pastor: et ego Dominus ero illis in Deum, et servus meus David in medio eorum princeps (Ezech. XXIV, 23, 24). Utique David jam defunctus erat, filius 0671D Jesse. De Christo itaque dicit, qui propter nos filius ancillae factus est, secundum formam hominis; nam secundum divinam generationem non matrem habet, sed Patrem: nec corporalis ventris est fructus, sed sempiterna Dei virtus.

113. Ergo etiam illud cum legimus quia dixit Dominus: Tempus meum nundum impletum est (Joan. VII, 8), et: Adhuc modicum vobiscum sum (Joan. XIII, 0672A 33), et: Vado ad eum qui misit me (Ibid.), et: Clarificatus est Filius hominis (Ibid., 31), ad incarnationis sacramentum referre debemus. Cum autem legimus: Et Deus clarificatus est in eo, et Deus clarificavit eum (Ibid.); quid ibi est quaestionis, ubi et Filius clarificatur a Patre, et Pater clarificatur a Filio?

114. Denique ut fidem unitatis et copulam Trinitatis aperiret, etiam ab Spiritu clarificandum esse se dixit, sicut habes: Ille de meo accipiet, et clarificabit me (Joan. XVI, 14). Clarificat ergo Dei Filium etiam Spiritus sanctus. Quomodo igitur ipse dixit: Si ego clarificavero me ipsum, claritas mea nihilum est (Joan. VIII, 54)? Ergo nihil est claritas Filii? Sacrilegum est dicere, nisi referas ad carnem; quia 0672B ex persona hominis Filius loquebatur, eo quod comparatione divinitatis nulla est carnis claritas.

115. Desinant igitur impie objicere, quod in suam perfidiam retorquetur. Dicunt enim: Scriptum est: Nunc clarificatus est Filius hominis (Joan. XIII, 31). Non nego scriptum: Clarificatus est Filius hominis; sed videant quid sequatur: Et Deus clarificatus est in eo. Ego excusationem habeo de Filio hominis, ille de Patre non habet; quia Pater non suscepit carnem. Excusationem habeo, et non utor: ille non habet, et calumniatur. Aut simpliciter me patiatur intelligere, aut ad carnem referre quae carnis sunt. Pia mens, quae leguntur secundum carnem divinitatemque, distinguit: sacrilega confundit, et ad divinitatis detorquet injuriam, quidquid secundum humilitatem 0672C carnis est dictum.