(Calvin, Institutes on the Christian Religion 1, part 10)
Chapter 12
12. God distinguished from idols, that He may be the exclusive
object of worship.
Sections.
1. Scripture, in teaching that there is but one God, does not make a
dispute about words, but attributes all honour and religious
worship to him alone. This proved, 1st, By the etymology of the
term. 2d, By the testimony of God himself, when he declares
that he is a jealous God, and will not allow himself to be
confounded with any fictitious Deity.
2. The Papists in opposing this pure doctrine, gain nothing by their
distinction of julia and latria.
3. Passages of Scripture subversive of the Papistical distinction,
and proving that religious worship is due to God alone.
Perversions of Divine worship.
1. We said at the commencement of our work, (chap. 2,) that the
knowledge of God consists not in frigid speculation, but carries
worship along with it; and we touched by the way (chap. 5 s. 6, 9,
10) on what will be more copiously treated in other places, (Book 2,
chap. 8,) viz., how God is duly worshipped. Now I only briefly
repeat, that whenever Scripture asserts the unity of God, it does
not contend for a mere name, but also enjoins that nothing which
belongs to Divinity be applied to any other; thus making it obvious
in what respect pure religion differs from superstition. The Greek
word "eusebeia" means "right worship;" for the Greeks, though
groping in darkness, were always aware that a certain rule was to be
observed, in order that God might not be worshipped absurdly. Cicero
truly and shrewdly derives the name "religion" from "relego", and
yet the reason which he assigns is forced and farfetched, viz., that
honest worshipers read and read again, and ponder what is true. I
rather think the name is used in opposition to vagrant license - the
greater part of mankind rashly taking up whatever first comes in
their way, whereas piety, that it may stand with a firm step,
confines itself within due bounds. In the same way superstition
seems to take its name from its not being contented with the measure
which reason prescribes, but accumulating a superfluous mass of
vanities. But to say nothing more of words, it has been universally
admitted in all ages, that religion is vitiated and perverted
whenever false opinions are introduced into it, and hence it is
inferred, that whatever is allowed to be done from inconsiderate
zeal, cannot be defended by any pretext with which the superstitious
may choose to cloak it. But although this confession is in every
man's mouth, a shameful stupidity is forthwith manifested, inasmuch
as men neither cleave to the one God, nor use any selection in their
worship, as we have already observed.
But God, in vindicating his own right, first proclaims that he
is a jealous God, and will be a stern avenger if he is confounded
with any false god; and thereafter defines what due worship is, in
order that the human race may be kept in obedience. Both of these he
embraces in his Law when he first binds the faithful in allegiance
to him as their only Lawgiver, and then prescribes a rule for
worshipping him in accordance with his will. The Law, with its
manifold uses and objects, I will consider in its own place; at
present I only advert to this one, that it is designed as a bridle
to curb men, and prevent them from turning aside to spurious
worship. But it is necessary to attend to the observation with which
I set out, viz., that unless everything peculiar to divinity is
confined to God alone, he is robbed of his honour, and his worship
is violated.
It may be proper here more particularly to attend to the
subtleties which superstition employs. In revolting to strange gods,
it avoids the appearance of abandoning the Supreme God, or reducing
him to the same rank with others. It gives him the highest place,
but at the same time surrounds him with a tribe of minor deities,
among whom it portions out his peculiar offices. In this way, though
in a dissembling and crafty manner, the glory of the Godhead is
dissected, and not allowed to remain entire. In the same way the
people of old, both Jews and Gentiles, placed an immense crowd in
subordination to the father and ruler of the gods, and gave them,
according to their rank, to share with the supreme God in the
government of heaven and earth. In the same way, too, for some ages
past, departed saints have been exalted to partnership with God, to
be worshipped, invoked, and lauded in his stead. And yet we do not
even think that the majesty of God is obscured by this abomination,
whereas it is in a great measure suppressed and extinguished - all
that we retain being a frigid opinion of his supreme power. At the
same time, being deluded by these entanglements, we go astray after
divers gods.
2. The distinction of what is called dulia and latria was
invented for the very purpose of permitting divine honours to be
paid to angels and dead men with apparent impunity. For it is plain
that the worship which Papists pay to saints differs in no respect
from the worship of God: for this worship is paid without
distinction; only when they are pressed they have recourse to the
evasion, that what belongs to God is kept unimpaired, because they
leave him latria. But since the question relates not to the word,
but the thing, how can they be allowed to sport at will with a
matter of the highest moment? But not to insist on this, the utmost
they will obtain by their distinction is, that they give worship to
God, and service to the others. For "latreia" in Greek has the same
meaning as worship in Latin; whereas "douleia" properly means
service, though the words are sometimes used in Scripture
indiscriminately. But granting that the distinction is invariably
preserved, the thing to be inquired into is the meaning of each.
"Douleia" unquestionably means service, and "latreia" worship. But
no man doubts that to serve is something higher than to worship. For
it were often a hard thing to serve him whom you would not refuse to
reverence. It is, therefore, an unjust division to assign the
greater to the saints and leave the less to God. But several of the
ancient fathers observed this distinction. What if they did, when
all men see that it is not only improper, but utterly frivolous?
