ON THE CONSUB THE SON. [228] 2 unitus. 176 Ignorance ascribed to Christ, only as man. are upon the earth, 'know' (as St. Paul says) 'in part, and STANTIA- prophecy in part.' As, therefore, our knowledge is [but] LITY OF partial, so we ought also in all questions whatsoever to yield unto Him, who bestows on us [this] grace in part." Here by the Spirit of the Saviour is clearly meant His divine nature. For so in other places also, along with other ancient writers, whom I have mentioned above, he calls the Godhead of Christ, Spirit; for instance in v. 1', "If He [merely] appeared to be man, when He was not man, neither did He 1 neque Dei remain that which He really was, the Spirit of God;" and Spiritus shortly afterwards he in the same place; "At last the remanebat. says Word of the Father and the Spirit of God, having united Himself to the ancient substance of Adam's creation, made a living and perfect man." It is, therefore, manifest, that Irenæus attributed ignorance to Christ only as man; whilst to His Spirit, that is to say, His Godhead, he allowed the most absolute omniscience. For surely it will not appear absurd to any one of a sound mind [to say] that the divine Wisdom impressed its 3 pro tem- effects on the human mind of Christ according to times3; and that Christ, in that He was man, "increased [made advance] in wisdom," (as it is expressly asserted in Luke ii. 52,) and, *pro tem- consequently, for the time of His mission4 [on earth], when ἀποστολῆς. He had no need of such knowledge, might have been ignorant of the day of the general judgment; although the reformed are strangely attacked by the Papists for this opinion, and especially by Feuardentius, who uses the very foulest language, and on this very passage of Irenæus, calls us "the modern Gnostics, who differ not a hair's breadth from the ancient;" and "a generation of vipers," being himself the most virulent viper of all. But to return to Irenæus. This is certain, that the holy doctor, wherever else he speaks of the Son of God, ascribes to Him, as Son, the most perfect knowledge both of the nature and will of His Father. Furthermore he, throughout his work, charges the Gnostics with impiety, for making the Wisdom and the Only-begotten of the Sophiam Father' subject to the affections of ignorance. Especially clear 5 porum ratione. pore suæ et Monogenen Patris. iSi hominis tantum speciem præbebat, cum homo non esset, sane neque id quod vere erat, hoc est Dei Spiritus, remanebat; ... In fine Verbum Patris et Spiritus Dei adunitus antiquæ substantiæ plasmationis Adæ, viventem et perfectum effecit hominem. [Εἰ δὲ μὴ ὢν ἄνθρωπος ἐφαίνετα ἄνθρωπος, οὔτε ὁ ἦν ἐπ ̓ ἀληθείας ἔμει νε, πνεύμα Θεοῦ.-p. 53.] Irenæus elsewhere implies the Omniscience of the Son. 177 CHAP. V. $ 8,9. are his words concerning Wisdom, ii. 25*, at the very open- BOOK II. ing; "But how is it not a vain thing that they say, that even His Wisdom was in ignorance, diminution, and passion? IRENEUS. For these things are alien from Wisdom, and contrary to her; they are no affections of hers; for wheresoever there is want of foresight and an ignorance of what is useful, there is not Wisdom. Let them not therefore any longer give the name of Wisdom to a passible æon; but let them relinquish either its name or its passions." Now can any one suppose that Irenæus would have objected to these heretics their ascribing to their fictitious Wisdom the affection of ignorance, if he had himself attributed to the true Wisdom, that is, to the Son of God, the very same imperfection? Besides, it is Irenæus whom we have heard declare, that the immeasurable Father is measured in the Son; that the Son contains and embraces the Father. Is it credible that he who wrote thus should have himself supposed that the Son of God was in any respect ignorant of the will of the Father? In short, if any one is doubtful in this point, let him read over again the words of Irenæus' which we have already quoted in this chapter, § 5. For there, in instituting a comparison between man and the Son of God, he attacks the omniscience which the Valentinians impiously arrogated to themselves, on this ground, that no man, no created being, "is equal to, or like the Creator, nor has been for ever co-existent with God, as His own proper Word has." It is therefore certain, that Irenæus did allow a most absolute omniscience to the proper Word of God the Father, as equal to, and eternally co-existent with Him". 