Chapter XVII.—Sundry August Titles, Descriptive of Deity, Applied to the Son, Not, as Praxeas Would Have It, Only to the Father.

They more readily supposed that the Father acted in the Son’s name, than that the Son acted in the Father’s; although the Lord says Himself, “I am come in my Father’s name;”212    John v. 43. and even to the Father He declares, “I have manifested Thy name unto these men;”213    John xvii. 6. whilst the Scripture likewise says, “Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord,”214    Ps. cxviii. 26. that is to say, the Son in the Father’s name.  And as for the Father’s names, God Almighty, the Most High, the Lord of hosts, the King of Israel, the “One that is,” we say (for so much do the Scriptures teach us) that they belonged suitably to the Son also, and that the Son came under these designations, and has always acted in them, and has thus manifested them in Himself to men. “All things,” says He, “which the Father hath are mine.”215    John xvi. 15. Then why not His names also? When, therefore, you read of Almighty God, and the Most High, and the God of hosts, and the King of Israel, the “One that is,” consider whether the Son also be not indicated by these designations, who in His own right is God Almighty, in that He is the Word of Almighty God, and has received power over all; is the Most High, in that He is “exalted at the right hand of God,” as Peter declares in the Acts;216    Acts ii. 22. is the Lord of hosts, because all things are by the Father made subject to Him; is the King of Israel because to Him has especially been committed the destiny of that nation; and is likewise “the One that is,” because there are many who are called Sons, but are not. As to the point maintained by them, that the name of Christ belongs also to the Father, they shall hear (what I have to say) in the proper place. Meanwhile, let this be my immediate answer to the argument which they adduce from the Revelation of John: “I am the Lord which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty;”217    Rev. i. 8. and from all other passages which in their opinion make the designation of Almighty God unsuitable to the Son. As if, indeed, He which is to come were not almighty; whereas even the Son of the Almighty is as much almighty as the Son of God is God.

CAPUT XVII.

Facilius existimaverunt Patrem in Filii nomine egisse, quam Filium in Patris; dicente ipso Domino: 0176B Ego veni in Patris mei nomine (Joan. V, 43). Item ad ipsum Patrem: Nomen tuum manifestavi hominibus (Joan. XVII, 6). Condicente etiam Scriptura: Benedictus qui venit in nomine Domini (Matt. XXI, 6), utique Filius in Patris nomine. Sed et nomina Patris, Deus omnipotens, Altissimus , Dominus virtutum, Rex Israelis, Qui est. Quatenus ita scripturae docent, haec dicimus et in Filium competisse, et in his Filium venisse, et in his semper egisse, et sic ea in se hominibus manifestasse. Omnia, inquit, Patris mea sunt. Cur non et nomina? Cum ergo legis Deum omnipotentem, et Altissimum, et Deum virtutum, et Regem Israelis, et QUI EST; vide ne per haec Filius etiam demonstretur, suo jure Deus omnipotens , qua Sermo Dei omnipotentis, quaque omnium accepit 0176C potestatem; Altissimus, qua dextera Dei exaltatus, sicut Petrus in Actis (II, 22) concionatur; Dominus virtutum, quia omnia subjecta sunt illi a patre; Rex Israelis, quia ille proprie excidit sors gentis istius; item, QUI EST, quoniam multi filii dicuntur, et non sunt. Si autem volunt et Christi nomen Patris esse, audient suo loco. Interim, hic mihi promotum sit responsum adversus id quod et de Apocalypsi Joannis proferunt: Ego Dominus qui est , et qui fuit, et venit omnipotens; et sicubi alibi Dei omnipotentis appellationem non putant etiam Filio convenire: quasi qui venturus est, non sit 0177A omnipotens, cum et Filius omnipotentis tam omnipotens sit , quam Deus Dei Filius.