3. Laying aside subtleties, let us examine the thing. When Paul
reminds the Galatians of what they were before they came to the
knowledge of Gods he says that they "did service unto them which by
nature are no gods," (Gal. 4: 8.) Because he does not say latria,
was their superstition excusable? This superstition, to which he
gives the name of dulia, he condemns as much as if he had given it
the name of latria. When Christ repels Satan's insulting proposal
with the words, "It is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God,
and him only shalt thou serve," (Matth. 4: 10,) there was no
question of latria. For all that Satan asked was "proskunesis",
(obeisance.) In like manners when John is rebuked by the angel for
falling on his knees before him (Rev. 19: 10; 22: 8, 9,) we ought
not to suppose that John had so far forgotten himself as to have
intended to transfer the honour due to God alone to an angel. But
because it was impossible that a worship connected with religion
should not savour somewhat of divine worship, he could not
"proskunein" (do obeisance to) the angel without derogating from the
glory of God. True, we often read that men were worshipped; but that
was, if I may so speak, civil honour. The case is different with
religious honour, which, the moment it is conjoined with worship,
carries profanation of the divine honour along with it. The same
thing may be seen in the case of Cornelius, (Acts 10: 25.) He had
not made so little progress in piety as not to confine supreme
worship to God alone. Therefore, when he prostrates himself before
Peter, he certainly does it not with the intention of adoring him
instead of God. Yet Peter sternly forbids him. And why, but just
because men never distinguish so accurately between the worship of
God and the creatures as not to transfer promiscuously to the
creature that which belongs only to God. Therefore, if we would have
one God, let us remember that we can never appropriate the minutest
portion of his glory without retaining what is his due. Accordingly,
when Zechariah discourses concerning the repairing of the Church, he
distinctly says not only that there would be one God, but also that
he would have only one name - the reason being, that he might have
nothing in common with idols. The nature of the worship which God
requires will be seen in its own place, (Book 2, c. 7: and 8.) He
has been pleased to prescribe in his Law what is lawful and right,
and thus restrict men to a certain rule, lest any should allow
themselves to devise a worship of their own. But as it is
inexpedient to burden the reader by mixing up a variety of topics, I
do not now dwell on this one. Let it suffice to remember, that
whatever offices of piety are bestowed anywhere else than on God
alone, are of the nature of sacrilege. First, superstition attached
divine honours to the sun and stars, or to idols: afterwards
ambition followed - ambition which, decking man in the spoils of
God, dared to profane all that was sacred. And though the principle
of worshipping a supreme Deity continued to be held, still the
practice was to sacrifice promiscuously to genii and minor gods, or
departed heroes: so prone is the descent to this vice of
communicating to a crowd that which God strictly claims as his own
peculiar right!
Chapter 13
13. The unity of the Divine Essence in three Persons taught, in
Scripture, from the foundation of the world.
This chapter consists of two parts. The former delivers the orthodox
doctrine concerning the Holy Trinity. This occupies from sec. 1-21,
and may be divided into four heads; the first, treating of the
meaning of Person, including both the term and the thing meant by
it, sec. 2-6; the second, proving the deity of the Son, sec. 7-13;
the third, the deity of the Holy Spirit, sec. 14 and 15; and the
fourth, explaining what is to be held concerning the Holy Trinity.
The second part of the chapter refutes certain heresies which have
arisen, particularly in our age, in opposition to this orthodox
doctrine. This occupies from sec. 21 to the end.
Sections.
1. Scripture, in teaching that the essence of God is immense and
spiritual, refutes not only idolaters and the foolish wisdom of
the world, but also the Manichees and Anthropomorphites. These
latter briefly refuted.
2. In this one essence are three persons, yet so that neither is
there a triple God, nor is the simple essence of God divided.
Meaning of the word Person in this discussion. Three hypostases
in God, or the essence of God.
3. Objection of those who, in this discussion, reject the use of the
word Person. Answer 1. That it is not a foreign term, but is
employed for the explanation of sacred mysteries.
4. Answer continued, 2. The orthodox compelled to use the terms,
Trinity, Subsistence, and Person. Examples from the case of the
Asians and Sabellians.
5. Answer continued, 3. The ancient Church, though differing
somewhat in the explanation of these terms, agree in substance.
Proofs from Hilary, Jerome, Augustine, in their use of the
words Essence, Substance, Hypostasis. 4. Provided the orthodox
meaning is retained, there should be no dispute about mere
terms. But those who object to the terms usually favour the
Arian and Sabellian heresy.
6. After the definition of the term follows a definition and
explanation of the thing meant by it. The distinction of
Persons.
7. Proofs of the eternal Deity of the Son. The Son the "logos" of
the Eternal Father, and, therefore, the Son Eternal God.
Objection. Reply.
8. Objection, that the Logos began to be when the creating God
spoke. Answer confirmed by Scripture and argument.
9. The Son called God and Jehovah. Other names of the Eternal Father
applied to him in the Old Testament. He is, therefore, the
Eternal God. Another objection refuted. Case of the Jews
explained.
10. The angel who appeared to the fathers under the Law asserts that
he is Jehovah. That angel was the Logos of the Eternal Father.
The Son being that Logos is Eternal God. Impiety of Servetus
refuted. Why the Son appeared in the form of an angel.
11. Passages from the New Testament in which the Son is acknowledged
to be the Lord of Hosts, the Judge of the world, the God of
glory, the Creator of the world, the Lord of angels, the King
of the Church, the eternal Logos, God blessed for ever, God
manifest in the flesh, the equal of God, the true God and
eternal life, the Lord and God of all believers. Therefore, the
Eternal God.
