Month: November 2026

We have said elsewhere that in the Trinity, things are predicated specially as belonging to each person when they are predicated relatively to one another, such as Father and Son, and the gift of both, the Holy Spirit. The Father is not the Trinity, nor is the Son the Trinity, nor is the gift the Trinity. But whenever each is spoken of individually in respect to themselves, they are not spoken of as three in the plural number, but as one, the Trinity itself. Thus the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God; the Father is good, the Son is good, and the Holy Spirit is good; the Father is omnipotent, the Son is omnipotent, and the Holy Spirit is omnipotent. Yet there are not three Gods, nor three goods, nor three omnipotents, but one God, good, omnipotent, the Trinity itself. The same applies to whatever else is said of them not relatively in respect to each other, but individually in respect to themselves. They are thus spoken of according to ousia, since in them to be is the same as to be great, to be good, to be wise, and whatever else is said of each person individually, or of the Trinity itself, in respect to themselves. Therefore they are called three persons or three substances, not to indicate any difference of ousia, but so that we may be able to answer with some one word if anyone asks what three, or what three things. There is such great equality in that Trinity that not only is the Father not greater than the Son as regards divinity, but neither are the Father and Son together greater than the Holy Spirit, nor is any individual person, whichever of the three it may be, less than the Trinity itself. This is what we have said. If it is handled and repeated frequently, it no doubt becomes more familiarly known. Yet some limit must also be put to the discussion, and we must supplicate God with most devout piety that He will open our understanding and take away the inclination to dispute, so that our minds may discern the essence of the truth, which has neither bulk nor changeability. Now, therefore, insofar as the Creator Himself aids us in His marvelous mercy, let us consider these subjects, into which we will enter more deeply than we entered into those which preceded, although they are in truth the same, while preserving this rule: that what has not yet been made clear to our intellect nevertheless not be loosened from the firmness of our faith.

We have said elsewhere that those things are predicated specially in the Trinity as belonging severally to each person, which are predicated relatively the one to the other, as Father and Son, and the gift of both, the Holy Spirit; for the Father is not the Trinity, nor the Son the Trinity, nor the gift the Trinity: but what whenever each is singly spoken of in respect to themselves, then they are not spoken of as three in the plural number, but one, the Trinity itself, as the Father God, the Son God, and the Holy Spirit God; the Father good, the Son good, and the Holy Spirit good; and the Father omnipotent, the Son omnipotent, and the Holy Spirit omnipotent: yet neither three Gods, nor three goods, nor three omnipotents, but one God, good, omnipotent, the Trinity itself; and whatsoever else is said of them not relatively in respect to each other, but individually in respect to themselves. For they are thus spoken of according to essence, since in them to be is the same as to be great, as to be good, as to be wise, and whatever else is said of each person individually therein, or of the Trinity itself, in respect to themselves. And that therefore they are called three persons, or three substances, not in order that any difference of essence may be understood, but that we may be able to answer by some one word, should any one ask what three, or what three things? And that there is so great an equality in that Trinity, that not only the Father is not greater than the Son, as regards divinity, but neither are the Father and Son together greater than the Holy Spirit; nor is each individual person, whichever it be of the three, less than the Trinity itself. This is what we have said; and if it is handled and repeated frequently, it becomes, no doubt, more familiarly known: yet some limit, too, must be put to the discussion, and we must supplicate God with most devout piety, that He will open our understanding, and take away the inclination of disputing, in order that our minds may discern the essence of the truth, that has neither bulk nor moveableness. Now, therefore, so far as the Creator Himself aids us in His marvellous mercy, let us consider these subjects, into which we will enter more deeply than we entered into those which preceded, although they are in truth the same; preserving the while this rule, that what has not yet been made clear to our intellect, be nevertheless not loosened from the firmness of our faith.

For we say that in this Trinity, two or three persons are not anything greater than one of them. Fleshly perception cannot accept this, for this reason alone: it perceives created things as well as it can, but it cannot discern the Truth itself by which they are created. If it could, then even physical light would be no clearer than what we have just stated. For regarding the substance of truth, since it alone truly exists, nothing is greater unless it exists more truly. But regarding whatever is intelligible and unchangeable, no one thing exists more truly than another, since all alike are unchangeably eternal. And what is called great in this realm is great from no other source than that by which it truly exists. Therefore, where magnitude itself is truth, whatever has more magnitude must necessarily have more truth. Whatever therefore does not have more truth does not have more magnitude either. Furthermore, whatever has more truth is certainly more true, just as whatever has more magnitude is greater. Therefore, regarding the substance of truth, what is more true is more great. But the Father and the Son together are not more truly than the Father alone or the Son alone. Both together, therefore, are not anything greater than each of them singly. And since the Holy Spirit equally exists truly, the Father and Son together are not anything greater than He, since they are not more truly. The Father and the Holy Spirit together, since they do not surpass the Son in truth (for they do not exist more truly), do not surpass Him in magnitude either. And so the Son and the Holy Spirit together are just as great as the Father alone, since they exist just as truly. So also the Trinity itself is as great as each individual person within it. For where truth itself is magnitude, what is not more true is not more great. Since in regard to the ousia of truth, to be true is the same as to be, and to be is the same as to be great, therefore to be great is the same as to be true. And in regard to it, therefore, what is equally true must necessarily also be equally great.