9. But inasmuch as some writers, with whom Sandius leagues himself, charge Irenæus also with this, that he nowhere in his writings acknowledges the divinity of the Holy Ghost, I have thought it well in this place, in passing, to vindicate the most holy martyr from this calumny likewise. CONSUBSTANTIA THE SON. 83 178 Evidence (against Sandius) that St. Irenæus believed ON THE I shall therefore shew, briefly indeed, but most clearly, that Irenæus believed that the Holy Ghost is, 1. A Person disLITY OF tinct from the Father and the Son, not a mere unsubsisting energy of the Father; 2. A divine Person, that is to say, of the same nature and essence with God the Fathe and the Son. The former proposition is sufficiently proved from the following passages, not to mention very many others. In book iv. chap. 14, he thus speaks concerning the Son; "Receiving testimony from all, that He is truly man and that He is truly God, from the Father, from the Spirit, from the angels," &c.; where the Father is manifestly one witness, and the Holy Ghost another, and both distinct from the Son, to whom they bore witness. He refers, it is plain, to the baptism of Christ, in which all the three Persons of the most Holy Trinity distinctly shewed themselves at the same time, the Father in the voice which sounded from heaven, the Holy Ghost in the dove which descended from above, the Son in human flesh. Shortly after, in this same passage, he says again; "There is one God the Father, and one Word, the Son, and one Spirit." Here "one," and "one," and "one," necessarily make three Persons; and it is likewise clear that the Holy Ghost is by Irenæus called one in the same sense as the Son also is called one; but the Son, as all allow, was held by Irenæus to be a Person distinct from the Father. But most explicit is the passage from the 37th chapter of the same book, the whole of which I have quoted above; I will however again cite a portion of it; "For there is ever present with Him (the Father) His Word and His Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit, through whom and in whom He made all things freely and spontaneously; to whom also He speaks, when He says, 'Let us make man in Our own image and likeness.' ."" Observe, both [231] 1 ab æterno. the Son and the Holy Ghost were ever, i. e., from eternity', present with the Father; yet neither of them was the Father • Non meram Patris ενέργειαν ἀνυ TÓσTаTOV, [i.e. not a mere energy of the Father, without a distinct personality or subsistence.] Ab omnibus accipiens testimonium, quoniam vere homo et quoniam vere Deus, a Patre, a Spiritu, ab angelis, &c. . . . Unus Deus Pater, et unum Verbum, Filius, et unus Spiritus, &c. -[c. 6, 7. p. 235.] Adest enim, inquit, ei (Patri) semper Verbum et sapientia, Filius et Spiritus, per quos et in quibus omnia libere et sponte fecit, ad quos et loquitur dicens, Faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram.—[c. 20. p. 253. See above, p. 174.] BOOK II. CHAP. V. $ 9. the Personality and the Divinity of the Holy Ghost. 179 Himself; and if in the words, "Let us make man," &c., the Father addressed not only the Son but the Holy Ghost likewise, then the Holy Ghost, equally with the Son, is a Person IRENEUS. distinct from the Father. Besides, from this passage the divinity also of the Holy Ghost is certainly inferred; for He is said to have existed from eternity with the Father and the Son; nothing however is eternal, at least in the judgment of Irenæus, except God. Next, He is associated with the Father and the Son in the work of creation; the work of creation however, according to Irenæus, (and indeed according to all of sound mind,) is the peculiar attribute of God alone. For in book iii. chap. 8, (a passage which we have already adduced',) ' [p. 168.] he teaches that He who makes and creates other things, is so distinguished from what is made and created, that He who