12. Christ the Creator, Preserver, Redeemer, and Searcher of hearts.
Therefore, the Eternal God.
13. Christ, by his own inherent power, wrought miracles, and
bestowed the power of working them on others. Out of the
Eternal God there is no salvation, no righteousness, no life.
All these are in Christ. Christ, consequently, is the Eternal
God. He in whom we believe and hope, to whom we pray, whom the
Church acknowledges as the Saviour of the faithful, whom to
know is life eternal, in whom the pious glory, and through whom
eternal blessings are communicated, is the Eternal God. All
these Christ is, and, therefore, he is God.
14. The Divinity of the Spirit proved. I. He is the Creator and
Preserver of the world. II. He sent the Prophets. III. He
quickeneth all things. IV. He is everywhere present. V. He
renews the saints, and fits them for eternal life. VI. All the
offices of Deity belong to him.
15. The Divinity of the Spirit continued. VII. He is called God.
VIII. Blasphemy against him is not forgiven.
16. What view to be taken of the Trinity. The form of Christian
baptism proves that there are three persons in one essence. The
Arian and Macedonian heresies.
17. Of the distinction of Persons. They are distinct, but not
divided. This proved.
18. Analogies taken from human affairs to be cautiously used. Due
regard to be paid to those mentioned by Scripture.
19. How the Three Persons not only do not destroy, but constitute
the most perfect unity
20. Conclusion of this part of the chapter, and summary of the true
doctrine concerning the unity of Essence and the Three Persons.
21. Refutation of Arian, Macedonian, and Anti Trinitarian heresies.
Caution to be observed.
22. The more modern Anti Trinitarians, and especially Servetus,
refuted.
23. Other Anti Trinitarians refuted. No good objection that Christ
is called the Son of God, since he is also called God. Impious
absurdities of some heretics.
24. The name of God sometimes given to the Son absolutely as to the
Father. Same as to other attributes. Objections refuted.
25. Objections further refuted. Caution to be used.
26. Previous refutations further explained.
27. Reply to certain passages produced from Irenaeus. The meaning of
Irenaeus.
28. Reply to certain passages produced from Tertullian. The meaning
of Tertullian.
29. Anti Trinitarians refuted by ancient Christian writers; e. g.,
Justin, Hilary. Objections drawn from writings improperly
attributed to Ignatius. Conclusion of the whole discussion
concerning the Trinity.
1. The doctrine of Scripture concerning the immensity and the
spirituality of the essence of God, should have the effect not only
of dissipating the wild dreams of the vulgar, but also of refuting
the subtleties of a profane philosophy. One of the ancients thought
he spake shrewdly when he said that everything we see and everything
we do not see is God, (Senec. Praef. lib. 1 Quaest. Nat.) In this
way he fancied that the Divinity was transfused into every separate
portion of the world. But although God, in order to keep us within
the bounds of soberness, treats sparingly of his essence, still, by
the two attributes which I have mentioned, he at once suppresses all
gross imaginations, and checks the audacity of the human mind. His
immensity surely ought to deter us from measuring him by our sense,
while his spiritual nature forbids us to indulge in carnal or
earthly speculation concerning him. With the same view he frequently
represents heaven as his dwelling-place. It is true, indeed, that as
he is incomprehensible, he fills the earth also, but knowing that
our minds are heavy and grovel on the earth, he raises us above the
worlds that he may shake off our sluggishness and inactivity. And
here we have a refutation of the error of the Manichees, who, by
adopting two first principles, made the devil almost the equal of
God. This, assuredly, was both to destroy his unity and restrict his
immensity. Their attempt to pervert certain passages of Scripture
proved their shameful ignorance, as the very nature of the error did
their monstrous infatuation. The Anthropomorphites also, who dreamed
of a corporeal God, because mouth, ears, eyes, hands, and feet, are
often ascribed to him in Scripture, are easily refuted. For who is
so devoid of intellect as not to understand that God, in so
speaking, lisps with us as nurses are wont to do with little
children? Such modes of expression, therefore, do not so much
express what kind of a being God is, as accommodate the knowledge of
him to our feebleness. In doing so, he must, of course, stoop far
below his proper height.
2. But there is another special mark by which he designates
himself, for the purpose of giving a more intimate knowledge of his
nature. While he proclaims his unity, he distinctly sets it before
us as existing in three persons. These we must hold, unless the bare
and empty name of Deity merely is to flutter in our brain without
any genuine knowledge. Moreover, lest any one should dream of a
threefold God, or think that the simple essence is divided by the
three Persons, we must here seek a brief and easy definition which
may effectually guard us from error. But as some strongly inveigh
against the term Person as being merely of human inventions let us
first consider how far they have any ground for doing so.
