Chapter 13: That There Is Taught in the Scriptures One Essence of God from the Very Creation, Which Essence Contains in It Three Persons

That which is taught in the scriptures concerning the incomprehensible and spiritual essence of God, ought to suffice not only to overthrow the foolish errors of the common people, but also to confute the fine subtleties of profane philosophy. One of the old writers seemed to have said very well, that God is all that we do see, and all that we do not see. But by this means he has imagined the godhead to be poured out into all the parts of the world. Although God, to the intent to keep men in sober mind, speaks but sparingly of his own essence, yet by those two names of addition that I have rehearsed, he does both take away all gross imaginations, and also repress the presumptuous boldness of man's mind. For surely his immeasurable greatness ought to make us afraid, that we attempt not to measure him with our sense: and his spiritual nature forbids us to imagine any thing earthly or fleshly of him. For the same cause he often assigns his dwelling place to be in heaven. For though, as he is incomprehensible, he fills the earth also: yet because he sees our minds by reason of their dullness to lie still in the earth, for good cause he lifts us up above the world, to shake off our sloth and sluggishness. And here falls to ground the error of the Manichees, which in appointing two original beginnings have made the devil in a manner equal with God. Surely this was as much as to break the unity of God and restrain his immeasurableness. For where they have presumed to abuse certain testimonies: that shows a foul ignorance, as their error itself shows a detestable madness. And the Anthropomorphites are also easily confuted which have imagined God to consist of a body, because oftentimes the Scripture ascribes to him a mouth, ears, eyes, hands, and feet. For what man, indeed though he be slenderly witted, does not understand that God does so speak with us as it were childishly, as nurses do with their babes? Therefore such manners of speech do not so plainly express what God is, as they do apply the understanding of him to our slender capacity. Which to do, it behoved of necessity that he descended a great way beneath his own height.

But he also sets out himself by another special mark, whereby he may be more nearly known. For he so declares himself to be but one, that he yet gives himself distinctly to be considered in three persons: which except we learn, a bare and empty name of God without any true God flies in our brain. And that no man should think that he is a threefold God, or that the one essence of God is divided in three persons, we must here seek a short and easy definition to deliver us from all error. But because many do make much ado about this word Person, as a thing invented by man: how justly they do so, it is best first to see. The apostles naming the Son, the engraved form of the Hypostasis of his Father, he undoubtedly means, that the Father has some being, wherein he differs from the Son. For to take it for Essence (as some expositors have done, as if Christ like a piece of wax printed with a seal did represent the substance of the Father) were not only hard but also an absurdity. For since the Essence of God is single or one and indivisible, he that in himself contains it all and not by piecemeal, or by derivation, but in whole perfection, should very improperly, indeed foolishly, be called the engraved form of him. But because the Father, although he be in his own property distinct, has expressed himself wholly in his Son, it is for good cause said, that he has given his Hypostasis, to be seen in him. With which aptly agrees that which by and by follows, that he is the brightness of his glory. Surely by the Apostles' words we gather that there is a certain proper hypostasis in the Father, that shines in the Son: whereby also again is easily perceived the Hypostasis of the Son that distinguishes him from the Father. Like order is in the Holy Spirit, for we shall by and by prove him to be God, and yet he must needs be other than the Father. Yet this distinction is not of the essence, which it is unlawful to make manifold. Therefore if the Apostles' testimony be credited, it follows that there be in God three hypostases. This term, seeing the Latins have expressed with the name of Person, it were too much pride and waywardness to brawl about so clear a matter. But if we list word for word to translate, we may call it Subsistence. Many in the same sense have called it substance. And the name of Person has not been in use among the Latins only: but also the Greeks, perhaps to declare a consent, have taught that there are three prosopa, that is to say Persons in God. But they, whether they be Greeks or Latins that differ one from another in the word, do very well agree in the sum of the matter.

Now however the heretics bark at the name of person, or some overmuch precise men do carp that they dislike the word feigned by devise of men: since they cannot get of us to say, that there be three, of whom every one is wholly God, nor yet that there be many gods: what unreasonableness is this, to dislike words, which express no other thing but that which is testified and approved by the scriptures? It were better (say they) to restrain not only our meanings but also our words within the bounds of scripture, than to devise strange names that may be the beginnings of disagreement and brawling: so do we tire ourselves with strife about words: so the truth is lost in contending: so charity is broken by odiously brawling together. If they call that a strange word, which cannot be shown in scripture, as it is written in number of syllables: then they bind us to a hard law, whereby is condemned all exposition that is not [reconstructed: pieced] together, with bare laying together of texts of scripture. But if they mean that to be strange, which being curiously devised, is superstitiously defended, which makes more for contention than edification, which is either inaptly, or to no profit used, which withdraws from the simplicity of the word of God, then with all my heart I embrace their sober mind. For I judge that we ought with no less devout reverence to talk of God than to think of him, for as much as whatever we do of ourselves think of him, is foolish, and whatever we speak is unsavory. But there is a certain measure to be kept. We ought to learn out of the scriptures a rule both to think and speak, whereby to examine all the thoughts of our mind and words of our mouth. But what withstands us, but that such as in scripture are to our capacity doubtful and entangled, we may in plainer words express them, being yet such words as do reverently and faithfully serve the truth of the scripture, and be used sparely, modestly, and not without occasion. Of which sort there are examples enough. And whereas it shall by proof appear that the Church of great necessity was enforced to use the names of Trinity, and Persons, if any shall then find fault with the newness of words, shall he not be justly thought to be grieved at the light of the truth, as he that blames only this that the truth is made so plain and clear to discern?

Such newness of words, if it be so to be called, comes then chiefly into use, when the truth is to be defended against wranglers that do mock it out with cavillations. Which thing we have at this day too much in experience, who have great business in vanquishing the enemies of true and sound doctrine. With such folding and crooked winding these slippery snakes do slide away, unless they be strongly gripped and held hard when they be taken. So the old fathers being troubled with contending against false doctrines, were compelled to show their meanings in exquisite plainness, lest they should leave any crooked byways to the wicked, to whom the doubtful constructions of words were hiding holes of errors. Arius confessed Christ to be God, and the Son of God, because he could not gainsay the evident words of God, and as if he had been so sufficiently discharged did feign a certain consent with the rest. But in the meanwhile he ceased not to scatter abroad that Christ was created, and had a beginning as other creatures. But to the end they might draw forth his winding subtlety out of his den, the ancient fathers went further, pronouncing Christ to be the eternal Son of the Father and consubstantial with the Father. Hereat wickedness began to boil, when the Arians began to hate and detest the name Homoousian, consubstantial. But if in the beginning they had sincerely and with plain meaning confessed Christ to be God, they would not now have denied him to be consubstantial with the Father. Who dare now blame these good men as brawlers and contentious, because for one little word's sake, they were so hot in disputation, and troubled the quiet of the church? But that little word showed the difference between the true believing Christians, and the Arians that were robbers of God. Afterward rose up Sabellius who accounted in a manner for nothing the names of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, saying in disputation that they were not made to show any manner of distinction, but only were several additions of God, of which sort there are many. If he came to disputation, he confessed, that he believed the Father God, the Son God, the Holy Ghost God. But afterward he would readily slip away with saying that he had in no other way spoken than as if he had named God, a strong God, just God, and wise God: and so he sang another song, that the Father is the Son, and the Holy Ghost is the Father, without any order, without any distinction. The good doctors who then had care of godliness, to subdue his wickedness, cried out on the other side that there ought to be acknowledged in one God three properties. And to the end to fence themselves against the crooked writhen subtleties with plain and simple truth, they affirmed, that there did truly subsist in one God, or (which came all to one effect) that there did subsist in the unity of God a Trinity of persons.

If then the names have not been without cause invented, we ought to take heed, that in rejecting them we be not justly blamed of proud presumptuousness. I would to God they were buried indeed, so that this faith were agreed on by all men, that the Father and the Son, and the Holy Ghost be one God: and yet that the Father is not the Son, nor the Holy Ghost the Son, but distinct by certain property. Yet am I not so precise, that I can find in my heart to strive for bare words. For I note, that the old fathers, who otherwise spoke very religiously of such matters, did not everywhere agree one with another, nor everyone with himself. For what forms of speech used by the councils does Hilary excuse? To how great a liberty does Augustine sometimes break forth? How unlike are the Greeks to the Latins? But of this variance one example shall suffice for this time. When the Latins meant to express the word Homoousios, they called it Consubstantial, declaring the substance of the Father and the Son to be one, so using the word substance for essence. Whereupon Jerome to Damasus says, it is sacrilege to say, that there are three substances in God: and yet above a hundred times you shall find in Hilary, that there are three substances in God. In the word Hypostasis, how is Jerome encumbered? For he suspects that there lurks poison in naming three Hypostases in God. And if a man does use this word in a godly sense, yet he plainly says that it is an improper speech, if he spoke sincerely, and did not rather wittingly and willingly seek to charge the bishops of the Eastern lands, whom he sought to charge with an unjust slander. Surely this one thing he speaks not very truly, that in all profane schools, ousia, essence is nothing else but hypostasis, which is proved false by the common and accustomed use. Augustine is more modest and gentle, who although he says, that the word hypostasis in that sense is strange to Latin ears, yet so far is it from that he takes from the Greeks their usual manner of speaking, that he also gently bears with the Latins that had followed the Greek phrase. And that which Socrates writes in the sixth book of the Tripartite History, tends to this end, as though he meant that it had by unskillful men been wrongfully applied to this matter. Indeed the same Hilary himself lays it for a great fault to the heretics' charge, that by their waywardness he is compelled, to put those things in peril of the speech of men, which ought to have been kept in the religiousness of minds, plainly confessing that this is to do things unlawful, to speak that ought not to be spoken, to attempt things not licensed. A little after, he excuses himself with many words, for that he was so bold to utter new names. For after he had used the natural names Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, he adds that whatever is sought further, is beyond the compass of speech, beyond the reach of sense, and beyond the capacity of understanding. And in another place he says, you happy are you bishops of Gaul, who neither had nor received nor knew any other confession, but that old and simple one, which from the time of the Apostles was received in all churches. And much like is the excuse of Augustine, that this word was wrung out of necessity by reason of the imperfection of men's language in so great a matter: not to express that which is, but that it should not be unspoken how the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are three. This modesty of the holy men ought to warn us, that we do not immediately so severely, like censors, note them with infamy that refuse to subscribe and swear to such words as we propound them: so that they do it not of pride, of frowardness, or of malicious craft. But let them again consider, by how great a necessity we are driven to speak so, that by little and little they may be accustomed to that profitable manner of speech. Let them also learn to beware, lest since we must meet on the one side with the Arians, on the other side with Sabellians, while they be offended that we cut off occasion from them both to cavil, they bring themselves in suspicion, that they be the disciples either of Arius or of Sabellius. Arius says that Christ is God, but he mutters that he was created, and had a beginning. He says Christ is one with the Father, but secretly he whispers in the ears of his disciples, that he was made one as the other faithful be, although by singular prerogative. Say once that Christ is Consubstantial with his Father, then you pluck off his visor from the dissembler, and yet you add nothing to the scripture. Sabellius says, that the several names, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost signify nothing in God severally distinct: say that they are three: and he will cry out that you name three gods. Say that there is in one essence a Trinity of persons, then shall you in one word both say, what the scripture speaks, and stop their vain babbling. Now if any be held with so curious a scruple, that they cannot abide these names: yet there is no man, though he would never so fain, that can deny but that when we hear of one, we must understand a unity of substance: when we hear of three in one essence, that it is meant of the persons in the Trinity. Which thing being without fraud confessed, we stay no longer upon words. But I have long ago found, and that often, that whoever does obstinately quarrel about words, keeps within them a secret poison: so that it is better willingly to provoke them, than for their pleasure to speak darkly.

But leaving disputation of words, I will now begin to speak of the matter itself. I call therefore a Person, a subsistence in the essence of God, which having relation to the others is distinguished from them with an uncommunicable property. By the name of Subsistence we mean another thing than the essence. For if the Word had simply been God, and in the meantime had nothing severally proper to itself, John had said amiss that it was with God. Where he forthwith adds that God himself was the same Word, he calls us back again to the one single essence. But because it could not be with God but that it must rest in the Father, from here arises that subsistence, which though it be joined to the essence with an inseparable knot, yet has it a special mark by which it does differ from it. So of the three subsistences I say that each having relation to others is in property distinguished. Relation is here expressly mentioned. For when there is simple and indefinite mention made of God, this name belongs no less to the Son and the Holy Ghost than to the Father. But when the Father is compared with the Son, the several property of either does discern him from the other. Thirdly, whatever is proper to every one of them is uncommunicable. For that which is given to the Father for a mark of difference cannot agree with, nor be given to, the Son. And I dislike not the definition of Tertullian, so that it be rightly taken, that there is in God a certain disposition or distribution, which yet changes nothing of the unity of the essence.

But before I go any further, it is good that I prove the Godhead of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Then after we shall see how they differ one from another. Surely when the Word of God is spoken of in the Scripture, it were a very great absurdity to imagine it only a fading and vanishing voice, which sent into the air comes out of God himself, of which sort were the oracles given to the fathers, and all the prophecies — when rather the Word is meant to be the perpetual wisdom abiding with the Father, from where all the oracles and prophecies proceeded. For as Peter testifies, no less did the old prophets speak with the spirit of Christ than did the Apostles and all they that after them did distribute the heavenly doctrine. But because Christ was not yet openly shown, we must understand that the Word was before all worlds begotten of the Father. And if the Spirit was of the Word, whose instruments were the prophets, we do undoubtedly gather that he was true God. And this does Moses teach plainly enough in the creation of the world, when he sets the Word as the means. For why does he expressly tell that God in creating all his works said, Be this done, or that done — but that the unsearchable glory of God may shiningly appear in his images? [reconstructed: The subtle] and babbling men do easily mock out this, with saying that the name Word is there taken for his bidding or commandment. But better expositors are the Apostles, which teach that the worlds were made by the same, and that he sustains them all with his mighty Word. For here we see that the Word is taken for the bidding or commandment of the Son, which is himself the eternal and essential Word to the Father. And to the wise and sober it is not obscure that Solomon says, where he brings in Wisdom begotten of God before all worlds, and bearing rule in the creation of things, and in all the works of God. For to say that it was a certain commandment of God, serving but for a time, were very foolish and vain — whereas indeed it was God's pleasure at that time to show forth his steadfast and eternal purpose, indeed and something more secret. To which end also makes that saying of Christ: My Father and I do work even to this day. For in saying that from the beginning of the world he was continually working with his Father, he does more openly declare that which Moses had more briefly touched. We gather then that the meaning of God's speaking was this, that the Word had its office in the doing of things, and so they both had a common working together. But most plainly of all does John speak, when he shows that the same Word, which from the beginning was God with God, was together with God the Father the cause of all things. For he both gives to the Word a perfect and abiding essence, and also assigns to it something peculiar to itself, and plainly shows how God in speaking was the creator of the world. Therefore as all revelations proceeding from God do well bear the name of the word of God, so ought we yet to set in the highest place that substantial Word, the wellspring of all oracles, which being subject to no alteration, abides always one and the selfsame with God, and is God himself.

Here many dogs do bark against us, who when they dare not openly take from him his Godhead, do secretly steal from him his eternity. For they say, that the Word then began first to be, when God in the creation of the world opened his holy mouth. But very indiscreetly do they imagine a certain innovation of the substance of God. For as those names of God that have relation to his outward work, began to be given to him after the being of his work, as for example, this that he is called the creator of heaven and earth: so does godliness know or admit no name that should signify any new thing in himself to have chanced to God. For if any should come to him from elsewhere than in himself, then this saying of James should fail, that every good giving and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness neither shadowing by turning. Therefore nothing is less to be suffered, than to feign a beginning of that Word, which both always was God, and afterward was creator of the world. But very subtly indeed they reason, that Moses in saying that God then first spoke, does secretly show that there was no Word in him before. Which is a most trifling argument. For it follows not, because a thing at some one certain time begins to be shown openly, that therefore it had never any being before. But I conclude far otherwise and say: seeing that in the same moment that God said, let light be made, the power of the Word appeared and showed itself: the same Word was long before. But if a man ask how long before, he shall find no beginning. For he appointed no certain space of time when himself said: Father glorify me with the glory which I had with you before the world was. And this thing John also left not untouched, because he first shows that in the beginning the Word was with God, before that he comes to the creation of the world. We say therefore again, that the Word which was conceived of God before any beginning of time, was continually remaining with him. Whereby both his eternity, true essence, and Godhead is proved.

