Chapter 7.—In What Manner the Son is Less Than the Father, and Than Himself.

14. In these and like testimonies of the divine Scriptures, by free use of which, as I have said, our predecessors exploded such sophistries or errors of the heretics, the unity and equality of the Trinity are intimated to our faith. But because, on account of the incarnation of the Word of God for the working out of our salvation, that the man Christ Jesus might be the Mediator between God and men,50    1 Tim. ii. 5 many things are so said in the sacred books as to signify, or even most expressly declare, the Father to be greater than the Son; men have erred through a want of careful examination or consideration of the whole tenor of the Scriptures, and have endeavored to transfer those things which are said of Jesus Christ according to the flesh, to that substance of His which was eternal before the incarnation, and is eternal. They say, for instance, that the Son is less than the Father, because it is written that the Lord Himself said, “My Father is greater than I.”51    John xiv. 28 But the truth shows that after the same sense the Son is less also than Himself; for how was He not made less also than Himself, who “emptied52    Exinanivit Himself, and took upon Him the form of a servant?” For He did not so take the form of a servant as that He should lose the form of God, in which He was equal to the Father. If, then, the form of a servant was so taken that the form of God was not lost, since both in the form of a servant and in the form of God He Himself is the same only-begotten Son of God the Father, in the form of God equal to the Father, in the form of a servant the Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; is there any one who cannot perceive that He Himself in the form of God is also greater than Himself, but yet likewise in the form of a servant less than Himself? And not, therefore, without cause the Scripture says both the one and the other, both that the Son is equal to the Father, and that the Father is greater than the Son. For there is no confusion when the former is understood as on account of the form of God, and the latter as on account of the form of a servant. And, in truth, this rule for clearing the question through all the sacred Scriptures is set forth in one chapter of an epistle of the Apostle Paul, where this distinction is commended to us plainly enough. For he says, “Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God; but emptied Himself, and took upon Him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: and was found in fashion53    Habitu as a man.”54    Phil. ii. 6, 7 The Son of God, then, is equal to God the Father in nature, but less in “fashion.”55    Habitu For in the form of a servant which He took He is less than the Father; but in the form of God, in which also He was before He took the form of a servant, He is equal to the Father. In the form of God He is the Word, “by whom all things are made;”56    John i. 3 but in the form of a servant He was “made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law.”57    Gal. iv. 4, 5 In like manner, in the form of God He made man; in the form of a servant He was made man. For if the Father alone had made man without the Son, it would not have been written, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.”58    Gen. i. 26 Therefore, because the form of God took the form of a servant, both is God and both is man; but both God, on account of God who takes; and both man, on account of man who is taken. For neither by that taking is the one of them turned and changed into the other: the Divinity is not changed into the creature, so as to cease to be Divinity; nor the creature into Divinity, so as to cease to be creature.

CAPUT VII.

14 Filius quomodo minor Patre ac se ipso. His et talibus divinarum Scripturarum testimoniis, quibus, ut dixi, priores nostri copiosius usi, expugnaverunt haereticorum tales calumnias vel errores, insinuatur fidei nostrae unitas et aequalitas Trinitatis. Sed quia multa in sanctis Libris propter incarnationem Verbi Dei, quae pro salute nostra reparanda facta est, ut mediator Dei et hominum esset homo Christus Jesus (I Tim. II, 5), ita dicuntur, ut majorem Filio Patrem significent, vel etiam apertissime ostendant; erraverunt homines minus diligenter scrutantes vel intuentes universam seriem Scripturarum, et ea quae de Christo Jesu secundum hominem dicta sunt, ad ejus substantiam quae ante incarnationem sempiterna erat, et sempiterna est, transferre conati sunt. Et illi quidem dicunt minorem Filium esse quam Pater est, quia scriptum est ipso Domino dicente, Pater major me est (Joan. XIV, 28). Veritas autem ostendit secundum istum modum etiam se ipso minorem Filium. Quomodo enim non etiam se ipso minor factus est, qui semetipsum exinanivit, formam servi accipiens? Neque enim sic accepit formam servi, ut amitteret formam Dei, in qua erat aequalis Patri. Si ergo ita accepta est forma servi, ut non amitteretur forma Dei, cum et in forma servi et in 0829 forma Dei idem ipse sit Filius unigenitus Dei Patris, in forma Dei aequalis Patri, in forma servi mediator Dei et hominum homo Christus Jesus; quis non intelligat quod in forma Dei etiam ipse se ipso major est, in forma autem servi etiam se ipso minor est? Non itaque immerito Scriptura utrumque dicit, et aequalem Patri Filium, et Patrem majorem Filio. Illud enim propter formam Dei, hoc autem propter formam servi, sine ulla confusione intelligitur. Et haec nobis regula per omnes sacras Scripturas dissolvendae hujus quaestionis, ex uno capitulo Epistolae Pauli apostoli promitur, ubi manifestius ista distinctio commendatur. Ait enim: Qui cum in forma Dei esset, non rapinam arbitratus est esse aequalis Deo; sed semetipsum exinanivit, formam servi accipiens, in similitudinem hominum factus, et habitu inventus ut homo (Philipp. II, 6, 7). Est ergo Dei Filius Deo Patri natura aequalis, habitu minor. In forma enim servi quam accepit, minor est Patre: in forma autem Dei in qua erat etiam antequam hanc accepisset, aequalis est Patri. In forma Dei, Verbum per quod facta sunt omnia (Joan. I, 3): in forma autem servi, factus ex muliere, factus sub Lege, ut eos qui sub Lege erant, redimeret (Galat. IV, 4, 5). Proinde in forma Dei fecit hominem; in forma servi factus est homo. Nam si Pater tantum sine Filio fecisset hominem, non scriptum esset, Faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram (Gen. I, 26). Ergo quia forma Dei accepit formam servi, utrumque Deus et utrumque homo: sed utrumque Deus propter accipientem Deum, utrumque autem homo propter acceptum hominem. Neque enim illa susceptione alterum eorum in alterum conversum atque mutatum est: nec divinitas quippe in creaturam mutata est, ut desisteret esse divinitas; nec creatura in divinitatem, ut desisteret esse creatura.