When the Apostle calls the Son of God "the express image of his
person," (Heb. 1: 3,) he undoubtedly does assign to the Father some
subsistence in which he differs from the Son. For to hold with some
interpreters that the term is equivalent to essence, (as if Christ
represented the substance of the Father like the impression of a
seal upon wax,) were not only harsh but absurd. For the essence of
God being simple and undivided, and contained in himself entire, in
full perfection, without partition or diminution, it is improper,
nay, ridiculous, to call it his express image, (charaktes.) But
because the Father, though distinguished by his own peculiar
properties, has expressed himself wholly in the Son, he is said with
perfect reason to have rendered his person (hypostasis) manifest in
him. And this aptly accords with what is immediately added, viz.,
that he is "the brightness of his glory." The fair inference from
the Apostle's words is, that there is a proper subsistence
(hypostasis) of the Father, which shines refulgent in the Son. From
this, again it is easy to infer that there is a subsistence
(hypostasis) of the Son which distinguishes him from the Father. The
same holds in the case of the Holy Spirit; for we will immediately
prove both that he is God, and that he has a separate subsistence
from the Father. This, moreover, is not a distinction of essence,
which it were impious to multiply. If credit, then, is given to the
Apostle's testimony, it follows that there are three persons
(hypostases) in God. The Latins having used the word Persona to
express the same thing as the Greek "hupostatis", it betrays
excessive fastidiousness and even perverseness to quarrel with the
term. The most literal translation would be subsistence. Many have
used substance in the same sense. Nor, indeed, was the use of the
term Person confined to the Latin Church. For the Greek Church in
like manner, perhaps, for the purpose of testifying their consent,
have taught that there are three "prosopa" (aspects) in God. All
these, however, whether Greeks or Latins, though differing as to the
word, are perfectly agreed in substance.
3. Now, then, though heretics may snarl and the excessively
fastidious carp at the word Person as inadmissible, in consequence
of its human origin, since they cannot displace us from our position
that three are named, each of whom is perfect God, and yet that
there is no plurality of gods, it is most uncandid to attack the
terms which do nothing more than explain what the Scriptures declare
and sanction. "It were better," they say, "to confine not only our
meanings but our words within the bounds of Scripture, and not
scatter about foreign terms to become the future seed-beds of brawls
and dissensions. In this way, men grow tired of quarrels about
words; the truth is lost in altercation, and charity melts away amid
hateful strife." If they call it a foreign term, because it cannot
be pointed out in Scripture in so many syllables, they certainly
impose an unjust law - a law which would condemn every
interpretation of Scripture that is not composed of other words of
Scripture. But if by foreign they mean that which, after being idly
devised, is superstitiously defended, - which tends more to strife
than edification, - which is used either out of place, or with no
benefit which offends pious ears by its harshness, and leads them
away from the simplicity of God's Word, I embrace their soberness
with all my heart. For I think we are bound to speak of God as
reverently as we are bound to think of him. As our own thoughts
respecting him are foolish, so our own language respecting him is
absurd. Still, however, some medium must be observed. The unerring
standard both of thinking and speaking must be derived from the
Scriptures: by it all the thoughts of ours minds, and the words of
our mouths, should he tested. But in regard to those parts of
Scripture which, to our capacities, are dark and intricate, what
forbids us to explain them in clearer terms - terms, however, kept
in reverent and faithful subordination to Scripture truth, used
sparingly and modestly, and not without occasion? Of this we are not
without many examples. When it has been proved that the Church was
impelled, by the strongest necessity, to use the words Trinity and
Person, will not he who still inveighs against novelty of terms be
deservedly suspected of taking offence at the light of truth, and of
having no other ground for his invective, than that the truth is
made plain and transparent?
4. Such novelty (if novelty it should be called) becomes most
requisite, when the truth is to be maintained against calumniators
who evade it by quibbling. Of this, we of the present day have too
much experience in being constantly called upon to attack the
enemies of pure and sound doctrine. These slippery snakes escape by
their swift and tortuous windings, if not strenuously pursued, and
when caught, firmly held. Thus the early Christians, when harassed
with the disputes which heresies produced, were forced to declare
their sentiments in terms most scrupulously exact in order that no
indirect subterfuges might remain to ungodly men, to whom ambiguity
of expression was a kind of hiding-place. Arius confessed that
Christ was God, and the Son of God; because the passages of
Scripture to this effect were too clear to be resisted, and then, as
if he had done well, pretended to concur with others. But,
meanwhile, he ceased not to give out that Christ was created, and
had a beginning like other creatures. To drag this man of wiles out
of his lurking-places, the ancient Church took a further step, and
declared that Christ is the eternal Son of the Father, and
consubstantial with the Father. The impiety was fully disclosed when
the Arians began to declare their hatred and utter detestation of
the term "homo-ousios". Had their first confession, viz., that
Christ was God, been sincere and from the heart, they would not have
denied that he was consubstantial with the Father. Who dare charge
those ancient writers as men of strife and contention, for having
debated so warmly, and disturbed the quiet of the Church for a
single word? That little word distinguished between Christians of
pure faith and the blasphemous Arians. Next Sabellius arose, who
counted the names of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as almost
nonentities; maintaining that they were not used to mark out some
distinction, but that they were different attributes of God, like
many others of a similar kind. When the matter was debated, he
acknowledged his belief that the Father was God, the Son God, the
Spirit God; but then he had the evasion ready, that he had said
nothing more than if he had called God powerful, and just, and wise.
Accordingly, he sung another note, viz., that the Father was the
Son, and the Holy Spirit the Father, without order or distinction.
The worthy doctors who then had the interests of piety at heart, in
order to defeat it is man's dishonesty, proclaimed that three
subsistence were to be truly acknowledged in the one God. That they
might protect themselves against tortuous craftiness by the simple
open truth, they affirmed that a Trinity of Persons subsisted in the
one God, or (which is the same thing) in the unity of God.