Although I do not yet touch the person of the Mediator, but do defer it to that place where we shall specially treat of the Redemption: yet because it ought to be certainly held without controversy among all men, that Christ is the same Word clad with flesh, in this place will be very fit to recite all those testimonies that prove Christ to be God. When it is said in Psalm 45, your throne O God is forever and ever: the Jews do cavil and say, that the name Elohim is also applied to the Angels and sovereign powers. But in all the Scripture there is not a like place, that raises an eternal throne to any creature. For he is here not simply called God, but also the eternal Lord. Again, this title is given to none but with an addition, as it is said: that Moses shall be for a God to Pharaoh. Some read it in the genitive case which is very foolish. I grant indeed that oftentimes a thing is called Divine or of God, that is notable by any singular excellence: but here by the tenor of the text it appears, that such a meaning were hard and forced, and will not agree. But if their stubbornness will not so yield: In Isaiah is very plainly brought in for all one both Christ and God, and he that is adorned with the sovereign power, which is properly belonging to God alone. This (says he) is the name by which they shall call him, the strong God, the Father of the world to come, etc. Here the Jews bark again, and turn the text thus: this is the name by which the strong God the Father of the world to come shall call him: so that they leave this only to the Son to be called the Prince of peace. But to what purpose should so many names of addition in this place be heaped upon God the Father, seeing it is the purpose of the Prophet to adorn Christ with such special notes as may build our faith upon him? Therefore it is out of doubt that he is here in like sort called the strong God, as he is a little before called Immanuel. But nothing can be found plainer than that place of Jeremiah where he says, that this shall be the name by which the seed of David shall be called Jehovah our righteousness. For where the Jews themselves do teach, that all other names of God are but adjective names of addition, and that this only name Jehovah which they call unspeakable is a substantive name to express his essence: we gather that the Son is the only and eternal God, which says in another place that he will not give his glory to another. But here also they seek to escape away because that Moses gave that name to the altar that he built, and Ezekiel gave it to the new city Jerusalem. But who does not see that the altar was built for a monument that God was the advancement of Moses. And that Jerusalem is not adorned with the name of God, but only to testify the presence of God? For thus says the Prophet: The name of the city from that day shall be Jehovah there. And Moses says thus: He built an altar and called the name of it, Jehovah my exaltation. But more business arises by another place of Jeremiah, where the same title is applied to Jerusalem in these words: this is the name by which they shall call her Jehovah our righteousness. But this testimony is so far from making against the truth which we defend, that it rather confirms it. For whereas he had before testified that Christ is the true Jehovah from whom flows righteousness, now he pronounces that the church shall so verily feel the same, that she may gloriously use the very name itself. And so in the first place is set the fountain and cause of righteousness, in the other the effect.

Now if this does not satisfy the Jews, that Jehovah is so often presented in the person of an Angel, I see not with what cavillations they can mock it out. It is said that the Angel appeared to the holy fathers: and the same Angel challenges to himself the name of the eternal God. If any take exception and say, that this is spoken in respect of the person that he represents: this knot is not thus loosed. For being a servant he would not suffer sacrifice to be offered to him and take from God his due honor. But the Angel refusing to eat bread, commands sacrifice to be offered to Jehovah. And then he proves that himself indeed was the same Jehovah, and therefore Manoah and his wife by this token did gather, that they had seen not an only Angel but God. And from there came it that he said: we shall die because we have seen God. And when his wife answers, if Jehovah would have slain us, he would not have received sacrifice at our hands: in this she does confess that he was God which before was called the Angel. Besides this, the answer of the Angel himself takes away all doubt of it, saying: why do you ask me of my name, which is marvelous? So much the more detestable was the wickedness of Servetus, when he affirmed that God never appeared to Abraham and the other fathers, but that an Angel was worshipped in place of him. But truly and wisely have the true teaching doctors of the Church expounded, that the same principal Angel was the word of God, which then as beforehand began to execute the office of Mediator. For though he was not yet clothed with flesh, yet he came down as a mean between God and men, to come more familiarly to the faithful. Therefore his nigh communicating himself made him to be called an Angel: yet still in the mean time he retained that which was his own, to be the God of unspeakable glory. The same thing means Hosea, which after he had recited the [reconstructed: wrestling] of Jacob with the Angel, says: Jehovah the God of hosts, Jehovah, worthy of memory is his name. Here again Servetus carps, that God did bear the person of an Angel. As though the Prophet did not confirm that which Moses had said: why do you ask me of my name? And the confession of the holy Patriarch does sufficiently declare that he was not a created Angel, but one in whom the full godhead was resident, when he said: I have seen God face to face. And for this cause Paul says, that Christ was guide of the people in the wilderness. For though the time was not yet come of his abasement: yet that eternal word showed a figure of that office to which he was appointed. Now if the second chapter of Zechariah be weighed without contention, the Angel that sent another Angel was by and by pronounced to be the God of hosts, and to him is sovereign power ascribed. I omit innumerable testimonies on which our Faith safely rests, although they do not much move the Jews. For when it is said in Isaiah: Behold this is our God, this is Jehovah, we shall wait upon him, and he shall save us, they that have eyes may see, that herein is meant God which rises up for the salvation of his people. And these vehement demonstrations twice repeated suffer it to be drawn no elsewhere but to Christ. And yet plainer and fuller is the place of Malachi where he promises that he shall come the Lord that was the desired, to his own temple. But to none but to the only sovereign God was the temple dedicated, which temple yet the Prophet does claim for Christ. Whereupon follows that Christ is the same God that was ever honored among the Jews.

As for the New Testament, it swerves with innumerable testimonies, therefore we must labor rather briefly to choose out a few, than largely to heap up all. For though the Apostles speak of him since he was now become the Mediator in flesh, yet all that I shall bring forth shall aptly serve to prove his Godhead. First, this is worthy to be singularly noted, that those things which were before spoken touching the eternal God, the Apostles show that they are either already performed, or hereafter to be performed in Christ. For where Isaiah prophesies that the Lord of hosts shall be to the Jews and Israelites a stumbling stone and a rock to fall upon, Paul affirms that the same is fulfilled in Christ. Therefore he declares him to be the Lord of hosts. Likewise in another place: We must all (says he) once be brought to appear before the judgment throne of Christ, for it is written, to me shall all knees bow, and to me shall all tongues swear. Seeing God in Isaiah speaks this thing of himself, and Christ indeed performs it in himself, it follows that he is the self-same God whose glory may not be withdrawn to another. And that thing which, writing to the Ephesians, he alleges out of the Psalms, is evident that it can be applied to none but to God alone: Ascending on high he has carried captivity captive — meaning that such ascending was in shadow shown, when God in notable victory against foreign nations did show forth his power, but he declares that in Christ it was more fully performed. So John testifies that it was the glory of the Son that was revealed to Isaiah by a vision, whereas indeed the Prophet himself writes that the majesty of God appeared to him. And it is evident that those things which the Apostle writing to the Hebrews applies to the Son are the plain titles of God — as: You, Lord, in the beginning did lay the foundations of heaven and earth, etc. Again: worship him, all you his angels. And yet he does not misuse those titles when he draws them to Christ. For all those things that are spoken of in those Psalms, he himself alone has fulfilled. For it was he that rose up and had mercy on Zion. It was he that claimed to himself the kingdom of all the nations and islands. And why should John stick to apply the majesty of God to Christ, who in his preface had said that the Word was always God? Why should Paul fear to set Christ in the judgment throne of God, having before with so open a proclamation declared his Godhead, where he said that he was God blessed to the end of worlds? And to make apparent how well he agrees with himself on this point, in another place he writes that Christ is God openly shown in the flesh. If he be God to be praised to the end of worlds, then he is the same he to whom in another place he affirms all glory and honor to be due. And thus he hides not, but plainly cries out, that he would have counted it no robbery if he had showed himself equal with God, but that he willingly abased himself. And that the wicked should not carp that he is some made God, John goes further and says: He is the true God and the eternal life. Although it ought abundantly to satisfy us that he is called God, especially of that witness who expressly affirms to us that there are no more gods but one. That same witness is Paul, who says thus: However many be called gods either in heaven or in earth, to us there is but one God from whom are all things. When we hear of the same mouth that God was openly shown in the flesh, that God with his own blood purchased the church to himself, why should we imagine a second God which he himself acknowledges not? And it is no doubt that all the godly were of the same meaning. Likewise Thomas, in declaring him to be his Lord and his God, professes that he is that only one God whom he had always worshipped.

Now if we esteem his Godhead by the works that in the Scripture are ascribed to him, it shall thereby more evidently appear. For when he said that from the beginning he was until then working with his Father, the Jews — who were most dull in understanding of all his other sayings — yet then perceived that he took upon himself the power of God. And therefore, as John tells, they sought the more to kill him, because he did not only break the Sabbath, but also did call God his Father, making himself equal with God. How dull shall we be then, if we do not perceive that his Godhead is herein plainly affirmed? And truly to order the world with providence and power, and to govern all things with the authority of his own might, which the Apostle ascribes to him, belongs to none but only the creator. And he not only shares the government of the world with his Father, but also all other offices which cannot be made common to God with his creatures. The Lord cries out by the Prophet: I am he, I am he, that do away your offenses for my own sake. According to the meaning of this sentence, when the Jews thought that wrong was done to God for that Christ did forgive sins, Christ not only affirmed in words but also proved by miracle that this power belonged to himself. We see therefore that he has, not the ministration, but the power of forgiveness of sins, which the Lord says he will not suffer to pass away from himself to any. What shall we say of searching and piercing the secret thoughts of hearts? Is it not the property of God alone? But the same had Christ, whereby it is gathered that he is God.

Now, in his miracles how plainly and clearly does he appear? And though I grant that as well the prophets as the Apostles did equal and like miracles to these that he did: yet this great difference is there, that they by their ministration disposed the gifts of God, he showed forth his own power. He used sometimes prayer, to the end to give glory to his Father. But we see for the most part his own power showed to us. And how could it otherwise be but that he was the very author of miracles that by his own authority gave power to others to deal miracles abroad? For the Evangelist declares that he gave power to the Apostles to raise up the dead, to heal the lepers, to cast out devils, etc. And they so used the ministration thereof that they sufficiently showed that this power came not from elsewhere but from Christ. In the name of Jesus Christ (says Peter) Rise and walk. It is therefore no marvel if Christ alleged his miracles to confound the unbelief of the Jews: forasmuch as they were such as being done by his own power did give a most plain testimony of his Godhead. If elsewhere then in God there is no salvation, no righteousness, no life: and Christ contains all these things in him, surely he is thereby declared to be God. And no man can object against me and say, that life and salvation is poured into him by God: for it is not said that he received salvation but that he is salvation himself. And if none be good but only God: how can he be only man, being I will not say good and just, but goodness itself and justice? Indeed from the first beginning of the creation as the Evangelist witnesses in him was life: and he even then being life was the light of men. Therefore being supported with such proofs we are bold to repose our faith and hope in him: when yet we know that it is an ungodliness that robs God for any man to fasten his confidence in creatures. Believe you in God? says he. Believe then also in me. And so does Paul expound those two places of Isaiah. Whoever trusts in him shall not be put to shame. Again: Out of the root of Jesse shall he come that shall rise to rule peoples, in him the nations shall trust. And why should we seek out more testimonies of Scripture for this matter, when we so often meet with this sentence? He that believes in me has everlasting life. Moreover the invocation which hangs upon faith belongs also to him, which yet is proper to the majesty of God if he have anything at all proper to himself. For one prophet says: whoever calls upon the name of Jehovah shall be saved: and another says a most strong tower is the name of Jehovah: to it the righteous shall flee and he shall be saved, but the name of Christ is called upon for salvation: it follows therefore that he is Jehovah. As for invocation, we have an example of it in Stephen, when he says, Lord Jesus receive my spirit. Again in the whole church, as Ananias testifies in the same book. Lord (says he) you know how great evils this man has done to your saints that call upon your name. And that it may be more plainly understood that the whole fullness of the Godhead does corporally dwell in Christ, the Apostle does confess that he brought no other doctrine among the Corinthians but the knowledge of him, and that he preached no other thing but that knowledge. What, I pray you, and how great a thing is this, that the name of the Son only is preached to us whom he wills to glory in the knowledge of himself alone? Who dare say that he is but a creature, of whom the only knowledge is our whole glory? Besides that, the salutations set before the Epistles of Paul wish the same benefits from the Son which they do from the Father, whereby we are taught not only that those things which the Father gives us do come to us by his intercession, but also by community of power, he is the author of them. Which knowledge by practice is without doubt more certain and perfect than any idle speculation. For there the godly mind does behold God most present, and in a manner handle him where it feels itself to be quickened, enlightened, saved, justified, and sanctified.

Therefore out of the same fountains we must fetch our means of proving to confirm the Godhead of the Holy Spirit. Very plain is the testimony of Moses in the history of the creation, that the Spirit of God was upon the depths, or upon the unfashioned heap: because he shows that not only the beauty of the world that is now to be seen is preserved by the power of the Spirit, but before this beauty was added, the Spirit was then busied in preserving that confused mass of things. And that saying of Isaiah cannot be caviled against. And now Jehovah and his Spirit has sent me. For he communicates with the Holy Spirit his chief power in sending of Prophets. Whereby appears the divine majesty of the Holy Spirit. But our best proof, as I have said, shall be by familiar use. For that which the Scriptures impute to it, is far from the property of creatures, and such a thing as we ourselves do learn by assured experience of godliness. For he it is that being everywhere poured abroad, does sustain and gives growth and life to all things in heaven and in earth. And by this point he is proved to be none of the number of creatures, for that he is not comprehended within any bounds: but by pouring his lively force into all things to breathe into them life and motion, this is the very work of God. Moreover if regeneration into an incorruptible life be better and more excellent than any present quickening: what shall we judge of him from whose power the same proceeds? And that he is the author of regeneration, not by a borrowed, but by his own force, the Scripture in many places teaches: and not of that only, but also of the immortality to come. Finally, as to the Son, so to him also are applied all those offices that are most of all properly belonging to the Godhead. For he searches the deep secrets of God, wherewith none of all the creatures is of counsel. He gives wisdom and skill to speak, whereas yet the Lord pronounces to Moses that it is only his work to do it. So by him we come to a partaking of God, so that we may feel his power as it were working life in us. Our justification is his work. From him is power, sanctification, truth, grace, and whatever good thing may be thought of, because it is the Holy Spirit only from whom proceeds all kinds of gifts. For that sentence of Paul is right worthy to be noted. Although there be diverse gifts, and manifold and sundry is the distribution of them, yet is there but one Holy Spirit: because he makes him not only the original or beginning, but also the author. Which a little after is more plainly expressed in these words. One and the same Spirit distributes all things as he will. For if he were not something subsisting in God, he would not attribute to him choice of mind and will. Therefore most evidently does Paul give to the Holy Spirit divine power, and shows that he is substantially resident in God.