creates is Himself uncreated, eternal, self-sufficient ; whilst they on the other hand have a beginning of existence, are susceptible of dissolution, depend upon their Creator, and do service, and are subject to Him. Whence also, in the same passage, from the fact that God the Father created all things through His word or Son, he infers that the Son Himself is, equally with the Father, uncreated, eternal, and Lord of all. But in other places also Irenæus expressly asserts the divinity of the Holy Ghost. Thus in a passage also quoted already, in book iv. chap. 17', the Son and the Holy Ghost are called the very offspring and image2 2 ipsa progenies et of God the Father; and that for the purpose of distinguish-figuratio. ing them from ministering angels, created by God the 3 a. Father through' the Son and the Holy Ghost, which are all 'per. in consequence declared to do service and to be subject to the Son and to the Holy Ghost, equally as to God the Father, that is, as to their Creator. But beyond all exception is that passage of Irenæus in book v. chap. 12, wherein he teaches that the Holy Spirit differs from that breath, or afflatus. spirit, whereby Adam was made a living soul, inasmuch as [232] the Holy Spirit, being uncreated, is the Creator and God of all things, whereas that breath was created. The passage is most worthy of being quoted entire; "The breath of life," he says, "which also makes man a living being, is one thing, [c. 7, 4. p. 236. See above, p. 172.] Aliud est, inquit, afflatus vitæ, qui et animalem efficit hominem; et aliud 5 CONSUBSTANTIA THE SON. 1 [Isaiah xlii. 5.] 2 [Isaiah lvii. 16.] 3 in Deo deputans. 180 Irenæus's interpretations, though incorrect, prove that ON THE and the life-giving Spirit, which also makes him spiritual, is another thing; and on this account Isaiah' says; Thus saith LITY OF the Lord, that created the heaven and fixed it, that made firm the earth, and all that is in it; that giveth breath to the people that are upon it, and [the] Spirit to them that tread thereon;' declaring that breath is bestowed in common upon all the people that are on the earth; but the Spirit peculiarly to such as tread under foot earthly desires. Wherefore Isaiah' himself says again, distinguishing the things we have spoken of, For the Spirit shall go forth from Me, and I have made every breath;' reckoning the Spirit indeed to be peculiarly in God, who in these last times hath shed It forth on the human race through the adoption of sons; but the breath in common on the creation, declaring it also to be a created being. Now that which is created is a different thing from Him who created it; the breath accordingly is temporal, but the Spirit is eternal"." We do not now trouble ourselves with this awkward interpretation of the prophet's words, for we are not consulting Irenæus as at all times the happiest expositor of Holy Scripture, but as a most trustworthy witness of the apostolic tradition, at any rate so far as concerns a primary point of Christian doctrine. Nor is it our present concern to enquire how valid the Scripture testimonies are by which he has established catholic doctrine, (although generally even in this respect he efficit eum. Et propter hoc Esaias ait, πνεῦμα ζωοποιοῦν, τὸ καὶ πνευματικὸν αὐτὸν ἀποτελοῦν. καὶ διὰ τοῦτο Ησαΐας φησίν· οὕτω λέγει Κύριος ὁ ποιήσας τὸν οὐρανὸν, καὶ στερεώσας αὐτὸν, ὁ πήξας τὴν γῆν, καὶ τὰ ἐν αὐτῇ· καὶ διδοὺς πνοὴν τῷ λαῷ τῷ ἐπ ̓ αὐτῆς, καὶ πνεῦμα τοῖς πατοῦσιν αὐτήν· τὴν μὲν πνοὴν παντὶ κοινῶς τῷ ἐπὶ γῆς λαῷ φήσας δε δόσθαι· τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα ἰδίως καταπατοῦσι τὰς γεώδεις ἐπιθυμίας· διὸ καὶ πάλιν ὁ αὐτὸς Ησαΐας διαστέλλων τὰ προειρημένα φησί· πνεῦμα γὰρ παρ' ἐμοῦ ἐξελεύσεται, καὶ πνοὴν πᾶσαν ἐγὼ ἐποίησα, τὸ πνεῦμα ἰδίως ἐπὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ τάξας τοῦ ἐκχέοντος αὐτὸ ... διὰ τῆς υἱοθεσίας ἐπὶ τὴν ἀνθρωπότητα· τὴν δὲ πνοὴν κοινῶς ἐπὶ τῆς κτίσεως, καὶ ποίημα ἀναγορεύσας αὐτήν· ἕτερον δέ ἐστι τὸ ποιηθὲν τοῦ ποιήσαντος. ἡ οὖν πνοὴ πρόσκαιρος, τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα ἀένναον.—c. 7, 4. p. 306.] " See also Tertullian adv. Marcion. ii. 4. almost throughout. |