5. Where names have not been invented rashly, we must beware
lest we become chargeable with arrogance and rashness in rejecting
them. I wish, indeed, that such names were buried, provided all
would concur in the belief that the Father, Son, and Spirit, are one
God, and yet that the Son is not the Father, nor the Spirit the Son,
but that each has his peculiar subsistence. I am not so minutely
precise as to fight furiously for mere words. For I observe, that
the writers of the ancient Church, while they uniformly spoke with
great reverence on these matters, neither agreed with each other,
nor were always consistent with themselves. How strange the formula
used by Councils, and defended by Hilary! How extravagant the view
which Augustine sometimes takes! How unlike the Greeks are to the
Latins! But let one example of variance suffice. The Latins, in
translating "homo-ousios" used "consubstantialis" (consubstantial,)
intimating that there was one substance of the Father and the Son,
and thus using the word Substance for Essence. Hence Jerome, in his
Letter to Damasus, says it is profane to affirm that there are three
substances in God. But in Hilary you will find it said more than a
hundred times that there are three substances in God. Then how
greatly is Jerome perplexed with the word Hypostasis! He suspects
some lurking poison, when it is said that there are three Hypostases
in God. And he does not disguise his belief that the expression,
though used in a pious sense, is improper; if, indeed, he was
sincere in saying this, and did not rather designedly endeavour, by
an unfounded calumny, to throw odium on the Eastern bishops whom he
hated. He certainly shows little candour in asserting, that in all
heathen schools "ousia" is equivalent to Hypostasis - an assertion
completely refuted by trite and common use.
More courtesy and moderation is shown by Augustine, (De
Trinity. lib. 5 c. 8 and 9,) who, although he says that Hypostasis
in this sense is new to Latin ears, is still so far from objecting
to the ordinary use of the term by the Greeks, that he is even
tolerant of the Latins, who had imitated the Greek phraseology. The
purport of what Socrates says of the term, in the Sixth Book of the
Tripartite History, is, that it had been improperly applied to this
purpose by the unskilful. Hilary (De Trinitat. lib. 2) charges it
upon the heretics as a great crime, that their misconduct had
rendered it necessary to subject to the peril of human utterance
things which ought to have been reverently confined within the mind,
not disguising his opinion that those who do so, do what is
unlawful, speak what is ineffable, and pry into what is forbidden.
Shortly after, he apologises at great length for presuming to
introduce new terms. For, after putting down the natural names of
Father, Son, and Spirit, he adds, that all further inquiry
transcends the significance of words, the discernment of sense, and
the apprehension of intellect. And in another place, (De Conciliis,)
he congratulates the Bishops of France in not having framed any
other confession, but received, without alteration, the ancient and
most simple confession received by all Churches from the days of the
Apostles. Not unlike this is the apology of Augustine, that the term
had been wrung from him by necessity from the poverty of human
language in so high a matter: not that the reality could be thereby
expressed, but that he might not pass on in silence without
attempting to show how the Father, Son, and Spirit, are three.
The modesty of these holy men should be an admonition to us not
instantly to dip our pen in gall, and sternly denounce those who may
be unwilling to swear to the terms which we have devised, provided
they do not in this betray pride, or petulance, or unbecoming heat,
but are willing to ponder the necessity which compels us so to
speak, and may thus become gradually accustomed to a useful form of
expression. Let men also studiously beware, that in opposing the
Asians on the one hand, and the Sabellians on the other, and eagerly
endeavouring to deprive both of any handle for cavil, they do not
bring themselves under some suspicion of being the disciples of
either Arius or Sabellius. Arius says that Christ is God, and then
mutters that he was made and had a beginning. He says, that he is
one with the Father; but secretly whispers in the ears of his party,
made one, like other believers, though with special privilege. Say,
he is consubstantial, and you immediately pluck the mask from this
chameleon, though you add nothing to Scripture. Sabellius says that
the Father, Son, and Spirit, indicate some distinction in God. Say,
they are three, and he will bawl out that you are making three Gods.
Say, that there is a Trinity of Persons in one Divine essence, you
will only express in one word what the Scriptures say, and stop his
empty prattle. Should any be so superstitiously precise as not to
tolerate these terms, still do their worst, they will not be able to
deny that when one is spoken of, a unity of substance must be
understood, and when three in one essence, the persons in this
Trinity are denoted. When this is confessed without equivocations we
dwell not on words. But I was long ago made aware, and, indeed, on
more than one occasion, that those who contend pertinaciously about
words are tainted with some hidden poison; and, therefore, that it
is more expedient to provoke them purposely, than to court their
favour by speaking obscurely.
6. But to say nothing more of words, let us now attend to the
thing signified. By person, then, I mean a subsistence in the Divine
essence, - a subsistence which, while related to the other two, is
distinguished from them by incommunicable properties. By subsistence
we wish something else to be understood than essence. For if the
Word were God simply and had not some property peculiar to himself,
John could not have said correctly that he had always been with God.
When he adds immediately after, that the Word was God, he calls us
back to the one essence. But because he could not be with God
without dwelling in the Father, hence arises that subsistence,
which, though connected with the essence by an indissoluble tie,
being incapable of separation, yet has a special mark by which it is
distinguished from it. Now, I say that each of the three
subsistences while related to the others is distinguished by its own
properties. Here relation is distinctly expressed, because, when God
is mentioned simply and indefinitely the name belongs not less to
the Son and Spirit than to the Father. But whenever the Father is
compared with the Son, the peculiar property of each distinguishes
the one from the other. Again, whatever is proper to each I affirm
to be incommunicable, because nothing can apply or be transferred to
the Son which is attributed to the Father as a mark of distinction.