And the Scripture itself, when it speaks of him, forbears not the name of God. For Paul hereby gathers that we are the temple of God, because his Spirit dwells in us: which thing is not lightly to be passed over. For whereas God so often promises that he will choose us for a temple to himself, that promise is no other way fulfilled, but by his Spirit dwelling in us. Surely, as Augustine very well says: if we were commanded to make to the Holy Spirit a temple of timber and stone, because such worship is due to God only, it were a clear argument that he is God: now therefore how much clearer is this, that we ought, not to make a temple, but ourselves to be a temple for him? And the Apostle himself calls us sometimes the temple of God, sometimes the temple of the Holy Spirit, both in one meaning. And Peter reproving Ananias for that he had lied to the Holy Spirit, said that he lied not to men but to God. And where Isaiah brings in the Lord of hosts speaking, Paul teaches that it is the Holy Spirit that speaks. Indeed where commonly the Prophets say, that the words which they utter are the words of the Lord of hosts, Christ and the Apostles do refer them to the Holy Spirit. Whereby it follows that he is the true Jehovah that is the chief author of prophecies. Again where God complains that he was provoked to wrath by the stubbornness of his people, in place of that Isaiah says that his holy Spirit was grieved. Last of all, if blasphemy against the Holy Spirit be not forgiven in this world nor in the world to come, whereas he may obtain pardon that has blasphemed against the Son: his divine majesty is here plainly proved, the offense or diminishment of which is an unpardonable crime. I do wittingly and of purpose omit many testimonies that the ancient writers have used. They have thought it a marvelously appropriate place to allege out of David: with the word of the Lord the heavens were established, and all the power of them with the Spirit of his mouth, to prove that the world was no less the work of the Holy Spirit than of the Son. But since it is commonly used in the Psalms to repeat one thing twice: and in Isaiah the Spirit of his mouth is as much to say as his word, that reason is very weak. Therefore I thought good to touch a few such things as godly minds might soundly rest upon.

And as God has more plainly disclosed himself by the coming of Christ, so is he also in the three Persons become more familiarly known. But of all the testimonies let this one suffice us for this present. Paul so knits these three together, God, Faith, and Baptism, that he reasons from the one to the other in this manner. Because there is but one Faith, he thereby shows that there is but one God. And because there is but one God, he thereby proves that there is but one Faith. Therefore if we be entered into the Faith and religion of one God by Baptism: we must needs think him the true God in whose name we are baptized. And it is not to be doubted, but that in this solemn protestation, Christ meant to testify that the perfect light of Faith was already delivered, when he said: Baptize them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. For it is as much in effect as to be baptized in the name of the one God, which with perfect brightness has appeared in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Whereby it is evident that in the essence of God abide three Persons in which the one God is known. And surely, since our Faith ought not to look here and there, nor diversely to wander about, but to have regard to the one God, to be applied to him, and to stick fast in him: it is hereby easily proved, that if there be diverse kinds of faith, there must also be many Gods. Now whereas baptism is a sacrament of faith: it proves to us the unity of God, because it is but one. And of this also follows, that it is not lawful to be baptized but into one God, because we embrace the Faith of him, into whose name we are baptized. What meant Christ then, when he commanded to be baptized, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, but that we ought with one Faith to believe in the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit? Therefore since this remains certain, that there is but one God, and not many, we determine that the Word and the Spirit are nothing else but the very self-same essence of God. And very foolishly did the Arians prate, which confessing the godhead of the Son did take from him the substance of God. And such a like rage vexed the Macedonians, which would have to be understood by the Spirit, only the gifts of grace that are poured forth into men. For as wisdom, understanding, prudence, fortitude, fear of God do proceed from him: so he only is the Spirit of wisdom, prudence, fortitude, and godliness. Yet is he not divided according to the distribution of his graces: but however they be diversely dealt abroad, yet he remains one and the same, as the Apostle says.

Again, there is shown in the Scriptures a certain distinction of the Father from the Word, and of the Word from the Spirit. In discussing this, how great religiousness and sobriety we ought to use, the greatness of the mystery itself does admonish us. And I very well like that saying of Gregory Nazianzene: I cannot think upon the one, but immediately I am compassed about with the brightness of the three: And I cannot severally discern the three, but I am suddenly driven back to one. Therefore let it not come in our minds once to imagine such a Trinity of Persons as may hold our thought withdrawn into separate identities, and does not forthwith bring us again to that unity. The names of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, do prove a true distinction, that no man should think them to be bare names of addition, whereby God according to his works is diversely entitled: but yet it is a distinction, not a division. The places that we have already cited, do show that the Son has a property distinct from the Father, because the Word had not been with God, if he had not been another thing than the Father: neither had he had his glory with the Father, but being distinct from him. Likewise he does distinguish himself from the Father, when he says, that there is another which bears him witness. And for this purpose makes that which in another place is said, that the Father created all things by the Word, which he could not, but being after a certain manner distinct from him. Moreover the Father came not down into the earth, but he that came out from the Father. The Father died not, nor rose again, but he that was sent by him. Neither yet did this distinction begin at the taking of flesh: but it is manifest that he was also before, the only begotten in the bosom of the Father. For who can abide to say, that then the Son entered into the bosom of the Father, when he descended from heaven to take manhood upon him? He was therefore before in the bosom of the Father, and enjoyed his glory with the Father. As for the distinction of the Holy Spirit from the Father, Christ speaks of it when he says, that it proceeds from the Father. And how often does he show it to be another beside himself? as when he promises that he will send another comforter, and often in other places.

But to borrow similitudes from matters of men, to express the force of this distinction, I know not whether it be expedient. Indeed the old fathers are wont to do so sometimes: but withal they do confess, that whatever they bring forth for the like, does much differ. For which cause I am much afraid to be any way bold, lest if I bring forth anything unfittingly, it should give occasion either to the malicious to cavil, or to the unskillful to be deceived. Yet such distinction as we have marked to be set out in scriptures, it is not good to have left unspoken. And that is this, that to the Father is given the beginning of working, the fountain and spring of all things: to the Son wisdom, counsel, and the very disposition in the doing of things: to the Holy Ghost is assigned power and effectual working. And although eternity belongs to the Father, and eternity to the Son and to the Holy Ghost also, for as much as God could never have been without his wisdom and power, and in eternity is not to be sought, which was first or last: yet this observation of order is not vain or superfluous, wherein the Father is reckoned first, and then of him the Son, and after of them both the Holy Ghost. For every man's mind of itself inclines to this, first to consider God, then the wisdom rising out of him, and last of all the power wherewith he puts the decrees of his purpose in execution. In what sort the Son is said to be of the Father only, and the Holy Ghost both of the Father and the Son, is showed in many places, but nowhere more plainly than in chapter 8 to the Romans, where the same Spirit is without difference sometimes called the Spirit of Christ, and sometimes of him that raised up Christ from the dead: and that not without cause. For Peter does also testify that it was the Spirit of Christ wherewith the prophets did prophesy, whereas the Scripture so often teaches, that it was the Spirit of God the Father.

Now this distinction does not so stand against the single unity of God, that thereby we may prove that the Son is one God with the Father, because he has one Spirit with him, and that the Holy Spirit is not a thing diverse from the Father and the Son. For in each Hypostasis is understood the whole substance, with this that every one has his own property. The Father is whole in the Son, and the Son is whole in the Father, as himself affirms. I am in the Father, and the Father is in me. And the Ecclesiastical writers do not grant the one to be severed from the other by any difference of essence. By these names that betoken distinction (says Augustine) that is meant whereby they have relation one to another, and not the very substance whereby they are all one. By which meaning are the sayings of the old writers to be made to agree, which otherwise would seem not a little to disagree. For sometimes they say that the Father is the beginning of the Son, and sometimes that the Son has both Godhead and essence of himself, and is all one beginning with the Father. The cause of this diversity Augustine does in another place well and plainly declare, when he says: Christ, having respect to himself, is called God, and to his Father is called the Son. And again the Father as to himself is called God, as to his Son is called the Father, where having respect to the Son he is called the Father, he is not the Son: and whereas to the Father he is called the Son, he is not the Father: and where he is called as to himself the Father, and as to himself the Son: it is all one God. Therefore when we simply speak of the Son: without having respect to the Father, we do well and properly say, that he is of himself: and therefore we call him but one beginning: but when we make mention of the relation between him and his Father, then we rightly make the Father the beginning of the Son. All the whole fifth book of Augustine concerning the Trinity does nothing but set forth this matter. And much safer it is to rest in that relation that he speaks of, than by subtly piercing into the high mystery to wander abroad by many vain speculations.

Let those therefore that are pleased with soberness, and contented with measure of faith, briefly learn so much as is profitable to be known: that is, when we profess that we believe in one God, under the name of God, we understand the one only and single essence in which we comprehend three Persons or hypostases. And therefore so often as we do indefinitely speak of the name of God, we mean no less the Son and the Holy Ghost than the Father. But when the Son is joined to the Father, then comes in a relation, and so we make distinction between the Persons. And because the properties in the Persons bring an order with them, so as the beginning and original is in the Father: so often as mention is made of the Father and the Son, or the Holy Ghost together, the name of God is peculiarly given to the Father. By this means is retained the unity of the essence, and regard is had to the order, which yet does diminish nothing of the Godhead of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. And whereas we have already seen that the Apostles do affirm, that the Son of God is he, whom Moses and the prophets do testify to be Jehovah the Lord, we must of necessity always come to the unity of the essences. Therefore it is a detestable sacrilege for us to call the Son a several God from the Father, because the simple name of God does admit no relation, and God in respect of himself cannot be said to be this or that. Now, that the name of Jehovah the Lord indefinitely taken is applied to Christ, appears by the words of Paul, where he says: Therefore I have three times prayed the Lord, because after he had received the answer of Christ — My grace is sufficient for you — he says by and by, that the power of Christ may dwell in me. It is certain that the name Lord is there set for Jehovah, and therefore to restrain it to the person of the Mediator were very foolish and childish, for so much as it is an absolute sentence that compares not the Father with the Son. And we know that after the accustomed manner of the Greeks, the Apostles do commonly set the word Kyrios, Lord, instead of Jehovah. And, not to fetch an example far off, Paul did in no other sense pray to the Lord, than in the same sense that Peter cites the place of Joel: whoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. But where this name is peculiarly given to the Son, we shall see that there is another reason for it, when we come to a place fit for it. Now it is enough to have in mind, when Paul had absolutely prayed to God, he by and by brings in the name of Christ. Even so is the whole God called by Christ himself the Spirit. For there is no cause against it, but that the whole essence of God may be spiritual, wherein the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are comprehended. Which is very plain by the Scripture. For even as there we hear God to be made a Spirit: so we do hear the Holy Ghost, for so much as it is a Hypostasis of the whole essence, to be called both God, and proceeding from God.

But for as much as Satan, to the end to root out our faith, has always moved great contentions, partly concerning the divine essence of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, and partly concerning their distinction of Persons. And as in a manner in all ages he has stirred up wicked spirits to trouble the true teachers in this behalf: so at this day he travails out of the old embers to kindle a new fire: therefore here it is good to answer the perverse foolish errors of some. Hitherto it has been our purpose, to lead as it were by the hand those that are willing to learn, and not to strive hand to hand with the obstinate and contentious. But now the truth which we have already peaceably shown, must be rescued from the cavillations of the wicked. Albeit my chief travail shall yet be applied to this end, that they which give gentle and open ears to the word of God, may have whereupon steadfastly to rest their foot. In this point, if any where at all in the secret mysteries of Scripture, we ought to dispute soberly, and with great moderation, and to take great heed that neither our thought nor our tongue proceed any further than the bounds of God's word do extend. For how may the mind of man by his capacity define the immeasurable essence of God, which never yet could certainly determine how great is the body of the Sun, which yet he daily sees with his eyes? Indeed, how may she by her own guiding attain to discuss the substance of God, that cannot reach to know her own substance? Therefore let us willingly give over to God the knowledge of himself. For he only, as Hilary says, is a convenient witness to himself, which is not known but by himself. We shall give it over to him, if we shall both conceive him to be such as he has opened himself to us, and shall not elsewhere search to know of him, than by his own word. There are to this end written five homilies of Chrysostom against the Anomeans. Yet the boldness of Sophisters could not be restrained by them from babbling unbridledly. For they have behaved themselves in this behalf no whit more modestly than they are accustomed in all other. By the unhappy outcome of which indiscretion, we ought to be warned to take care that we bend ourselves to travail in this question rather with tractable willingness to learn, than with sharpness of wit, and never have in our mind either to search for God anywhere else than in his holy Word, or to think anything of him, but having his Word going before to guide us, or to speak anything but that which is taken out of the same Word. The distinction that is in the one Godhead of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, as it is very hard to know, so does it bring more business and cumbrance to some minds than is expedient. Let them remember that the minds of men do enter into a maze when they follow their own curiosity, and so let them suffer themselves to be ruled with the heavenly oracles, however they cannot attain the height of the mystery.

To make a register of the errors, with which the purity of faith in this point of doctrine has in times past been assailed, were too long and full of unprofitable tediousness: and the most part of heretics have [reconstructed: also] attempted to overwhelm the glory of God with gross doting errors, that they have thought it enough for them to shake and trouble the unskillful. And from a few men have sprung up many sects, of which some do tear asunder the essence of God, some do confound the distinction that is between the Persons. But if we hold fast that which is already sufficiently showed by the Scripture, that the essence of the one God which belongs to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, is single and undivided. Again, that the Father by a certain property differs from the Son, and the Son from the Holy Ghost: we shall stop up the gate not only against Arrius and Sabellius, but also the other old authors of errors. But because in our time there have risen up certain frenzied men, as Servetus and others like, which have encumbered all things with new deceits: it is good in few words to discuss their falsehoods. The name of the Trinity was so hateful, indeed so detestable to Servetus, that he said, that all the Trinitarians, as he called them, were utterly godless. I omit the foolish words that he had devised to rail with. But of his opinions this was the sum. That God is made tripartite, when it is said, that there abide three Persons in his essence, and that this Trinity is but a thing imagined, because it disagrees with the unity of God. In the meantime the Persons he would have to be certain outward conceptions of Form, which are not truly subsisting in the essence of God, but do represent God to us in this or that fashion. And at the beginning that there was in God nothing distinct because once the Word and the Spirit were all one: but since Christ arose God out of God, the Holy Ghost sprang also another God out of him. And though sometimes he colors his follies with allegories, as when he says, that the eternal Word of God was the Spirit of Christ with God, and the bright shining of his form. Again, that the Holy Ghost was the shadow of the godhead, yet afterward he brings the godhead of them both to nothing, affirming that after the rate of distribution there is both in the Son and in the Holy Spirit a part of God, even as the same Spirit in us, and also in wood and stones is substantially a portion of God. What he babbles of the Person of the Mediator, we shall hereafter see in place convenient. But this monstrous forged device, that a Person is nothing else but a visible form of the glory of God, needs no long refutation. For whereas John pronounces, that the Word was God before the world was yet created, he makes it much differing from a conception of Form. But if then also, indeed and from farthest eternity of time, that Word which was God was with the Father, and had his own proper glory with the Father, he could not be an outward or figurative shining: but it necessarily follows that he was a hypostasis that did inwardly abide in God. And although there be no mention made of the Spirit, but in the history of the creation of the world: yet he is not there brought in as a shadow, but an essential power of God, when Moses shows that the very unformed lump was sustained in him. Therefore it then appeared, that the eternal Spirit was always in God, when he preserved and sustained the confused matter of heaven and earth, until beauty and order were added to it. Surely he could not yet be an image or representation of God as Servetus dreams. But in other points he is compelled more openly to disclose his wickedness, in saying that God by his eternal purpose appointing to himself a visible Son, did by this means show himself visible. For if that be true, there is no other godhead left to Christ, but so far as he is by the eternal decree of God ordained his Son. Moreover he so transforms those imagined shapes that he sticks not to feign new accidents in God. But this of all others is most abominable, that he confusedly mingles as well the Son of God, as the Holy Ghost, with all creatures. For he plainly affirms, that there are parts and partitions in the essence of God, of which every portion is God. And namely he says, that the Spirits of the faithful are coeternal and consubstantial with God: albeit in another place he assigns the substantial deity, not only to the soul of man, but also to other creatures.

