For if that were so, God might cease to be God.
Editorial footnote · Exposition of the Christian Faith, Chapter VIII., editorial note cite_note-13 · Original source
Search a Bible verse · Source library · Sources and text rights
Exposition of the Christian Faith — Historical footnotes
Chapter VIII.
Complete historical editorial footnotes. These notes retain the original edition’s wording; individual note authors are unspecified.
English translation and editorial credits: Augustus Henry Eugene de Romestin, Eugene de Romestin (assistant), Henry Thomas Forbes Duckworth (assistant).
Read the original source · Text reuse terms
Read the surrounding source paragraph
64. Thus, the Son of God was made lower than, not only the Father, but angels also. And if you will turn this to His dishonour; [I ask] is then the Son, in respect of His Godhead, less than His angels who serve Him and minister to Him? Thus, in your purpose to diminish His honour, you run into the blasphemy of exalting the nature of angels above the Son of God. But “the servant is not above his master.” Again, angels ministered to Him even after His Incarnation, to the end that you should acknowledge Him to have suffered no loss of majesty by reason of His bodily nature, for God could not submit to any loss of Himself, whilst that which He has taken of the Virgin neither adds to nor takes away from His divine power.
“In respect of age only does a father take precedence of his son amongst men, for in regard to generic nature the father is on a level with the son, and in other respects the son may even excel his father. But where the Persons are eternal, there is no difference constituted by age. Still, as St. Ambrose acutely remarks, the names ‘Father’ and ‘Son’ indicate indeed a distinction of Persons and mutual relations of those Persons, yet not diversity of nature—rather, in fact, suppose equality and unity of nature.”—Hurter in loc.
Editorial footnote · Exposition of the Christian Faith, Chapter VIII., editorial note cite_note-15 · Original source
Read the surrounding source paragraph
66. If our opponents, then, have found no means to prove [the Father] greater [than the Son], let them not pervert words unto false reports, but seek out their meaning. I ask them, therefore, as touching what do they esteem the Father the greater? If it is because He is the Father, then [I answer] here we have no question of age or of time—the Father is not distinguished by white hairs, nor the Son by youthfulness—and it is on these conditions that the greater dignity of a father depends. But “father” and “son” are names, the one of the parent, the other of the child—names which seem to join rather than separate; for dutifulness inspires no loss of personal worth, inasmuch as kinship binds men together, and does not rend them asunder.
Phil. ii. 6. Here and in § 62 I have rendered “rapinam” in accordance with Lightfoot’s rendering of the original “ἁρπαγμός.”
Editorial footnote · Exposition of the Christian Faith, Chapter VIII., editorial note cite_note-19 · Original source
Read the surrounding source paragraph
70. Hence the Apostle, following this revelation, hath said: “He thought it not a prey that He should be equal with God.” For that which a man has not he seeks to carry off as a prey. Equality with the Father, therefore, which, as God and Lord, He possessed in His own substance, He had not as a spoil wrongfully seized. Wherefore the Apostle added [the words]: “He took the form of a servant.” Now surely a servant is the opposite of an equal. Equal, therefore, is the Son, in the form of God, but inferior in taking upon Him of the flesh and in His sufferings as a man. For how could the same nature be both lower and equal? And how, if [the Son] be inferior, can He do the same things, in like manner, as the Father doeth? How, indeed, can there be sameness of operation with diversity of power? Can the inferior ever work such effects as the greater, or can there be unity of operation where there is diversity of substance?
“Surely it is clear that the Son, in respect of His Godhead, is not inferior to the Father, for there is, in the Father and the Son, one and the same Godhead. Still, the Greek Fathers allow that the Father is not only greater than the Son in respect of the latter’s human nature, but also in regard to personal properties, or a certain ‘personal dignity’—(ἀξ ωμα ὑποστατικόν).”—Hurter in loc. Canon Mason, in his Faith of the Gospel, remarks that whilst it is quite right to speak of “God and His Son” or “God’s Son,” the converse language, “God and His Father,” “God’s Father,” is not right. Yet S. Ambrose says, “Dubitat de Patre Deus.” See § 43.
Editorial footnote · Exposition of the Christian Faith, Chapter VIII., editorial note cite_note-20 · Original source
Read the surrounding source paragraph
71. Admit, therefore, that Christ, as touching His Godhead, cannot be called inferior [to the Father]. Christ speaks to Abraham: “By Myself have I sworn.” Now the Apostle shows that He Who swears by Himself cannot be lower than any. Thus he saith, “When God rewarded Abraham with His promise, He swore by Himself, forasmuch as He had none other that was greater, saying, Surely with blessing will I bless thee, and with multiplying will I multiply thee.” Christ had, therefore, none greater, and for that cause sware He by Himself. Moreover, the Apostle has