I have no objections to adopt the definition of Tertullian, provided
it is properly understood, "that there is in God a certain
arrangement or economy, which makes no change on the unity of
essence." - Tertull. Lib. contra Praxeam.
7. Before proceeding farther, it will be necessary to prove the
divinity of the Son and the Holy Spirit. Thereafter, we shall see
how they differ from each other. When the Word of God is set before
us in the Scriptures, it were certainly most absurd to imagine that
it is only a fleeting and evanescent voice, which is sent out into
the air, and comes forth beyond God himself, as was the case with
the communications made to the patriarchs, and all the prophecies.
The reference is rather to the wisdom ever dwelling with God, and by
which all oracles and prophecies were inspired. For, as Peter
testifies, (1 Pet. 1: 11,) the ancient prophets spake by the Spirit
of Christ just as did the apostles, and all who after them were
ministers of the heavenly doctrine. But as Christ was not yet
manifested, we necessarily understand that the Word was begotten of
the Father before all ages. But if that Spirit, whose organs the
prophets were, belonged to the Word, the inference is irresistible,
that the Word was truly God. And this is clearly enough shown by
Moses in his account of the creation, where he places the Word as
intermediate. For why does he distinctly narrate that God, in
creating each of his works, said, Let there be this - let there be
that, unless that the unsearchable glory of God might shine forth in
his image? I know prattlers would easily evade this, by saying that
Word is used for order or command; but the apostles are better
expositors, when they tell us that the worlds were created by the
Son, and that he sustains all things by his mighty word, (Heb. 1:
2.) For we here see that "word" is used for the nod or command of
the Son, who is himself the eternal and essential Word of the
Father. And no man of sane mind can have any doubt as to Solomon's
meaning, when he introduces Wisdom as begotten by God, and presiding
at the creation of the world, and all other divine operations,
(Prov. 8: 22.) For it were trifling and foolish to imagine any
temporary command at a time when God was pleased to execute his
fixed and eternal counsel, and something more still mysterious. To
this our Saviour's words refer, "My Father worketh hitherto, and I
work," (John 5: 17.) In thus affirming, that from the foundation of
the world he constantly worked with the Father, he gives a clearer
explanation of what Moses simply touched. The meaning therefore is,
that God spoke in such a manner as left the Word his peculiar part
in the work, and thus made the operation common to both. But the
clearest explanation is given by John, when he states that the Word
- which was from the beginning, God and with God, was, together with
God the Father, the maker of all things. For he both attributes a
substantial and permanent essence to the Word, assigning to it a
certain peculiarity, and distinctly showing how God spoke the world
into being. Therefore, as all revelations from heaven are duly
designated by the title of the Word of God, so the highest place
must be assigned to that substantial Word, the source of all
inspiration, which, as being liable to no variation, remains for
ever one and the same with God, and is God.
8. Here an outcry is made by certain men, who, while they dare
not openly deny his divinity, secretly rob him of his eternity. For
they contend that the Word only began to be when God opened his
sacred mouth in the creation of the world. Thus, with excessive
temerity, they imagine some change in the essence of God. For as the
names of God, which have respect to external work, began to be
ascribed to him from the existence of the work, (as when he is
called the Creator of heaven and earth,) so piety does not recognise
or admit any name which might indicate that a change had taken place
in God himself. For if any thing adventitious took place, the saying
of James would cease to be true, that "every good gift, and every
perfect gift, is from above, and cometh down from the Father of
lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning,"
(James 1: 17.) Nothing, therefore, is more intolerable than to fancy
a beginning to that Word which was always God, and afterwards was
the Creator of the world. But they think they argue acutely, in
maintaining that Moses, when he says that God then spoke for the
first time, must be held to intimate that till then no Word existed
in him. This is the merest trifling. It does not surely follow, that
because a thing begins to be manifested at a certain time, it never
existed previously. I draw a very different conclusion. Since at the
very moment when God said, "Let there be light," the energy of the
Word-was immediately exerted, it must have existed long before. If
any inquire how long, he will find it was without beginning. No
certain period of time is defined, when he himself says, "Now O
Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I
had with thee before the world was," (John 17: 5.) Nor is this
omitted by John: for before he descends to the creation of the
world, he says, that "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word
was with God." We, therefore, again conclude, that the Word was
eternally begotten by God, and dwelt with him from everlasting. In
this way, his true essence, his eternity, and divinity, are
established.