Out of this sink came forth another like monster. For certain lewd men meaning to escape the hatred and shame of the wickedness of Servetus, have indeed confessed, that there are three Persons, but adding a manner how: that the Father which truly and properly is the one only God, in forming the Son and the Holy Ghost, has poured his godhead into them. Indeed they do not forbear this horrible manner of speech, that the Father is by this mark distinguished from the Son and the Holy Ghost, that he is the only essentiator or maker of the essence. First they pretend this pretext, that Christ is everywhere called the Son of God: from which they gather, that there is none other properly God but the Father. But they do not notice, that though the name of God be also common to the Son, yet by reason of preeminence it is sometimes given to the Father only, because he is the fountain and origin of the Deity, and that for this purpose, to make the single unity of the essence to be thereby noted. They take exception and say: If he be truly the Son of God, it is improper to have him reckoned the Son of a Person. I answer that both are true: that is, that he is the Son of God, because he is the Word begotten of the Father before all worlds (for we come not yet to speak of the Person of the Mediator) and yet for explanation's sake we ought to have regard of the Person, that the name of God simply be not taken, but for the Father only. For if we mean none to be God but the Father, we plainly throw down the Son from the degree of God. Therefore so often as mention is made of the godhead, we must not admit a comparison between the Son and the Father, as though the name of God did belong only to the Father. For truly the God that appeared to Isaiah was the true and only God, and yet John affirms that the same was Christ. And he that by the mouth of Isaiah testified, that he should be a stumbling stone to the Jews, was the only God: and yet Paul pronounces that the same was Christ. He that cries out by Isaiah, I live, and to me all knees shall bow, is the only God: and yet Paul expounds that the same was Christ. For this purpose serve the testimonies that the Apostle recites: You, O God, have laid the foundations of heaven and earth. Again, let all the angels of God worship him, which things belong to none, but to the only God. And yet he says, that they are the proper titles of Christ. And this cavil is nothing worth, that that is given to Christ, which is proper to God: because Christ is the shining brightness of his glory. For because in each of these places is taken the name of Jehovah, it follows, that it is so said in respect that he is God of himself. For if he be Jehovah, it can not be denied that he is the same God that in another place cries out by Isaiah: I, I am, and beside me there is no God. It is good also to consider that saying of Jeremiah: The gods that have not made the heaven and earth, let them perish out of the earth that is under the heaven. Whereas on the other side we must needs confess, that the Son of God is he, whose godhead is often proved in Isaiah by the creation of the world. And how can it be that the Creator, which gives being to all things, shall not be of himself, but borrow his being from another. For whoever says that the Son was essentiated or made to be of his Father, denies that he is of himself. But the Holy Ghost says the contrary, naming him Jehovah. Now if we grant that the whole essence is in the Father only, either it must be made divisible, or be taken from the Son, and so shall the Son be spoiled of his essence, and be a God only in name and title. The essence of God, if we believe these triflers: belongs only to the Father, for as much as he is only God, and is the essence-maker of the Son. And so shall the godhead of the Son be an abstraction from the essence of God, or a derivation of a part out of the whole. Now they must needs grant by their own principle, that the Holy Ghost is the Spirit of the Father only. For if he be a derivation from the first essence, which is only proper to the Father, of right he can not be accounted the Spirit of the Son: which is refuted by the testimony of Paul, where he makes the Spirit common to Christ and the Father. Moreover if the Person of the Father be wiped out of the Trinity, wherein shall he differ from the Son and the Holy Ghost, but in this, that he only is God? They confess Christ to be God, and yet they say he differs from the Father. Again, there must be some mark of difference to make it so that the Father be not the Son. They which say that mark of difference to be in the essence, do manifestly bring the true godhead of Christ to nothing, which can not be without essence, indeed and that the whole essence. The Father differs not from the Son, unless he have something proper to himself that is not common to the Son. What now will they find wherein to make him different? If the difference be in the essence, let them answer if he has not communicated the same to the Son. But that could not be in part, for to say that he made half a God were wicked. Besides that by this means they do foully tear asunder the essence of God. It remains therefore that the essence is whole, and perfectly common to the Father and the Son. And if that be true, then as concerning the essence there is no difference of the one of them from the other. If they say that the Father in giving his essence, remains nevertheless the only God, with whom the essence abides: then Christ shall be a figurative God, and a God only in show and in name but not in deed: because nothing is more proper to God than to be, according to this saying: He that is, has sent me to you.

It is easy by many places to prove that it is false which they hold, that so often as there is in scripture mention made absolutely of God, none is meant thereby but the Father. And in those places that they themselves do allege, they foully betray their own want of consideration, because there is also set the name of the Son. Whereby it appears, that the name of God is there relatively taken, and therefore restrained to the Person of the Father. And their objection where they say, if the Father were not only the true God, he should himself be his own Father, is answered with one word. It is not inconvenient for degree and order's sake, that he be peculiarly called GOD, who has not only of himself begotten his wisdom, but also is the God of the Mediator, as in a place fit for it, I will more largely declare. For since Christ was openly showed in the flesh, he is called the Son of God, not only in respect that he was the eternal Word before all worlds begotten of the Father: but also because he took upon him the Person and office of the Mediator to join us to God. And because they do so boldly exclude the Son from the honor of God, I would fain know whether the Son when he pronounces, that none is good but God, does take goodness from himself (Matthew 19:17)? I do not speak of his human nature, lest perhaps they should take exception, and say, that whatever goodness was in it, it came of free gift. I ask whether the eternal Word of God be good or no? If they say no, then we hold their ungodliness sufficiently convinced: in saying yes, they confound themselves. But whereas at the first sight, Christ seems to put from himself the name of Good, that does the more confirm our meaning. For since it is the singular title of God alone, forasmuch as he was after the common manner saluted by the name of Good, in refusing false honor, he did admonish them that the goodness wherein he excelled, was the goodness that God has. I ask also, where Paul affirms that only God is immortal, wise, and true (1 Timothy 1:17), whether by these words Christ be brought into the number of men mortal, foolish, and false? Shall not he then be immortal, that from the beginning was life to give immortality to angels? Shall not he be wise that is the eternal wisdom of God? Shall not the truth itself be true? I ask furthermore, whether they think that Christ ought to be worshipped or no? For he claims this to himself, to have all knees bow before him (Philippians 2:10): it follows that he is the God who did in the law forbid any other to be worshipped but himself. If they will have that meant of the Father only which is spoken in Isaiah: I am, and none but I (Isaiah 44:6): this testimony I turn against themselves, forasmuch as we see, that whatever pertains to God is given to Christ. And their cavil has no place, that Christ was exalted in the flesh, wherein he had been abased, and that in respect of the flesh, all authority is given him in heaven and in earth: because although the majesty of King and Judge extends to the whole Person of the Mediator, yet if he had not been God openly showed in flesh, he could not have been advanced to such height, but that God should have disagreed with himself. But this controversy Paul does well take away, teaching that he was equal with God before that he did abase himself under the shape of a servant (Philippians 2:7). Now how could this equality have stood together, unless he had been the same God whose name is Jah and Jehovah: that rides upon the Cherubim, that is king of all the earth and Lord of the worlds? Now however they babble against it, it cannot be taken from Christ which Isaiah says in another place: He, he, is our GOD, for him we have waited (Isaiah 25:9), whereas in these words he describes the coming of GOD the redeemer, not only that should bring home the people from the exile of Babylon, but also fully in all points restore the church. And with their other cavil they nothing prevail, in saying, that Christ was God in his Father. For though we confess that in respect of order and degree the beginning of the Godhead is in the Father, yet we say that it is a detestable invention to say that the essence is only proper to the Father, as though he were the only God-maker of the Son. For by this means either he should have more essence than one, or else they call Christ God only in title and imagination. If they grant that Christ is God, but next after the Father, then shall the essence be in him begotten and fashioned, which in the Father is unbegotten and unfashioned. I know that many quick-nosed men do laugh at this that we gather the distinction of Persons out of the words of Moses, where he brings in God speaking thus: Let us make man after our image (Genesis 1:26). But yet the godly readers do see how vainly and fondly Moses should bring in this as a talk of diverse persons together, if there were not in God more Persons than one. Now certain it is, that they whom the Father spoke to, were uncreated: but nothing is uncreated but God himself, indeed the one only God. Now therefore unless they grant that the power of creating was common, and the authority of commanding common, to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: it shall follow that God did not inwardly thus speak to himself, but directed his speech to other foreign workmen. Finally one place shall easily answer two of their objections. For whereas Christ himself pronounces that GOD is a Spirit (John 4:24), this were not convenient to be restrained to the Father only, as if the Word himself were not of spiritual nature. If then the name of Spirit does as well agree with the Son as with the Father, I gather that the Son is also comprehended under the indefinite name of GOD. But he adds by and by after that, none are allowed for good worshippers of the Father, but they that worship him in Spirit and truth, whereupon follows another thing, because Christ does under a heading execute the office of a teacher, he does give the name of GOD to the Father, not with the intent to destroy his own Godhead, but by degrees to lift us up to it.

But in this they are deceived, that they dream of certain undivided singular things of which each have a part of the essence. But by the Scriptures we teach, that there is but one essentially God, and therefore that the essence as well of the Son as of the Holy Ghost is unbegotten. But inasmuch as the Father is in order first, and has of himself begotten his wisdom, therefore rightly as is above said, he is counted the origin and fountain of all the Godhead. So God indefinitely spoken, is unbegotten, and the Father also in respect of Person is unbegotten. And foolishly they think that they gather, that by our meaning is made a quaternion, because falsely and captiously they ascribe to us a device of their own brain, as though we did feign that by derivation there come three Persons out of one essence: whereas it is evident by our writings that we do not draw the Persons out of the essence, but although they be abiding in the essence we make a distinction between them. If the Persons were severed from the essence, then perhaps their reason were like to be true. But by that means it should be a Trinity of Gods and not of Persons, which one God contains in him. So is their fond question answered, whether the essence does meet to make up the Trinity, as though we did imagine that there descend three Gods out of it. And this exception grows of like foolishness where they say, that then the Trinity should be without God. For though it meets not to make up the distinction as a part or a member, yet neither are the Persons without it nor out of it. Because the Father if he were not God could not be the Father, and the Son is none otherwise the Son but because he is God. We say therefore, that the Godhead is absolutely of itself. Whereby we grant that the Son insofar as he is God is of himself without respect of his Person, but insofar as he is the Son, we say that he is of the Father. So his essence is without beginning, but the beginning of his Person is God himself. And the true teaching writers that in old time have spoken of the Trinity, have only applied this name to the Persons, inasmuch as it were not only an absurd error but also a gross ungodliness to comprehend the essence in the distinction. For they that will have these three to meet, the essence, the Son and the Holy Ghost, it is plain that they do destroy the essence of the Son and the Holy Ghost, for else the parts joined together would fall asunder, which is a fault in every distinction. Finally if the Father and the Son were synonyms or several names signifying one thing, so the Father should be the God-maker and nothing should remain in the Son but a shadow, and the Trinity should be nothing else, but the joining of one God with two creatures.

Whereas they object, that if Christ be properly God, he is not rightly called the Son, to that we have already answered, that because in such places there is a comparison made of the one Person to the other, the name of God is not there indefinitely taken, but restrained to the Father only, inasmuch as he is the beginning of the Godhead, not in making of essence as the mad men do fondly imagine, but in respect of order. In this meaning is construed that saying of Christ to the Father: this is the eternal life, that men believe in the one true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. For speaking in the Person of the Mediator, he keeps the degree that is mean between God and men: and yet is not his majesty thereby diminished. For though he abased himself, yet he left not with the Father his glory that was hidden before the world. So the Apostle in the second Chapter to the Hebrews, though he confesses that Christ for a short time was abased beneath the Angels, yet he does not hesitate to affirm withal, that he is the same eternal God that founded the earth. We must therefore hold, that so often as Christ in the Person of the Mediator speaks to the Father, under this name of God is comprehended the Godhead which is his also. So when he said to the Apostles: it is profitable that I go up to the Father, because the Father is greater. He gives not to himself only the second degree of Godhead to be as touching his eternal essence inferior to the Father, but because having obtained the heavenly glory, he gathers together the faithful to the partaking of it. He sets his Father in the higher degree, inasmuch as the glorious perfection of brightness that appears in heaven, differs from that measure of glory that was seen in him being clothed with flesh. After like manner in another place, Paul says: that Christ shall yield up the kingdom to God and his Father, that God may be all in all. There is nothing more absurd than to take away eternal continuance from the Godhead of Christ. If he shall never cease to be the Son of God, but shall always remain the same that he was from the beginning, it follows that under the name of the Father is comprehended the one essence that is common to them both. And surely therefore did Christ descend to us, that lifting us up to his Father, he might also lift us up to himself, inasmuch as he is all one with his Father. It is therefore neither lawful nor right so exclusively to restrain the name of God to the Father, as to take it from the Son. For, John does for this cause affirm that he is true God, that no man should think that he rests in a second degree of Godhead beneath his Father. And I marvel what these framers of new Gods do mean, that while they confess Christ to be true God, yet they forthwith exclude him from the Godhead of his Father. As though there could any be a true God but he that is the one God, or as though the Godhead poured from one to another, be not a certain newly forged imagination.

Whereas they heap up many places out of Irenaeus, where he affirms that the Father of Christ is the only and eternal God of Israel: that is either done of a shameful ignorance, or of an extreme wickedness. For they ought to have considered, that then the holy man had to do in disputation with those frenzied men, that denied that the Father of Christ was the same God that in old time spoke by Moses and the Prophets, but that he was some unknown imagined thing brought out of the corruption of the world. Therefore he altogether travails in this point, to make it plain that there is no other God preached of in the Scripture but the Father of Christ, and that it is wrong to devise any other, and therefore it is no marvel if he so often concludes that there was no other God of Israel, but he that was spoken of by Christ and the Apostles. And in like manner now, whereas we are to stand against another sort of error, we may truly say that the God which in old time appeared to the Fathers, was none other but Christ. But if any man object that it was the Father, our answer is in readiness, that when we strive to defend the Godhead of the Son, we exclude not the Father. If the readers take heed to this purpose of Irenaeus, all that contention shall cease. And also by the sixth chapter of the third book, this whole strife is ended, where the good man stands all upon this point, to prove that he which is in Scripture absolutely and indefinitely called God: is truly the one only God, and that Christ is absolutely called God. Let us remember that this was the principal point upon which stood all his disputation, as by the whole process thereof does appear: and especially Chapter 46 of the second book, that he is not called the Father by dark similitude or parable, which is not very God indeed. Moreover in another place he says, that as well the Son as the Father were jointly called God by the Prophets and Apostles. Afterward he defines how Christ which is Lord of all, and king, and God, and judge, received power from him which is the God of all, that is to say in respect of his subjection, because he was humbled even to the death of the cross. And a little after he affirms, that the Son is the maker of heaven and earth, which gave the law by the hand of Moses and appeared to the Fathers. Now if any man does prate that with Irenaeus only the Father is the God of Israel, I will turn again upon him that which the same writer plainly teaches, that Christ is all one and the same: as also he applies to him the prophecy of Habakkuk. God shall come out of the South. To the same purpose serves that which is read in Chapter 9 of the fourth book. Christ himself therefore with the Father is the God of the living. And in Chapter 12 of the same book he expounds that Abraham believed God, because Christ is the maker of heaven and earth and the only God.

And with no more truth do they bring in Tertullian for their defender. For though he be rough sometimes and crabbed in his manner of speech, yet does he plainly teach the sum of that doctrine that we defend. That is to say, whereas he is the one GOD, yet by disposition and order he is his Word: that there is but one GOD in unity of substance, and yet that the same unity by mystery of orderly distribution is disposed into Trinity, that there are three, not in state, but in degree, not in substance, but in form: not in power, but in order. He says that he defends the Son to be a second next to the Father, but he means him to be none other than the Father, but by way of distinction. In some places he says that the Son is visible. But when he has reasoned on both parts he defines that he is invisible in so much as he is the Word.

Finally where he affirms that the Father is determined in his own person, he proves himself far from that error which we confute. And though he does acknowledge none other God but the Father, yet in the next piece of his writing expounding himself, he says, that he speaks not exclusively in respect of the Son, because he denies that the Son is any other God beside the Father, and that therefore their sole government is not broken by distinction of person. And by the perpetual course of his purpose it is easy to gather the meaning of his words. For he disputes against Praxeas, that though God be distinguished into three persons, yet are there not made many gods nor the unity torn asunder. And because by the imagination of Praxeas Christ could not be God, but he must also be the Father, therefore he so much labors about the distinction. Whereas he calls the Word and the Spirit a portion of the whole: although it be a hard kind of speech, yet is it excusable, because it is not referred to the substance, but only shows the disposition and order that belongs only to the persons, as Tertullian himself witnesses. And from this follows that: Now how many persons do you think there are, O most perverse Praxeas, but even so many as there be names? And so a little after that, they may believe the Father and the Son each in their names and persons. Hereby I think may be sufficiently confuted their impudence that seek to beguile the simple with color of Tertullian's authority.