9. But though I am not now treating of the office of the
Mediator, having deferred it till the subject of redemption is
considered, yet because it ought to be clear and incontrovertible to
all, that Christ is that Word become incarnate, this seems the most
appropriate place to introduce those passages which assert the
Divinity of Christ. When it is said in the forty-fifth Psalm, "Thy
throne, O God, is for ever and ever," the Jews quibble that the name
Elohim is applied to angels and sovereign powers. But no passage is
to be found in Scripture, where an eternal throne is set up for a
creature. For he is not called God simply, but also the eternal
Ruler. Besides, the title is not conferred on any man, without some
addition, as when it is said that Moses would be a God to Pharaoh,
(Exod. 7: 1.) Some read as if it were in the genitive case, but this
is too insipid. I admit, that anything possessed of singular
excellence is often called divine, but it is clear from the context,
that this meaning here were harsh and forced, and totally
inapplicable. But if their perverseness still refuses to yield,
surely there is no obscurity in Isaiah, where Christ is introduced
both us God, and as possessed of supreme powers one of the peculiar
attributes of God, "His name shall be called the Mighty God, the
Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace," (Isa. 9: 6.) Here, too,
the Jews object, and invert the passage thus, This is the name by
which the mighty God, the Everlasting Father, will call him; so that
all which they leave to the Son is, " Prince of Peace." But why
should so many epithets be here accumulated on God the Father,
seeing the prophet's design is to present the Messiah with certain
distinguished properties which may induce us to put our faith in
him? There can be no doubt, therefore, that he who a little before
was called Emmanuel, is here called the Mighty God. Moreover, there
can be nothing clearer than the words of Jeremiah, "This is the name
whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS," (Jer. 23:
6.) For as the Jews themselves teach that the other names of God are
mere epithets, whereas this, which they call the ineffable name, is
substantive, and expresses his essence, we infer, that the only
begotten Son is the eternal God, who elsewhere declares, "My glory
will I not give to another," (Isa. 42: 8.) An attempt is made to
evade this from the fact, that this name is given by Moses to the
altar which he built, and by Ezekiel to the New Jerusalem. But who
sees not that the altar was erected as a memorial to show that God
was the exalter of Moses, and that the name of God was applied to
Jerusalem, merely to testify the Divine presence? For thus the
prophet speaks, "The name of the city from that day shall be, The
Lord is there," (Ezek. 48: 35.) In the same way, "Moses built an
altar, and called the name of it JEHOVAH-nissi," (Jehovah my
exaltation.) But it would seem the point is still more keenly
disputed as to another passage in Jeremiah, where the same title is
applied to Jerusalem in these words, "In those days shall Judah be
saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely; and this is the name
wherewith she shall be called, The Lord our Righteousness." But so
far is this passage from being adverse to the truth which we defend,
that it rather supports it. The prophet having formerly declared
that Christ is the true Jehovah from whom righteousness flows, now
declares that the Church would be made so sensible of this as to be
able to glory in assuming his very name. In the former passage,
therefore, the fountain and cause of righteousness is set down, in
the latter, the effect is described.
10. But if this does not satisfy the Jews, I know not what
cavils will enable them to evade the numerous passages in which
Jehovah is said to have appeared in the form of an Angel, (Judges 6:
7: 13: 16-23, &c.) This Angel claims for himself the name of the
Eternal God. Should it be alleged that this is done in respect of
the office which he bears, the difficulty is by no means solved. No
servant would rob God of his honour, by allowing sacrifice to be
offered to himself. But the Angel, by refusing to eat bread, orders
the sacrifice due to Jehovah to be offered to him. Thus the fact
itself proves that he was truly Jehovah. Accordingly, Manoah and his
wife infer from the sign, that they had seen not only an angel, but
God. Hence Manoah's exclamation, "We shall die; for we have seen the
Lord." When the woman replies, "If Jehovah had wished to slay us, he
would not have received the sacrifice at our hand," she acknowledges
that he who is previously called an angel was certainly God. We may
add, that the angel's own reply removes all doubt, "Why do ye ask my
name, which is wonderful?" Hence the impiety of Servetus was the
more detestable, when he maintained that God was never manifested to
Abraham and the Patriarchs, but that an angel was worshipped in his
stead. The orthodox doctors of the Church have correctly and wisely
expounded, that the Word of God was the supreme angel, who then
began, as it were by anticipation, to perform the office of
Mediator. For though he were not clothed with flesh, yet he
descended as in an intermediate form, that he might have more
familiar access to the faithful. This closer intercourse procured
for him the name of the Angel; still, however, he retained the
character which justly belonged to him - that of the God of
ineffable glory. The same thing is intimated by Hosea, who, after
mentioning the wrestling of Jacob with the angel, says, "Even the
Lord God of hosts; the Lord is his memorial," (Hosea 12: 5.)
Servetus again insinuates that God personated an angel; as if the
prophet did not confirm what had been said by Moses, "Wherefore is
it that thou dost ask after my name?" (Gen. 32: 29, 30.) And the
confession of the holy Patriarch sufficiently declares that he was
not a created angel, but one in whom the fulness of the Godhead
dwelt, when he says, "I have seen God face to face." Hence also
Paul's statement, that Christ led the people in the wilderness, (1
Cor. 10: 4. See also Calvin on Acts 7: 30, and infra, chap. 14 s.
9.) Although the time of humiliation had not yet arrived, the
eternal Word exhibited a type of the office which he was to fulfil.
Again, if the first chapter of Zechariah (ver. 9, &c.) and the
second (ver. 3, &c.) be candidly considered, it will be seen that
the angel who sends the other angel is immediately after declared to
be the Lord of hosts, and that supreme power is ascribed to him. I
omit numberless passages in which our faith rests secure, though
they may not have much weight with the Jews. For when it is said in
Isaiah, "Lo, this is our God; we have waited for him, and he will
save us; this is the Lord: we have waited for him, we will be glad
and rejoice in his salvation," (Isa. 25: 9,) even the blind may see
that the God referred to is he who again rises up for the
deliverance of his people. And the emphatic description, twice
repeated, precludes the idea that reference is made to any other
than to Christ. Still clearer and stronger is the passage of
Malachi, in which a promise is made that the messenger who was then
expected would come to his own temple, (Mal. 3: 1.) The temple
certainly was dedicated to Almighty God only, and yet the prophet
claims it for Christ. Hence it follows, that he is the God who was
always worshipped by the Jews.