And surely whoever shall diligently compare together the writings of the old authors, shall find no other thing in Irenaeus, than that which has been taught by other that came after. Justin is one of the most ancient, and he in all things does agree with us. Yet let them object that he as the rest do, calls the Father of Christ the only God. The same thing does Hilary teach, indeed and speaks more boldly, that the eternity is in the Father. But does he do that to take away the essence of God from the Son? And yet is he altogether in defense of the same Faith that we follow. Yet are they not ashamed to pick out certain mangled sentences whereby they would persuade that Hilary is a patron of their error. Where they bring in Ignatius: if they will have that to be of any authority, let them prove that the Apostles made a law for lent and such like corruptions of religion. Nothing is more unsavory than those fond trifles that are published under the name of Ignatius. Therefore their impudence is so much less tolerable that disguise themselves with such visors to deceive. Moreover the consent of the ancient Fathers is plainly perceived by this, that at the council of Nice, Arius never durst allege for himself the authority of any one allowed writer. And none of the Greeks or Latins does excuse himself and say, that he dissents from them that were before. It needs not to be spoken how Augustine, whom those losells do most hate, has diligently searched the writings of them all, and how reverently he did embrace them. Truly even in matters of least weight he uses to show what compels him to dissent from them. And in this matter, if he have read any thing doubtful or dark in other, he hides it not. But the doctrine that these men strive against, he takes it as confessed, that from the farthest time of antiquity it has been without controversy received. And by one word it appears that he was not ignorant what other had taught before him, where he says that in the Father is unity, in the first book of Christian doctrine, will they say that he then forgot himself? But in another place he purges himself from such reproach, where he calls the Father the beginning of the whole Godhead, because he is of none: considering indeed wisely that the name of God is specially ascribed to the Father, because if the beginning should not be reckoned at him, the single unity of God cannot be conceived. By this I trust the godly reader will perceive that all the cavillations are confuted whereby Satan has until now attempted to pervert or darken the pure truth of doctrine. Finally I trust that the whole sum of doctrine in this point is fully declared, if the readers will restrain their curiosity, and not more greedily than is fitting seek for cumbersome and entangled disputations. For I take not in hand to please them, that do delight in an intemperate desire of speculation. Truly I have omitted nothing of subtle purpose that I thought to make against me. But while I study to edify the church, I thought it best, to leave many things untouched which both slightly profited, and would grieve the readers with superfluous tediousness. For to what purpose were it to dispute, whether the father does always beget? Since it is folly to feign a continual act of begetting, since it is evident that from eternity there have been three Persons in God.

What the Scriptures teach about the incomprehensible and spiritual essence of God should be enough not only to correct the foolish errors of ordinary people but also to refute the clever arguments of secular philosophy. One ancient writer seemed to put it well when he said that God is everything we see and everything we do not see. But by saying this, he imagined the Godhead to be spread out through all parts of the world. Although God speaks sparingly about His own essence in order to keep our minds sober, the two descriptions He gives both sweep away crude misconceptions and check the presumptuous boldness of the human mind. His immeasurable greatness should make us afraid to try to comprehend Him with our senses, and His spiritual nature forbids us from imagining anything earthly or physical about Him. For this same reason He often describes His dwelling place as heaven. Although, being incomprehensible, He fills the earth as well, He sees that our minds tend to stay fixed on earthly things — and so He rightly lifts us above the world to shake off our slowness. Here the error of the Manichees collapses, for in assigning two original principles they effectively made the devil nearly equal with God. This was nothing less than breaking the unity of God and limiting His immeasurability. Their attempt to misuse certain Scripture passages reveals deep ignorance, just as their error itself reveals a terrible madness. The Anthropomorphites are also easily answered — those who imagined God to have a body because Scripture often assigns Him a mouth, ears, eyes, hands, and feet. What person, even one of modest intelligence, does not understand that God speaks to us in this way as a nurse speaks to an infant? These ways of speaking do not describe what God actually is so much as they adapt our understanding of Him to our limited capacity. To accomplish that, it was necessary for Him to come far down from His own height.

But God also reveals Himself by another distinctive mark, through which He may be more closely known. He declares Himself to be one, yet He presents Himself as three persons — and unless we grasp this, we end up with a bare and empty name of God in our minds rather than the true God. So that no one thinks of a threefold God, or imagines that the one essence of God is divided into three persons, we need a brief and clear definition to free us from error. Many people make a great fuss over the word 'person' as something invented by human beings, so it is worth examining how justified that objection really is. When the apostle calls the Son the exact imprint of the Father's nature, he clearly means that the Father has a distinctive existence that sets Him apart from the Son. To take this as referring to essence — as some interpreters have done, as if Christ were like a wax seal pressing out the substance of the Father — is not only a strained reading but an absurdity. Since the essence of God is single and indivisible, the one who contains it wholly and completely — not partially or by derivation — would be described very wrongly, even foolishly, as its imprint. But because the Father, though distinctly Himself, has fully expressed Himself in the Son, it is rightly said that He has allowed His nature to be seen in Him. This agrees well with what follows immediately: that the Son is the radiance of the Father's glory. From the apostle's words we gather that the Father has a distinctive nature that shines in the Son — and from this it is also easy to see the Son's own distinctive nature that sets Him apart from the Father. The same order holds for the Holy Spirit, for we will shortly prove that He is God, and yet He must be distinct from the Father. Yet this distinction is not a distinction of essence, which it would be wrong to multiply. Therefore, if the apostle's testimony is to be believed, there are three distinct persons in God. The Latins expressed this term as 'person,' and it would be stubborn pride to quarrel over such a clear matter. If we translate word for word, we might render it 'subsistence.' Many have used the word 'substance' in the same sense. The word 'person' has not been used only among the Latins — the Greeks as well, perhaps to show agreement, have taught that there are three prosopa (that is, persons) in God. Whether Greek or Latin, those who differ on the word agree very well on the substance of the matter.

Now, however much heretics may rail against the word 'person,' or overly scrupulous people complain that they dislike a term invented by human beings — since they cannot get us to say either that there are three beings each of whom is wholly God, or that there are many gods — how unreasonable is it to object to words that express nothing other than what Scripture itself testifies and confirms? It would be better, they say, to confine not only our thoughts but our words within the limits of Scripture, rather than inventing new terms that breed disagreement and argument — so that we exhaust ourselves in word-fights, truth is lost in the quarrel, and charity is broken by bitter strife. If they call a term 'foreign' simply because it cannot be found letter-for-letter in Scripture, they bind us to a severe law that would condemn every explanation that is not pieced together from direct Scripture quotations alone. But if they mean by 'foreign' something that is curiously invented, stubbornly defended, more useful for stirring controversy than for building up the church, used carelessly or pointlessly, or that draws people away from the simplicity of God's word — then I wholeheartedly embrace their caution. I believe we ought to speak of God with no less reverence than we think of Him, since whatever we devise about Him on our own is foolish, and whatever we say is empty. But there is a proper measure to observe. We ought to draw from Scripture a rule for both thinking and speaking, by which to test every thought of the mind and every word of the mouth. What prevents us, then, from expressing in plainer words those things that seem obscure and tangled when read in Scripture — provided those words faithfully and reverently serve the truth of Scripture, and are used sparingly, modestly, and only when needed? There are plenty of examples of this. When it is demonstrated that the church was compelled by genuine necessity to use the terms Trinity and persons, anyone who still objects to those words as novelties would rightly be seen as troubled that the truth has been made so plain and clear.

New terminology of this kind comes chiefly into use when the truth must be defended against those who mock it with clever evasions. We have experienced this very much in our own day, having great trouble defeating the enemies of true and sound doctrine. These slippery opponents twist and dodge with such cunning that they cannot be pinned down unless they are firmly seized and held when caught. So the ancient fathers, burdened with fighting false doctrines, were forced to state their meaning with precise clarity, so they would leave no crooked back roads for the wicked to hide their errors in. Arius confessed that Christ was God and the Son of God — because he could not deny the plain words of Scripture — and as if that were sufficient, he pretended to agree with everyone else. But all the while he kept spreading the idea that Christ was created and had a beginning like other creatures. To draw his slippery cunning out into the open, the ancient fathers went further and declared that Christ is the eternal Son of the Father and consubstantial with the Father. Then the wickedness of the Arians began to boil over, as they attacked and despised the word 'homoousian' — consubstantial. But if from the beginning they had sincerely confessed Christ to be God, they would never have denied that He is consubstantial with the Father. Who could justly accuse these faithful men of being quarrelsome and contentious for disputing so intensely over a single word — when that word was the one that exposed the whole conflict and troubled the peace of the church? That one word revealed the difference between true Christians and the Arians who robbed God of His honor. Later Sabellius arose, who treated the names Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as nearly meaningless — claiming in argument that these names did not point to any real distinction but were merely different titles for God, of which there are many. In debate he would confess his belief in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. But then he would slip away by saying he had spoken no differently than if he had called God 'strong God,' 'just God,' or 'wise God' — and so he sang a different tune: that the Father is the Son, and the Holy Spirit is the Father, with no order or distinction. The faithful teachers who cared for godliness in that day spoke out against his error, insisting that one God must be acknowledged in three persons. To guard against his twisted evasions with plain and simple truth, they affirmed that within the one God — or, to say the same thing differently — within the unity of God there truly subsists a Trinity of persons.

Since these names were not invented without reason, we should take care that in rejecting them we are not rightly accused of proud presumption. I wish these names could be set aside entirely, if all people would simply agree on this faith: that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one God, and yet the Father is not the Son, nor is the Holy Spirit the Son — but each is distinct by a certain property. Yet I am not so insistent that I would fight over bare words. I notice that the ancient fathers, who otherwise spoke very carefully on these matters, did not always agree with one another — nor did every writer always agree with himself. How many of the councils' forms of speech does Hilary excuse? To what lengths of free expression does Augustine sometimes go? How different are the Greek writers from the Latin ones? One example will be enough for now. When the Latins wanted to express the Greek word homoousios, they used 'consubstantial,' declaring the substance of the Father and the Son to be one — using 'substance' to mean 'essence.' And so Jerome writes to Damasus that it is sacrilege to speak of three substances in God — and yet you will find Hilary saying there are three substances in God more than a hundred times. How troubled Jerome is by the word hypostasis! He suspects there is poison hidden in speaking of three hypostases in God. Even if someone uses the word in a godly sense, Jerome says plainly that it is improper speech — though he may have said this insincerely, looking for an unjust excuse to charge the Eastern bishops. His claim that in all non-Christian schools ousia and hypostasis mean exactly the same thing is simply not true, as common usage shows. Augustine is more gentle on this point: though he says the word hypostasis sounds strange to Latin ears, he is far from denying the Greeks their customary way of speaking — he also graciously accepts the Latins who had followed the Greek usage. What Socrates writes in the sixth book of the Tripartite History suggests that the term had been misapplied through ignorance. Hilary himself charges it as a serious fault against the heretics that their stubbornness compelled him to put matters into human language that should have remained in the reverence of the mind — openly confessing that it means doing what is not lawful, speaking what ought not to be spoken, and attempting what is not permitted. A little later he apologizes at length for daring to use new terms. After using the natural names Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, he adds that whatever is sought beyond these is beyond the reach of speech, beyond the grasp of sense, and beyond the capacity of understanding. In another place he says: 'Happy are you, bishops of Gaul, who have had, received, and known no confession other than the old and simple one received in all churches from the time of the apostles.' Augustine's explanation is similar: the word 'person' was wrung out of necessity by the inadequacy of human language in so great a matter — not to fully express what God is, but so that there would be some answer to the question of how the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three. This humility of the holy men should warn us not to act as harsh judges and condemn as infamous those who refuse to subscribe to our chosen words — provided they are not acting out of pride, stubbornness, or malicious cunning. But let those who resist consider how pressing the necessity is that drives us to speak this way, so they may gradually grow accustomed to this useful language. They should also be careful: since we must on one side oppose the Arians and on the other the Sabellians, if they are offended that we cut off every opening for both to twist the truth, they may bring themselves under suspicion of being disciples of Arius or Sabellius. Arius says Christ is God, but mutters that He was created and had a beginning. He says Christ is one with the Father, but secretly whispers to his followers that He is one as other believers are one — though by a special privilege. Say once that Christ is consubstantial with the Father, and you strip the mask from the deceiver — without adding anything to Scripture. Sabellius says the names Father, Son, and Holy Spirit indicate nothing separately distinct in God. Say that they are three, and he will cry out that you are naming three gods. Say that within one essence there is a Trinity of persons, and in one phrase you both express what Scripture says and silence their empty chatter. Now, if anyone is so cautious about these terms that they cannot accept them, no one can honestly deny this: when we hear of one, we must understand a unity of substance; when we hear of three in one essence, we mean the persons of the Trinity. If this is sincerely confessed, we need not quarrel further over words. But I have found repeatedly, over a long time, that whoever stubbornly quarrels about words is hiding a secret poison within — so it is better to draw them out openly than to speak vaguely just to please them.

Setting aside the dispute over words, I will now address the matter itself. I define a person as a subsistence within the essence of God, which — having a relation to the others — is distinguished from them by an incommunicable property. By 'subsistence' we mean something distinct from 'essence.' For if the Word had simply been God, with nothing distinctly its own, John would have been wrong to say it was with God. Then when he immediately adds that the Word itself was God, he calls us back to the single, unified essence. But because the Word could not be with God without resting in the Father, from this arises that subsistence which, though bound to the essence by an inseparable bond, yet has a distinguishing mark by which it differs from it. So of the three subsistences I say that each, in relation to the others, is distinguished by its own property. This relation is expressly important. When God is spoken of simply and without qualification, the name belongs no less to the Son and the Holy Spirit than to the Father. But when the Father is compared with the Son, the distinct property of each distinguishes one from the other. Third, whatever is proper to each of them is incommunicable: what is given to the Father as His distinguishing mark cannot belong to or be applied to the Son. I also accept the definition of Tertullian — rightly understood — that there is in God a certain arrangement or distribution that does not change the unity of the essence in any way.

But before going further, I should first prove the Godhead of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and then show how they differ from one another. Surely when the Word of God is spoken of in Scripture, it would be absurd to imagine it as merely a fleeting sound sent into the air — as if it were simply God's voice behind the oracles given to the fathers and all the prophecies. Rather, the Word is the perpetual wisdom abiding with the Father, from which all oracles and prophecies came. As Peter testifies, the ancient prophets spoke by the Spirit of Christ just as the apostles did, and all who later proclaimed the heavenly teaching. But because Christ had not yet appeared openly, we must understand that the Word was begotten of the Father before all worlds. If the Spirit of the Word was the one whose instruments the prophets were, we can clearly conclude that He was true God. Moses teaches this plainly enough in the creation of the world, where he presents the Word as the means of creation. Why does Moses expressly record that God said 'Let this be made' or 'Let that be done' for each of His creative works — if not so that the unsearchable glory of God might shine through His handiwork? Clever and argumentative people easily dismiss this by saying that 'word' there simply means God's command or decree. But better interpreters are the apostles, who teach that the worlds were made through the Word, and that He upholds all things by His powerful word. Here we see that 'word' is used for the command of the Son, who is Himself the eternal and essential Word of the Father. Nor is it obscure to the thoughtful reader that Solomon, when he brings in Wisdom begotten of God before all worlds — presiding over creation and all God's works — means the same thing. To say that this was merely a temporary command of God would be foolish and empty, since God's purpose here was to reveal His eternal and steadfast plan — indeed, something still more profound. To the same end Christ said: 'My Father and I have been working until now.' By saying He had been working continually with His Father from the beginning of the world, He makes more explicit what Moses had stated more briefly. We therefore gather that the meaning of God's speaking was this: the Word had an active role in the work of creation, and both shared in a common work together. But John speaks most plainly of all, showing that the same Word who was from the beginning God with God was together with God the Father the cause of all things. He gives the Word a complete and abiding existence, assigns to it something distinctly its own, and shows clearly how God in speaking was the creator of the world. Therefore, while all revelations from God rightly bear the name 'word of God,' we must place above all these the substantial Word — the source of all oracles — which, subject to no change, remains eternally one and the same with God, and is God Himself.

Here many opponents bark against us who, not daring to openly deny His Godhead, secretly steal away His eternity. They claim the Word first came into existence when God opened His holy mouth at the creation of the world. But they foolishly imagine some kind of change in the substance of God. While names that relate to God's outward works — such as 'creator of heaven and earth' — were given to Him after those works existed, true godliness does not admit any name suggesting that something new has happened within God Himself. For if something could come to Him from outside Himself, then James's statement would fail — that every good gift and every perfect gift comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change. Therefore nothing is more unacceptable than to imagine a beginning for the Word, who both always was God and afterward was creator of the world. But they argue very cleverly that when Moses says God first spoke at that moment, it secretly implies there was no Word in Him before. This is a completely trivial argument. It does not follow that because something first appears openly at a certain moment, it therefore had no prior existence. I conclude quite differently: since the power of the Word appeared and showed itself the very moment God said 'Let there be light,' that same Word existed long before. And if you ask how long before, you will find no beginning. Christ Himself pointed to no fixed starting point when He said: 'Father, glorify Me with the glory I had with You before the world existed.' John also touches on this, for he first establishes that in the beginning the Word was with God — before he ever comes to the creation of the world. We therefore say again that the Word, conceived of God before any beginning of time, continually remained with Him — which proves His eternity, His true essence, and His Godhead.

Although I am not yet addressing the person of the Mediator — reserving that for where we will specially treat of redemption — it should be held without controversy among all people that Christ is the same Word clothed in flesh. It is therefore fitting here to gather all the testimonies that prove Christ is God. When Psalm 45 says, 'Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,' the Jews object that the name Elohim is also applied to angels and rulers. But nowhere else in all of Scripture is an eternal throne raised to any creature. He is not merely called God here — He is also called the eternal Lord. Furthermore, this title is elsewhere only given with a qualifying phrase, such as 'Moses shall be as a god to Pharaoh.' Some read it in the genitive, which is very far-fetched. I grant that something may be called divine or 'of God' when it is distinguished by some remarkable excellence. But here the plain reading of the text shows that such a meaning is strained and forced, and does not fit. And if their stubbornness still refuses to yield, Isaiah makes it entirely clear that Christ and God are one and the same — adorned with sovereign power that belongs to God alone. 'This,' he says, 'is the name by which they shall call Him: Mighty God, Everlasting Father,' and so on. The Jews object here too and twist the text to mean: 'This is the name the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, shall call Him' — leaving the Son only the title 'Prince of Peace.' But why would so many titles be piled up here for God the Father, when the prophet's clear purpose is to adorn Christ with special marks that ground our faith in Him? It is therefore beyond doubt that He is here called Mighty God in the same way that He is called Immanuel just a few lines before. Nothing could be plainer than the passage in Jeremiah where he says the name by which the Branch of David shall be called is 'the Lord our righteousness.' The Jews themselves teach that all other names of God are merely descriptive titles, and that the name 'Jehovah' alone — which they consider unutterable — is the substantive name expressing His very essence. From this we conclude that the Son is the one and eternal God, who said elsewhere that He would not give His glory to another. But the Jews try to escape by pointing out that Moses gave that same name to the altar he built, and Ezekiel gave it to the new city Jerusalem. Yet who does not see that the altar was built as a monument to testify that God was the source of Moses's victory? And Jerusalem is not said to bear the name of God in order to share His divine essence, but only to testify to God's presence among His people. The prophet says: 'The name of the city from that day shall be: The Lord is there.' And Moses says: 'He built an altar and called the name of it: The Lord is my banner.' A further difficulty arises from another passage in Jeremiah where the same title is applied to Jerusalem: 'This is the name by which she shall be called: The Lord our righteousness.' But this testimony actually confirms the truth we are defending rather than opposing it. For having already declared that Christ is the true Jehovah from whom righteousness flows, Jeremiah now says the church will experience this reality so fully that she may gloriously bear that very name herself. So the first passage sets forth the source and cause of righteousness, and the second sets forth its effect.

If the Jews are not satisfied by the fact that Jehovah is so often presented in the person of an Angel, I do not see what objection they can raise against it. Scripture says the Angel appeared to the holy fathers, and this same Angel claims for Himself the name of the eternal God. If someone objects that this is said only in reference to the person He represents, that answer does not resolve the difficulty. If He were merely a servant, He would not have allowed sacrifice to be offered to Him, since that would take from God what belongs to Him alone. But the Angel, refusing to eat bread, commanded that sacrifice be offered to Jehovah. Then He made clear that He Himself was indeed that same Jehovah — and Manoah and his wife concluded from this that they had seen not merely an angel but God. From this came Manoah's fear: 'We will surely die, for we have seen God.' And when his wife answered, 'If the Lord had desired to kill us, He would not have received a burnt offering from our hands,' she was confessing that the one formerly called the Angel was in fact God. The Angel's own words remove all remaining doubt: 'Why do you ask my name, seeing it is wonderful?' All the more detestable was the wickedness of Servetus, who claimed God never appeared to Abraham and the other fathers, but that an angel was worshipped in God's place. But the faithful teachers of the church rightly and wisely explained that this chief Angel was the Word of God, who even then was beginning to carry out the office of Mediator. Though He had not yet been clothed in flesh, He came as a mediator between God and humanity to draw near to the faithful in a more accessible way. This close self-communication caused Him to be called an Angel, yet all the while He retained what was truly His own — being the God of unspeakable glory. Hosea means the same thing when, after recounting Jacob's wrestling with the Angel, he says: 'The Lord, the God of hosts — the Lord is His name.' Here again Servetus objects that God merely assumed the role of an Angel. But this is precisely what the prophet was confirming from what Moses had said: 'Why do you ask my name?' And the holy patriarch's own confession makes clear that it was not a created angel but one in whom the full Godhead dwelt, when he said: 'I have seen God face to face.' For this reason Paul says that Christ was the guide of the people in the wilderness. Though the time of His humiliation had not yet come, the eternal Word displayed a preview of the office appointed to Him. If Zechariah chapter 2 is read without bias, the Angel who sent another Angel is immediately declared to be the God of hosts, and sovereign power is ascribed to Him. I will pass over the countless other testimonies on which our faith securely rests, even though they carry less weight with the Jews. For when Isaiah says, 'Behold, this is our God; this is the Lord, we have waited for Him, and He will save us,' those with eyes to see can recognize that this refers to God rising up for the salvation of His people. These emphatic declarations, repeated twice, cannot be pulled in any other direction than toward Christ. Still plainer and fuller is the passage in Malachi, where he promises that the Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to His own temple. But the temple was dedicated to the one sovereign God alone — and the prophet claims this very temple for Christ. It follows, therefore, that Christ is the same God who was always worshipped among the Jews.

The New Testament overflows with testimonies, so rather than heap them all up I will briefly select a few. Although the apostles speak of Christ as He who had already become the Mediator in flesh, everything I will cite serves to prove His Godhead. One thing is especially worth noting: the apostles show that things said of the eternal God in the Old Testament are either already fulfilled or yet to be fulfilled in Christ. Where Isaiah prophesied that the Lord of hosts would be to Jews and Israelites a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, Paul says this was fulfilled in Christ. He is therefore declaring Christ to be the Lord of hosts. Likewise in another place Paul writes: 'We must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, for it is written, every knee shall bow to Me, and every tongue shall confess to God.' Since God says this of Himself in Isaiah, and Christ fulfills it in Himself, it follows that He is the same God whose glory cannot be transferred to another. What Paul quotes from the Psalms and applies to Christ in his letter to the Ephesians — 'He ascended on high and led captivity captive' — could apply to no one but God alone. Paul explains that this ascent was foreshadowed when God displayed His power in striking victories over foreign nations, but it was more fully accomplished in Christ. John also testifies that it was the glory of the Son that appeared to Isaiah in a vision, whereas the prophet himself wrote that the majesty of God appeared to him. And it is evident that what the apostle in Hebrews applies to the Son are the plain titles of God — 'You, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth,' and so on. Likewise: 'Let all God's angels worship Him.' Yet he does not misuse these titles by applying them to Christ. For Christ alone has fulfilled everything spoken of in those Psalms. It was He who rose up and had mercy on Zion. It was He who claimed the kingdom over all nations and islands. Why would John hesitate to apply the majesty of God to Christ, when he had already declared in his opening that the Word was always God? Why would Paul hesitate to seat Christ on the judgment throne of God, having already proclaimed His Godhead so openly — calling Him 'God blessed forever'? And to show how consistent he is on this point, in another place Paul writes that Christ is God manifested in the flesh. If He is God to be praised forever, then He is the same one to whom Paul elsewhere says all glory and honor are due. Paul states plainly that Christ did not consider equality with God a thing to be grasped, but willingly humbled Himself. And so the wicked will not claim He is merely some secondary or derived God, John goes further and says: 'He is the true God and eternal life.' It ought to satisfy us completely that He is called God — especially by the one who explicitly declares that there are no more gods but one. That same witness is Paul, who says: 'Although there are many so-called gods in heaven or on earth, for us there is one God, from whom are all things.' When we hear from the same mouth that God was manifested in the flesh, and that God purchased the church with His own blood, why would we imagine a second God whom Paul himself does not acknowledge? There is no doubt all the faithful held the same view. Likewise Thomas, declaring Christ to be his Lord and his God, was professing that He is the one and only God he had always worshipped.

His Godhead becomes still more evident when we consider the works Scripture ascribes to Him. When He said that from the beginning He had been working continuously with His Father, the Jews — slow to grasp His other sayings — understood immediately that He was claiming the power of God. And so, as John tells us, they sought all the more to kill Him: not only because He broke the Sabbath, but because He called God His own Father, making Himself equal with God. How dull must we be, then, if we cannot see that His Godhead is plainly affirmed here? To govern the world with providence and power, and to rule all things by His own authority — which the apostle ascribes to Him — belongs to none but the Creator. And He does not merely share the government of the world with His Father; He also holds all other offices that God does not share with His creatures. The Lord declares through the prophet: 'I, I am He who blots out your transgressions for My own sake.' When the Jews accused Christ of dishonoring God by forgiving sins, Christ not only affirmed in words but proved by miracle that this power belonged to Him. We see therefore that He holds not the ministry but the authority of forgiveness — the very thing the Lord says He will not pass on to any other. What shall we say of searching and knowing the secret thoughts of the heart? Is this not the property of God alone? Yet Christ possessed it — from which it is clear that He is God.

How plainly and clearly does His Godhead appear in His miracles! I grant that the prophets and the apostles performed miracles equal to His — but there is a crucial difference: they distributed God's gifts through their ministry, while He displayed His own power. He sometimes prayed, in order to give glory to His Father. But most often we see His own power at work. How could it be otherwise, since He was the very author of miracles — the one who by His own authority gave others the power to perform them? The Evangelist records that He gave the apostles power to raise the dead, heal lepers, cast out demons, and so on. They exercised this ministry in a way that made clear the power came from Christ alone. 'In the name of Jesus Christ,' said Peter, 'rise up and walk.' It is no wonder, then, that Christ pointed to His miracles to answer the unbelief of the Jews — for these were miracles performed by His own power, bearing clear testimony to His Godhead. If salvation, righteousness, and life exist nowhere except in God, and Christ contains all these things in Himself, then He is declared to be God. No one can object that life and salvation were simply poured into Him by God, for Scripture does not say He received salvation — it says He is salvation itself. And if none is good but God alone, how can He be merely a man, when He is not just good and just but goodness and justice itself? From the very beginning of creation, as the Evangelist testifies, life was in Him, and that life was the light of men. Supported by such evidence, we boldly place our faith and hope in Him — knowing full well that it is ungodliness for any person to fasten their confidence on a creature. 'You believe in God,' He says. 'Believe also in Me.' Paul expounds this in line with two passages from Isaiah: 'Whoever believes in Him will not be put to shame.' And again: 'The Root of Jesse will rise to rule the nations; in Him the nations will hope.' Why search for more testimonies when we so often encounter this one? 'Whoever believes in Me has eternal life.' Furthermore, the invocation that flows from faith also belongs to Him — and invocation is proper to God's majesty alone. One prophet says: 'Whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.' Another says: 'The name of the Lord is a strong tower; the righteous run to it and are safe.' The name of Christ is called upon for salvation — therefore He is the Lord. We have an example of this invocation in Stephen, who said, 'Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.' And again in the whole church, as Ananias testifies in the same book: 'Lord, I have heard from many people about this man and how much harm he has done to Your saints who call on Your name.' And so that it may be understood even more plainly that the whole fullness of the Godhead dwells bodily in Christ, the apostle confesses that he brought no other teaching among the Corinthians but the knowledge of Christ, and that he preached nothing else. How vast and how great is this — that the Son alone is proclaimed, and He wills that we glory only in the knowledge of Him? Who would dare say He is merely a creature, when the knowledge of Him alone is our whole glory? Moreover, the greetings at the beginning of Paul's letters wish the same blessings from the Son as from the Father — teaching us not only that what the Father gives comes to us through Christ's intercession, but also that He is, by shared power, the author of those blessings. This knowledge gained through experience is without doubt more certain and complete than any mere speculation. For it is there that the godly mind most directly perceives God — and in a sense touches Him — when it feels itself quickened, enlightened, saved, justified, and sanctified.

We must draw proof for the Godhead of the Holy Spirit from the same sources. Moses gives clear testimony in the creation account: the Spirit of God was hovering over the formless void. This shows that not only is the present beauty of the world preserved by the power of the Spirit, but even before that beauty was added, the Spirit was already at work sustaining that shapeless mass. Isaiah's statement cannot be dismissed: 'And now the Lord God has sent Me, and His Spirit.' Here the Holy Spirit shares the chief authority of sending the prophets — which reveals His divine majesty. But our best proof, as I said, comes through practical experience. What Scripture attributes to the Spirit is far beyond what belongs to any creature, and we learn this through the reliable experience of godliness. He is poured out everywhere, sustaining and giving growth and life to all things in heaven and on earth. This proves He is no creature, for He is not contained within any limits. By pouring His living power into all things and breathing life and motion into them, He does the very work of God. Moreover, if regeneration into an incorruptible life is higher and more excellent than any present quickening of life, what shall we think of the One from whose power regeneration comes? Scripture teaches in many places that He is the author of regeneration — not by borrowed power but by His own — and not of regeneration only, but also of the immortality to come. Finally, as with the Son, so with the Spirit: all the offices that belong most properly to the Godhead are applied to Him. He searches the deep secrets of God, into which no creature is admitted. He gives wisdom and skill to speak — the very work that the Lord declared to Moses belongs to Him alone. Through Him we come to share in God, so that we feel His power working life within us. Our justification is His work. From Him come power, sanctification, truth, grace, and every good thing — for it is from the Holy Spirit alone that all kinds of gifts proceed. Paul's words on this are especially worth noting. Though there are many diverse gifts and varied distributions of them, there is but one Holy Spirit — for Paul presents Him not merely as their origin but as their author. This is expressed more plainly a little later: 'One and the same Spirit distributes all things as He wills.' If He were not a subsistence within God, Paul would not ascribe to Him the exercise of will and choice. Paul therefore most clearly attributes divine power to the Holy Spirit and shows that He is substantially resident in God.