11. The New Testament teems with innumerable passages, and our
object must therefore be, the selection of a few, rather than an
accumulation of the whole. But though the Apostles spoke of him
after his appearance in the flesh as Mediator, every passage which I
adduce will be sufficient to prove his eternal Godhead. And the
first thing deserving of special observation is that predictions
concerning the eternal God are applied to Christ, as either already
fulfilled in him, or to be fulfilled at some future period. Isaiah
prophesies, that "the Lord of Hosts" shall be "for a stone of
stumbling, and for a rock of offence," (Isa. 8: 14.) Paul asserts
that this prophecy was fulfilled in Christ, (Rom. 9: 33,) and,
therefore, declares that Christ is that Lord of Hosts. In like
manner, he says in another passage, "We shall all stand before the
judgement-seat of Christ. For it is written, As I live, saith the
Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to
God." Since in Isaiah God predicts this of himself, (Isa. 45: 23,)
and Christ exhibits the reality fulfilled in himself, it follows
that he is the very God, whose glory cannot be given to another. It
is clear also, that the passage from the Psalms (Ps. 68: 19) which
he quotes in the Epistle to the Ephesians, is applicable only to
God, "When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive," (Eph.
4: 8.) Understanding that such an ascension was shadowed forth when
the Lord exerted his power, and gained a glorious victory over
heathen nations, he intimates that what was thus shadowed was more
fully manifested in Christ. So John testifies that it was the glory
of the Son which was revealed to Isaiah in a vision, (John 12: 41;
Isa. 6: 4,) though Isaiah himself expressly says that what he saw
was the Majesty of God. Again, there can be no doubt that those
qualities which, in the Epistle to the Hebrews, are applied to the
Son, are the brightest attributes of God, "Thou, Lord, in the
beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth," &c., and, "Let all
the angels of God worship him," (Heb. 1: 10, 6.) And yet he does not
pervert the passages in thus applying them to Christ, since Christ
alone performed the things which these passages celebrate. It was he
who arose and pitied Zion - he who claimed for himself dominion over
all nations and islands. And why should John have hesitated to
ascribe the Majesty of God to Christ, after saying in his preface
that the Word was God? (John 1: 14.) Why should Paul have feared to
place Christ on the judgement-seat of God, (2 Cor. 5: 10,) after he
had so openly proclaimed his divinity, when he said that he was God
over all, blessed for ever? And to show how consistent he is in this
respect, he elsewhere says that "God was manifest in the flesh," (1
Tim. 3: 16.) If he is God blessed for ever, he therefore it is to
whom alone, as Paul affirms in another place, all glory and honour
is due. Paul does not disguise this, but openly exclaims, that
"being in the form of God, (he) thought it not robbery to be equal
with God, but made himself of no reputation," (Phil. 2: 6.) And lest
the wicked should glamour and say that he was a kind of spurious
God, John goes farther, and affirms, "This is the true God, and
eternal life." Though it ought to be enough for us that he is called
God, especially by a witness who distinctly testifies that we have
no more gods than one, Paul says, "Though there be that are called
gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and
lords many,) but to us there is but one God," (1 Cor. 8: 5, 6.) When
we hear from the same lips that God was manifest in the flesh, that
God purchased the Church with his own blood, why do we dream of any
second God, to whom he makes not the least allusion? And there is no
room to doubt that all the godly entertained the same view. Thomas,
by addressing him as his Lord and God, certainly professes that he
was the only God whom he had ever adored, (John 20: 28.)
12. The divinity of Christ, if judged by the works which are
ascribed to him in Scripture, becomes still more evident. When he
said of himself, "My Father worketh hitherto, and I work," the Jews,
though most dull in regard to his other sayings, perceived that he
was laying claim to divine power. And, therefore, as John relates,
(John 5: 17,) they sought the more to kill him, because he not only
broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was his Father, making
himself equal with God. What, then, will be our stupidity if we do
not perceive from the same passage that his divinity is plainly
instructed? To govern the world by his power and providence, and
regulate all things by an energy inherent in himself, (this an
Apostle ascribes to him, Heb. 1: 3,) surely belongs to none but the
Creator. Nor does he merely share the government of the world with
the Father, but also each of the other offices, which cannot be
communicated to creatures. The Lord proclaims by his prophets "I,
even I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own
sake," (Is. 43: 25.) When, in accordance with this declaration, the
Jews thought that injustice was done to God when Christ forgave
sins, he not only asserted, in distinct terms, that this power
belonged to him, but also proved it by a miracle, (Matth. 9: 6.) We
thus see that he possessed in himself not the ministry of forgiving
sins, but the inherent power which the Lord declares he will not
give to another. What! Is it not the province of God alone to
penetrate and interrogate the secret thoughts of the heart? But
Christ also had this power, and therefore we infer that Christ is
God.
Calvin, Institutes on the Christian Religion, Volume 1
(continued in part 11...)
---------------------------------------------------
file: /pub/resources/text/ipb-e/epl-04:cvin1-10.txt
.