Scripture itself does not hesitate to call Him God. Paul reasons from this that we are the temple of God because His Spirit dwells in us — a point not to be passed over lightly. For when God repeatedly promises to choose us as His temple, that promise is fulfilled in no other way than through His Spirit dwelling in us. As Augustine wisely observed: if we were commanded to build a temple of wood and stone for the Holy Spirit — worship that is due to God alone — that would be clear proof He is God. How much clearer is it, then, that we ourselves are to be His temple? The apostle himself calls us sometimes the temple of God and sometimes the temple of the Holy Spirit, meaning the same thing in both cases. When Peter rebuked Ananias for lying to the Holy Spirit, he said he had lied not to men but to God. Where Isaiah presents the Lord of hosts as speaking, Paul identifies the speaker as the Holy Spirit. And where the prophets commonly say that their words are the words of the Lord of hosts, Christ and the apostles refer these same words to the Holy Spirit. It follows, therefore, that He is the true Lord who is the chief author of the prophecies. Again, where God complains of being provoked to anger by the stubbornness of His people, Isaiah says in that same context that His Holy Spirit was grieved. Finally, if blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is not forgiven in this world or the next — while the one who blasphemes against the Son may obtain pardon — His divine majesty is plainly proved here, since any offense against Him is an unpardonable crime. I am intentionally omitting many testimonies used by the ancient writers. They found it very fitting to quote from the Psalms — 'By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all their host by the breath of His mouth' — to prove that the world was as much the work of the Holy Spirit as of the Son. But since the Psalms commonly repeat one thing twice in parallel lines, and in Isaiah 'the breath of His mouth' is simply another way of saying 'His word,' that argument is rather weak. I therefore thought it better to point to a few passages on which godly minds can rest with confidence.

As God revealed Himself more fully through the coming of Christ, so He has also become more familiarly known in three persons. Of all the testimonies, let this one suffice for now. Paul binds together three things — God, faith, and baptism — and reasons from one to the other in this way: because there is but one faith, he shows there is but one God; and because there is but one God, he proves there is but one faith. Therefore, if we are brought into the faith and religion of one God through baptism, we must regard as the true God the one in whose name we are baptized. There is no doubt that in His solemn command, Christ intended to declare that the complete light of faith had been given, when He said: 'Baptize them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.' This is equivalent to being baptized in the name of the one God, who has appeared in full brightness as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It is therefore clear that within the essence of God there abide three persons, in whom the one God is known. Since our faith must not wander here and there but must look to the one God, cling to Him, and rest in Him, it easily follows that if there were different kinds of faith, there would also have to be many gods. Since baptism is a sacrament of faith, and there is only one baptism, it confirms the unity of God. And from this it follows that it is not lawful to be baptized into any but the one God, because we embrace the faith of the one in whose name we are baptized. What did Christ mean, then, when He commanded baptism in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, if not that we are to believe with one faith in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit? Since it remains certain that there is one God and not many, we conclude that the Word and the Spirit are nothing other than the very same essence of God. The Arians argued foolishly when, while confessing the Godhead of the Son, they stripped Him of the substance of God. A similar rage infected the Macedonians, who wanted the Spirit to mean only the gifts of grace poured out on people. For as wisdom, understanding, prudence, strength, and the fear of God all proceed from Him, He alone is the Spirit of wisdom, prudence, strength, and godliness. Yet He is not divided according to the distribution of His gifts — however variously those gifts are spread abroad, He remains one and the same, as the apostle says.

Scripture also reveals a certain distinction between the Father and the Word, and between the Word and the Spirit. The greatness of this mystery itself warns us how much reverence and care we must bring to the discussion. I greatly appreciate the saying of Gregory of Nazianzus: 'I cannot think of the one without immediately being surrounded by the brightness of the three, and I cannot distinguish the three without being suddenly carried back to the one.' Therefore let us never imagine a Trinity of persons that pulls our minds into separate identities, without at once drawing us back to the unity. The names Father, Son, and Holy Spirit prove a real distinction — so no one should think them mere titles assigned to God according to His various works. Yet it is a distinction, not a division. The passages already cited show that the Son has a property distinct from the Father: the Word could not have been with God if He were not something other than the Father, nor would He have had His glory with the Father apart from being distinct from Him. Likewise the Son distinguishes Himself from the Father when He says there is another who bears witness to Him. The same point is made where Scripture says the Father created all things through the Word — which would be impossible unless the Word were in some manner distinct from Him. Furthermore, the Father did not come down to earth — the one who came out from the Father did. The Father did not die or rise again — the one sent by Him did. Nor did this distinction begin when He took on flesh: it is clear that He was already the only begotten in the bosom of the Father before that. Who could accept the idea that the Son entered the bosom of the Father only when He descended from heaven to take on human nature? No — He was already in the bosom of the Father, already enjoying glory with Him. As for the distinction of the Holy Spirit from the Father, Christ speaks of it when He says that the Spirit proceeds from the Father. And how often does He show the Spirit to be distinct from Himself — as when He promises to send another Comforter, and in many other places.

I am uncertain whether it is wise to borrow illustrations from human affairs to explain the nature of this distinction. The ancient fathers did so occasionally, but they also admitted that whatever comparison they brought forward differed greatly from the reality. For this reason I am reluctant to venture any such comparison, for fear that an ill-chosen one might give the malicious occasion to scoff or lead the uninformed astray. Yet the distinction that Scripture sets out should not go unspoken. It is this: the Father is given the beginning of all action, as the fountain and source of all things; the Son is given wisdom, counsel, and the ordering of all that is done; to the Holy Spirit is assigned power and effective action. Although eternity belongs equally to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit — since God could never have existed without His wisdom and power, and in eternity there is no first or last — this ordering is not pointless or unnecessary. Every person naturally thinks first of God, then of the wisdom that proceeds from Him, and finally of the power by which He carries out the purposes of His will. That the Son is said to be of the Father alone, and the Holy Spirit from both the Father and the Son, is shown in many places, but nowhere more clearly than in Romans 8, where the same Spirit is called interchangeably the Spirit of Christ and the Spirit of the one who raised Christ from the dead. This is not without reason, for Peter also testifies that it was the Spirit of Christ by whom the prophets prophesied, even though Scripture so frequently teaches that it was the Spirit of God the Father.

Yet this distinction does not stand against the unity of God in such a way as to prevent us from affirming that the Son is one God with the Father, because He shares one Spirit with Him, and that the Holy Spirit is not something separate from the Father and the Son. For in each person the whole substance is understood, while each person possesses His own distinct property. The Father is wholly in the Son, and the Son is wholly in the Father, as He Himself declares: 'I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me.' The church's writers do not allow one person to be separated from another by any difference of essence. Augustine explains it this way: by the names that denote distinction, what is meant is their relation to one another, not the substance in which they are all one. By this interpretation the sayings of the ancient writers — which would otherwise seem to conflict — can be brought into agreement. For sometimes they say the Father is the source of the Son, and at other times they say the Son has both Godhead and essence from Himself and shares one source with the Father. Augustine explains the reason for this difference clearly in another place: Christ, considered in Himself, is called God; considered in relation to His Father, He is called the Son. Similarly, the Father considered in Himself is called God, but considered in relation to His Son, He is called the Father. Where He is considered as Father, He is not the Son; where He is considered as Son, He is not the Father; but where each is named in relation to Himself, it is all one God. Therefore, when we speak of the Son simply and without reference to the Father, we rightly say He is of Himself — and so we call Him one source. But when we speak of the relation between Him and His Father, we rightly call the Father the source of the Son. The entire fifth book of Augustine on the Trinity is devoted to working out exactly this point. It is far safer to rest in the relational terms he describes than to wander into pointless speculation by trying to probe this great mystery too deeply.

Those who are content with sober and measured faith should briefly learn this much, which is all that needs to be known: when we confess belief in one God, by 'God' we understand the one single essence in which we comprehend three persons or hypostases. Therefore whenever we speak of God without qualification, we mean no less the Son and the Holy Spirit than the Father. But when the Son is named alongside the Father, relation enters the picture, and we then distinguish between the persons. Because the properties of the persons bring an order with them — so that the beginning and source is in the Father — whenever the Father and the Son, or the Holy Spirit, are mentioned together, the name 'God' is used in a particular sense of the Father. In this way the unity of the essence is preserved and the order is honored, without diminishing the Godhead of the Son or the Holy Spirit. Since the apostles have already shown that the Son of God is the one whom Moses and the prophets testify to be the Lord, we must always return to the unity of essence. It would therefore be a detestable sacrilege to call the Son a separate God from the Father, because the simple name 'God' admits no such relational distinction — God considered in Himself cannot be called 'this' or 'that.' That the name Lord, when used without qualification, applies to Christ, is clear from Paul's words: 'Three times I pleaded with the Lord about this.' For after receiving the answer of Christ — 'My grace is sufficient for you' — Paul immediately says, 'that the power of Christ may rest upon me.' The name Lord there clearly stands for Jehovah, and to restrict it to the person of the Mediator in a qualified sense would be foolish, since the statement compares no one to anyone else. We also know that the apostles, following the common practice of the Greeks, regularly use the word Kyrios (Lord) in place of Jehovah. And to take a nearby example: Paul prayed to the Lord in exactly the same sense that Peter quotes from Joel: 'Whoever calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved.' When the name is given to the Son in a particular sense, there is another reason for it — which we will examine in the appropriate place. For now it is enough to keep in mind that when Paul prayed to God without qualification, he immediately brought in the name of Christ. In the same way, God is called 'Spirit' by Christ Himself. There is no reason why the whole essence of God — in which the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are comprehended — should not be called spiritual. This is plain in Scripture: just as we hear God described as Spirit, so we also hear the Holy Spirit — being a hypostasis of the whole essence — called both God and proceeding from God.

But since Satan has always stirred up great controversies to undermine our faith — controversies about the divine essence of the Son and the Holy Spirit, and about the distinction of persons — and has in nearly every age provoked wicked spirits to trouble faithful teachers on this point, it is now fitting to respond to some perverse errors. Our purpose up to this point has been to lead willing learners gently by the hand, not to wrestle with the obstinate and argumentative. But now the truth we have set out peacefully must be defended against the schemes of the wicked. My chief aim, however, remains this: that those who open their ears willingly to the word of God may have firm ground on which to stand. On this subject, more than almost any other in the hidden mysteries of Scripture, we must reason soberly and with great restraint, taking great care that neither our thoughts nor our words go beyond what God's word sets out. How could the human mind grasp the immeasurable essence of God, when it cannot even determine with certainty the size of the sun it sees daily with its own eyes? How could the mind, left to itself, explore the substance of God, when it cannot even fully know its own substance? Let us therefore willingly leave the knowledge of Himself to God. He alone, as Hilary says, is a proper witness to Himself — one who is known by no one but Himself. We yield the knowledge of God to Him by conceiving of Him only as He has revealed Himself, and by seeking to know Him nowhere other than in His own word. Chrysostom wrote five homilies to this purpose, directed against the Anomeans. Yet not even these could restrain those bold speculators from speaking without restraint. They showed no more modesty here than they typically show everywhere else. The unhappy results of such reckless overconfidence should warn us to approach this question with teachable willingness rather than sharpness of intellect, never seeking God anywhere other than in His holy word, never thinking anything of Him without His word to guide us, and never saying anything that is not drawn from that same word. The distinction within the one Godhead of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is very difficult to understand and creates more confusion in some minds than is helpful. Let those people remember that the human mind enters a maze when it follows its own curiosity — and let them submit to the guidance of the heavenly oracles, even when they cannot fully grasp the height of the mystery.

To catalog all the errors that have attacked the purity of faith on this doctrine throughout history would be tediously long, and most heretics have also tried to overwhelm the glory of God with such crude and foolish errors that they were satisfied merely to shake and confuse the uninformed. From just a few men have sprung many sects — some tearing apart the essence of God, others confusing the distinction between the persons. But if we hold firmly to what Scripture has already shown clearly — that the essence of the one God, which belongs equally to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, is single and undivided, and that the Father is distinguished from the Son by a certain property, and the Son from the Holy Spirit — we will shut the gate not only against Arius and Sabellius but also against the other ancient authors of error. But because in our own time certain frenzied men have arisen — Servetus and others like him — who have tangled everything up with new deceptions, it is worth briefly exposing their falsehoods. The name Trinity was so hateful, indeed so detestable, to Servetus that he declared all who held to it — whom he called 'Trinitarians' — to be completely godless. I will pass over the insulting words he invented. The substance of his position was this: that God is made into three parts when we say three persons abide in His essence, and that this Trinity is merely an imaginary construct that conflicts with the unity of God. At the same time, he wanted the persons to be certain outward appearances or forms — not truly subsisting within the essence of God, but representing God to us in one way or another. He taught that in the beginning there was nothing distinct in God, since the Word and the Spirit were originally all one — but that since Christ arose as God from God, the Holy Spirit also sprang forth as another God from Him. Sometimes he covered his errors with allegories, as when he called the eternal Word the Spirit of Christ with God, and the radiance of His form. And again, that the Holy Spirit was the shadow of the Godhead. But in the end he reduces the Godhead of both to nothing, claiming that according to some system of distribution, there is in the Son and in the Holy Spirit only a portion of God — and that this same Spirit is substantially a portion of God in us, and also in wood and stones. What he says about the person of the Mediator we will address in the appropriate place. But this monstrous invention — that a person is nothing other than a visible form of the glory of God — needs no lengthy refutation. For John declares that the Word was God before the world was ever created, making it something far different from a mere outward form. If the Word that was God existed with the Father from all eternity and had His own proper glory with the Father, He could not be a mere external or figurative radiance. It necessarily follows that He was a hypostasis inwardly abiding in God. And although the Spirit does not appear until the account of creation, He is not brought in there as a shadow but as an essential power of God — when Moses shows that the unformed mass itself was sustained in Him. It is evident, then, that the eternal Spirit was always in God, for He preserved and sustained the formless matter of heaven and earth until beauty and order were added to it. He could not at that point have been merely an image or representation of God, as Servetus imagines. But elsewhere Servetus is forced to reveal his error more openly, when he says that God, by eternally ordaining for Himself a visible Son, thereby made Himself visible. If that were true, Christ would have no Godhead other than what comes from being appointed Son by God's eternal decree. Moreover, Servetus so transforms these imagined forms that he freely invents new changing attributes within God. But worst of all is his error of confusedly mixing both the Son of God and the Holy Spirit with all created things. He plainly claims that the essence of God has parts and portions, of which every portion is God. Specifically, he says that the spirits of the faithful are coeternal and consubstantial with God — and elsewhere he assigns substantial deity not only to the human soul but to other creatures as well.

From this same source came another similar error. Certain men, wanting to escape the shame of Servetus's wickedness, did confess that there are three persons — but added this qualification: that the Father, who is truly and properly the one and only God, poured His Godhead into the Son and Holy Spirit when He formed them. They even used this shocking expression: that the Father is distinguished from the Son and the Holy Spirit by this mark alone — that He is the sole 'essentiator,' or maker of the essence. Their first argument is that Christ is called the Son of God throughout Scripture, from which they conclude that the Father alone is properly God. But they fail to notice that although the name 'God' is common to the Son as well, it is sometimes given to the Father alone on account of His preeminence — because He is the fountain and origin of the Deity — and this is done to underscore the single unity of the essence. They object: if the Son truly is the Son of God, it is improper to call Him the Son of a person. My answer is that both are true: He is the Son of God because He is the Word begotten of the Father before all worlds — we are not yet discussing the person of the Mediator — and yet for the purpose of clarification we must also look at the person, so that the name 'God' is not taken absolutely as referring to the Father alone. For if we mean that only the Father is God, we plainly strip the Son of His divine rank. Therefore whenever the Godhead is under discussion, we must not allow a comparison between the Son and the Father as though the name 'God' belonged only to the Father. For the God who appeared to Isaiah was the true and only God — and yet John affirms that this was Christ. He who declared through Isaiah that He would be a stumbling stone to the Jews was the only God — and yet Paul identifies this as Christ. He who declares through Isaiah, 'As I live, every knee shall bow to Me,' is the only God — and yet Paul expounds this as referring to Christ. To this end the apostle cites these words: 'You, O God, laid the foundation of the earth' — and again: 'Let all God's angels worship Him' — things that belong to none but the only God. And yet he says these are the proper titles of Christ. The objection is worthless that these divine titles are applied to Christ only because He is the radiance of the Father's glory. For since the name Jehovah is used in each of these passages, it follows that He is so called because He is God from Himself. For if He is Jehovah, it cannot be denied that He is the same God who elsewhere cries out through Isaiah: 'I, I am He, and there is no God besides Me.' It is also worth considering the saying of Jeremiah: 'The gods who did not make the heavens and the earth shall perish from the earth.' Against this we must confess that the Son of God is the very one whose Godhead Isaiah repeatedly proves by His creation of the world. And how can it be that the Creator, who gives existence to all things, does not exist from Himself but must borrow His being from another? Whoever says the Son was given essence or brought into being by the Father denies that He is from Himself. But the Holy Spirit says the contrary, calling Him Jehovah. Now if we grant that the whole essence belongs to the Father alone, it must either be made divisible or it must be taken away from the Son — and the Son would be stripped of His essence and be God only in name and title. According to these triflers, the essence of God belongs solely to the Father, since He alone is God and is the maker of the Son's essence. The Godhead of the Son would then be merely an abstraction drawn from God's essence, or a derivative portion taken from the whole. By their own principle they must also grant that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father alone. For if He is a derivation from the first essence that belongs only to the Father, He cannot rightly be called the Spirit of the Son — which is refuted by Paul's testimony where he treats the Spirit as common to both Christ and the Father. Moreover, if the Father's person is removed from the Trinity, how would He differ from the Son and the Holy Spirit — except only in that He alone is God? They confess Christ to be God, and yet they say He differs from the Father. There must be some distinguishing mark to ensure that the Father is not the Son. Those who locate that distinction in the essence plainly destroy the true Godhead of Christ — which cannot exist without essence, and indeed without the whole essence. The Father differs from the Son only if He has something distinctly His own that is not common to the Son. What will they find to distinguish them? If the distinction is in the essence, let them explain whether He has or has not communicated that essence to the Son. It could not have been only a partial communication — for to say He made Christ half a God would be wicked. Moreover, this view would tear apart the essence of God in a shameful way. It therefore remains that the essence is whole and perfectly common to both the Father and the Son. If that is true, then as far as essence is concerned, there is no difference between them. If they say that the Father, in giving His essence, remains nevertheless the only God in whom the essence resides — then Christ is a figurative God, a God only in appearance and name but not in reality, since nothing is more proper to God than simply to be, as in the saying: 'I AM has sent me to you.'

It is easy to prove from many passages that their claim is false — that whenever Scripture refers to God absolutely, only the Father is meant. In the very passages they themselves cite, they reveal their lack of careful reading, since the name of the Son also appears there. This shows that the name 'God' in those places is used relationally, and therefore restricted to the person of the Father. Their objection — that if the Father were not the only true God, He would be His own Father — is answered in a single word. There is nothing inconsistent in calling Him peculiarly 'God' on account of order and degree — since He not only of Himself begat His wisdom, but is also the God of the Mediator, which I will explain more fully in the appropriate place. For since Christ was revealed in the flesh, He is called the Son of God not only because He was the eternal Word begotten of the Father before all worlds, but also because He took on the person and office of Mediator to unite us to God. Since they so boldly exclude the Son from the honor of God, I would like to know: when the Son declares that none is good but God (Matthew 19:17), does He thereby strip goodness from Himself? I am not speaking of His human nature — perhaps they would object that whatever goodness it had came by free gift. I ask: is the eternal Word of God good or not? If they say no, we have exposed their ungodliness plainly enough. If they say yes, they contradict themselves. Yet the fact that Christ seems at first glance to distance Himself from the title 'Good' actually strengthens our case. Since goodness is the singular title of God alone, and since He was greeted with that word in the ordinary way, He rejected the false honor in order to remind them that the goodness He truly possessed was the goodness that belongs to God. I also ask: when Paul declares that God alone is immortal, wise, and true (1 Timothy 1:17), does that reduce Christ to the number of those who are mortal, foolish, and false? Will He not be immortal — He who from the beginning was life itself, giving immortality to angels? Will He not be wise — He who is the eternal wisdom of God? Will truth itself not be true? I ask further: do they think Christ ought to be worshipped? He claims for Himself that every knee shall bow before Him (Philippians 2:10), and it follows that He is the God who in the law forbade the worship of any other. If they want to limit to the Father alone what Isaiah says — 'I am He; there is no other' (Isaiah 44:6) — I turn that very testimony against them, since we see that whatever belongs to God is given to Christ. Their objection has no force — that Christ was exalted in the flesh in which He had been humbled, and that in respect to the flesh all authority in heaven and earth was given to Him. For although the majesty of King and Judge extends to the whole person of the Mediator, if He had not been God manifested in flesh, He could not have been raised to such height without God contradicting Himself. Paul settles this controversy, teaching that Christ was equal with God before He humbled Himself in the form of a servant (Philippians 2:7). How could this equality have existed unless He were the same God whose name is Lord and Jehovah — who rides upon the cherubim, who is king of all the earth and Lord of the ages? However they may argue against it, they cannot take from Christ what Isaiah says elsewhere: 'Behold, this is our God; we have waited for Him' (Isaiah 25:9) — for in these words Isaiah describes the coming of God the Redeemer, who would not only bring the people back from exile in Babylon but fully restore the church in every way. Their other objection — that Christ was God only in His Father — gains them nothing. We confess that in terms of order and degree, the beginning of the Godhead is in the Father. But we say it is a detestable invention to claim that the essence belongs only to the Father, as though He alone were the maker of the Son's deity. For that would mean either that there is more than one essence, or that they are calling Christ God only in title and imagination. If they grant that Christ is God, but secondary to the Father, then His essence would be begotten and derived — whereas in the Father it is unbegotten and underived. I know that many clever people mock the idea of drawing a distinction of persons from Moses's words, where God says, 'Let us make man in our image' (Genesis 1:26). But godly readers can see how pointless it would be for Moses to record this as a conversation between distinct persons if there were not more than one person in God. It is certain that those to whom the Father spoke were uncreated — and nothing is uncreated but God Himself, the one only God. Therefore, unless they grant that the power of creating and the authority of commanding were common to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, it would follow that God was not speaking within Himself but was addressing some outside workers. Finally, one passage answers two of their objections at once. When Christ Himself declares that God is Spirit (John 4:24), this cannot be restricted to the Father alone, as if the Word Himself were not of a spiritual nature. If then the name 'Spirit' belongs equally to the Son as to the Father, I conclude that the Son is also included under the unqualified name 'God.' When Christ adds immediately after that only those who worship the Father in Spirit and truth are acceptable worshippers, something else follows: since Christ is speaking in the role of a teacher, He gives the name 'God' to the Father not to deny His own Godhead, but to lead us step by step toward it.

But they are mistaken in imagining certain separate individual things, each possessing a portion of the divine essence. Scripture teaches that there is one God in essence, and therefore that the essence of both the Son and the Holy Spirit is unbegotten. But inasmuch as the Father is first in order and has of Himself begotten His wisdom, He is rightly counted, as stated above, the origin and fountain of all the Godhead. So God, spoken of without qualification, is unbegotten; and the Father, with respect to His person, is also unbegotten. They foolishly think they can accuse us of making a quaternion — a God-plus-three — because they falsely and craftily attribute to us a device of their own invention, as though we imagined that three persons derive from one essence. But it is clear from our writings that we do not draw the persons out of the essence; rather, though they abide within the essence, we draw a distinction between them. If the persons were separated from the essence, their reasoning might carry some weight. But then it would be a Trinity of gods and not of persons contained within the one God. So their absurd question — whether the essence itself enters into the Trinity as if we imagined three gods descending from it — is answered. Their further objection, that then the Trinity would be without God, comes from the same confusion. For although the essence does not enter into the distinction as a part or a member, the persons are neither without it nor outside of it. The Father could not be the Father if He were not God, and the Son is the Son only because He is God. We therefore say that the Godhead is absolutely of itself. From this we grant that the Son, insofar as He is God, is from Himself — without regard to His person; but insofar as He is the Son, we say He is from the Father. So His essence is without beginning, but the beginning of His person is God Himself. The faithful ancient writers who spoke of the Trinity applied the term of distinction only to the persons, since to include the essence in the distinction would be not only an absurd error but a gross ungodliness. For those who want to count three things — the essence, the Son, and the Holy Spirit — plainly destroy the essence of the Son and the Holy Spirit, since otherwise the parts joined together would fall apart, which is a defect in any scheme of distinction. Finally, if the Father and Son were simply different names for the same thing, the Father would be the God-maker, nothing would remain in the Son but a shadow, and the Trinity would be nothing other than the joining of one God with two creatures.

When they object that if Christ is properly God He cannot rightly be called the Son, we have already answered this: in those passages, because one person is being compared to another, the name 'God' is not used absolutely but is restricted to the Father — inasmuch as He is the beginning of the Godhead, not in the sense of making the essence (as these confused minds imagine), but in terms of order. In this sense we are to understand Christ's words to the Father: 'This is eternal life, that they know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.' Speaking in the person of the Mediator, He holds the position between God and humanity — and yet His majesty is not diminished by this. For though He humbled Himself, He did not thereby surrender with the Father the glory that was hidden before the world began. So the apostle in Hebrews 2, though he acknowledges that Christ was for a short time made lower than the angels, does not hesitate to also affirm that He is the same eternal God who laid the foundations of the earth. We must therefore hold that whenever Christ, speaking as Mediator, addresses the Father, the name 'God' includes the Godhead that belongs to Christ as well. So when He said to the apostles, 'It is to your advantage that I go away, for the Father is greater than I,' He is not assigning Himself a second rank of Godhead — as if His eternal essence were inferior to the Father. Rather, because in obtaining heavenly glory He draws the faithful into sharing in it, He places His Father in the higher position — inasmuch as the glorious fullness of brightness that shines in heaven differs from the measure of glory that was seen in Him when clothed in flesh. In a similar way, Paul says in another place that Christ will deliver up the kingdom to God the Father, so that God may be all in all. Nothing is more absurd than to deny the eternal continuance of the Godhead of Christ. If He will never cease to be the Son of God but will always remain what He was from the beginning, then under the name 'the Father' is comprehended the one essence common to them both. And surely Christ descended to us precisely so that, lifting us up to His Father, He might also lift us up to Himself — since He and His Father are one. It is therefore neither lawful nor right to restrict the name 'God' so exclusively to the Father as to take it away from the Son. John declares that Christ is the true God for this very reason: so no one would suppose He occupies a second rank of Godhead beneath His Father. And I am amazed at what these inventors of new gods intend: while they confess Christ to be true God, they immediately exclude Him from the Godhead of His Father. As if anyone could be a true God other than the one God, or as if a Godhead poured from one to another were not simply a newly invented fiction.

When they pile up passages from Irenaeus in which he affirms that the Father of Christ is the only and eternal God of Israel, this is done either out of shameful ignorance or extreme dishonesty. They ought to have noticed that Irenaeus in those writings was arguing against people who denied that the Father of Christ was the same God who spoke through Moses and the prophets — people who imagined an unknown deity produced from the corruption of the world. His entire effort was to make plain that no other God is proclaimed in Scripture but the Father of Christ, and that inventing any other is wrong. It is no wonder, then, that he so often concludes that there was no other God of Israel but the one spoken of by Christ and the apostles. Likewise, when today we must oppose a different kind of error, we can rightly say that the God who appeared to the fathers in ancient times was none other than Christ. But if anyone objects that it was the Father, our answer is ready: in defending the Godhead of the Son, we do not exclude the Father. If readers keep Irenaeus's purpose in mind, all that controversy will dissolve. And also from the sixth chapter of book three, the whole dispute is settled — for there Irenaeus labors entirely to prove that the one who is called God absolutely and without qualification in Scripture is truly the one only God, and that Christ is called God in exactly that absolute sense. Let us remember that this was the central point of his entire argument, as the whole work makes clear — and especially in chapter 46 of book two, where he says that the one who is not truly God is not called Father in any plain and direct sense. Moreover, in another place he says that both the Son and the Father are jointly called God by the prophets and apostles. He then explains how Christ — who is Lord of all, King, God, and Judge — received power from the God of all, that is, in the sense of His subjection, because He humbled Himself even to death on the cross. And a little later he affirms that the Son is the maker of heaven and earth, who gave the law through Moses and appeared to the fathers. Now if anyone insists that Irenaeus means only the Father is the God of Israel, I will turn back against him what the same author plainly teaches: that Christ is one and the same, applying to Him the prophecy of Habakkuk, 'God will come from the South.' The passage in chapter 9 of book four serves the same purpose: 'Christ Himself, along with the Father, is the God of the living.' And in chapter 12 of the same book, he explains that when Abraham believed God, it was because Christ is the maker of heaven and earth and the only God.

They have no better success in citing Tertullian as their defender. Though his style is sometimes rough and difficult, he plainly teaches the same doctrine we are defending. That is: while God is one, He is also His Word by disposition and order; that there is one God in unity of substance, yet that unity is arranged by the mystery of ordered distribution into a Trinity; that there are three — not in condition but in degree, not in substance but in form, not in power but in order. He says he holds the Son to be second to the Father, but he means that He is not other than the Father — only distinct by way of distinction. In some places he says the Son is visible. But after examining the question from both sides, he defines the Son as invisible insofar as He is the Word.

Finally, where he affirms that the Father is defined in His own person, he proves himself far from the error we are refuting. Though he acknowledges no other God but the Father, in the very next part of his writing he explains himself by saying he does not mean this exclusively with respect to the Son — because he denies that the Son is some other God alongside the Father, and holds therefore that their sole sovereignty is not broken by the distinction of persons. Through the consistent flow of his argument it is easy to understand his meaning. He is arguing against Praxeas that although God is distinguished into three persons, this does not make many gods or divide the unity. Because according to Praxeas's thinking, Christ could not be God without also being the Father, Tertullian labors so much on the distinction. When he calls the Word and the Spirit 'a portion of the whole,' it is a difficult expression, but excusable — for it refers not to the substance but only to the disposition and order that belongs to the persons, as Tertullian himself makes clear. From this comes his pointed question: 'How many persons do you think there are, O most perverse Praxeas, if not as many as there are names?' And a little after: 'They are to believe in the Father and the Son, each in their own name and person.' I think this should be sufficient to expose the impudence of those who try to deceive simple readers under the guise of Tertullian's authority.

Whoever carefully compares the writings of the ancient authors will find nothing in Irenaeus different from what was taught by those who came after him. Justin is among the most ancient, and in everything he agrees with us. Let them object that he, like the others, calls the Father of Christ the only God. Hilary teaches the same thing — indeed he says it more boldly, that eternity is in the Father. But does he say this in order to strip the essence of God from the Son? Not at all — he is throughout a defender of the same faith we hold. Yet they are not ashamed to pick out isolated fragments from his writings to try to make him a supporter of their error. When they bring in Ignatius, if they want his writings to carry any authority, let them first prove that the apostles made rules for Lent and similar corruptions of religion. Nothing is more distasteful than those foolish trifles published under the name of Ignatius. Their impudence in hiding behind such a disguise to deceive is all the less tolerable for it. The agreement of the ancient fathers is also clearly seen in this: at the Council of Nicaea, Arius never dared to cite the authority of a single accepted writer in his support. And none of the Greek or Latin fathers excused himself by claiming to depart from those who came before him. There is no need to explain how Augustine — whom these scoundrels hate most of all — diligently examined the writings of all the fathers and reverently embraced them. Even in minor matters, he regularly shows what compels him to disagree with them. And in this matter, where he found anything doubtful or obscure in earlier writers, he did not hide it. But the doctrine these men fight against, he treats as having been received without controversy from the remotest antiquity. One phrase reveals that he was well aware of what earlier writers had taught: in the first book of his work on Christian teaching, he says that unity is in the Father. Will they say he forgot himself at that point? In another place he clears himself of such a charge when he calls the Father the beginning of the whole Godhead, because He is from no one — wisely recognizing that the name 'God' is especially ascribed to the Father because without placing the beginning there, the simple unity of God cannot be properly understood. I trust the godly reader will see from all this that every objection by which Satan has tried to pervert or obscure the pure truth of doctrine has been answered. And I trust the whole body of doctrine on this point has been fully laid out — provided readers restrain their curiosity and do not seek out endless and tangled disputes more eagerly than is fitting. I do not aim to please those who delight in excessive speculation. I have intentionally omitted nothing that I thought would count against our position. But in seeking to build up the church, I judged it best to leave many things untouched that would bring little benefit and only burden readers with unnecessary tedium. What purpose would it serve to debate whether the Father is always in the act of begetting? It is foolish to imagine a continuous act of begetting when it is evident that there have been three persons in God from eternity.