2. For we say that in this Trinity two or three persons are not anything greater than one of them; which carnal perception does not receive, for no other reason except because it perceives as it can the true things which are created, but cannot discern the truth itself by which they are created; for if it could, then the very corporeal light would in no way be more clear than this which we have said. For in respect to the substance of truth, since it alone truly is, nothing is greater, unless because it more truly is. But in respect to whatsoever is intelligible and unchangeable, no one thing is more truly than another, since all alike are unchangeably eternal; and that which therein is called great, is not great from any other source than from that by which it truly is. Wherefore, where magnitude itself is truth, whatsoever has more of magnitude must needs have more of truth; whatsoever therefore has not more of truth, has not also more of magnitude. Further, whatsoever has more of truth is certainly more true, just as that is greater which has more of magnitude; therefore in respect to the substance of truth that is more great which is more true. But the Father and the Son together are not more truly than the Father singly, or the Son singly. Both together, therefore, are not anything greater than each of them singly. And since also the Holy Spirit equally is truly, the Father and Son together are not anything greater than He, since neither are they more truly. The Father also and the Holy Spirit together, since they do not surpass the Son in truth (for they are not more truly), do not surpass Him either in magnitude. And so the Son and the Holy Spirit together are just as great as the Father alone, since they are as truly. So also the Trinity itself is as great as each several person therein. For where truth itself is magnitude, that is not more great which is not more true: since in regard to the essence of truth, to be true is the same as to be, and to be is the same as to be great; therefore to be great is the same as to be true. And in regard to it, therefore, what is equally true must needs also be equally great.

When it comes to physical bodies, two pieces of gold might both be equally true (real), but one may be larger than the other, because size is not the same thing as truth (reality). Being gold is one thing, being large is another. The same applies to the nature of the soul. A soul is not called great in the same sense that it is called true (real). Someone who does not have a great soul still has a true (real) soul, because the essence of body and soul is not the same as the essence of truth (reality) itself, which is the Trinity—one God, alone great, true, truthful, the truth. When we try to think about Him, to the extent that He Himself allows and enables us, we must not imagine any physical touching or embrace in physical space, as if we were thinking of three bodies, or any kind of solid joining together, like the myths tell of the three-bodied Geryon. Whatever comes to mind that would be greater in three than in one, and less in one than in two, should be rejected without hesitation, for in this way everything physical is rejected. But also among spiritual things, let nothing changeable that may come to mind be thought of as God. For when we reach upward from this low place to that height, it is an important step toward knowledge if, before we can know what God is, we can already know what He is not. For certainly He is not earth or heaven, nor something like earth and heaven, nor anything like what we see in heaven, nor anything like what we do not see but might exist in heaven. Even if you were to imagine in your thoughts the light of the sun magnified as much as you are able—whether by making it larger or brighter, a thousand times or countless times—this is not God. Nor is God like the pure angels, whom we think of as spirits that animate heavenly bodies and change and govern them according to the will by which they serve God. Even if all the angels—and there are thousands upon thousands—were brought together into one and became one, such a thing is still not God. Nor should you think of those same spirits as existing without bodies, though this is extremely difficult for physical-minded thought to do. Look and see, if you can, O soul weighed down by the corruptible body and burdened by earthly thoughts that are many and varied—look and see, if you can, that God is truth (reality). For it is written that God is light, not in the way these eyes see, but in the way the heart sees when it is said, "He is truth (reality)." Do not ask what truth (reality) is, for immediately the darkness of physical images and the clouds of fantasies will block your way and will disturb that calmness which at the first moment shone forth to you when I said "truth (reality)." Try to remain, if you can, in that first moment when you are dazzled, as if by a flash, when the word "Truth (Reality)" is spoken to you. But you cannot. You will slip back into those familiar and earthly things. And what weight is it, I ask, that causes you to slip back this way, if not the sticky residue of the stains of desire you have accumulated, and the errors from your wandering away from the right path?

3. But in respect to bodies, it may be the case that this gold and that gold may be equally true [real], but this may be greater than that, since magnitude is not the same thing in this case as truth; and it is one thing for it to be gold, another to be great. So also in the nature of the soul; a soul is not called great in the same respect in which it is called true. For he, too, has a true [real] soul who has not a great soul; since the essence of body and soul is not the essence of the truth [reality] itself; as is the Trinity, one God, alone, great, true, truthful, the truth. Of whom if we endeavor to think, so far as He Himself permits and grants, let us not think of any touch or embrace in local space, as if of three bodies, or of any compactness of conjunction, as fables tell of three-bodied Geryon; but let whatsoever may occur to the mind, that is of such sort as to be greater in three than in each singly, and less in one than in two, be rejected without any doubt; for so everything corporeal is rejected. But also in spiritual things let nothing changeable that may have occurred to the mind be thought of God. For when we aspire from this depth to that height, it is a step towards no small knowledge, if, before we can know what God is, we can already know what He is not. For certainly He is neither earth nor heaven; nor, as it were, earth and heaven; nor any such thing as we see in the heaven; nor any such thing as we do not see, but which perhaps is in heaven. Neither if you were to magnify in the imagination of your thought the light of the sun as much as you are able, either that it may be greater, or that it may be brighter, a thousand times as much, or times without number; neither is this God. Neither as we think of the pure angels as spirits animating celestial bodies, and changing and dealing with them after the will by which they serve God; not even if all, and there are thousands of thousands, were brought together into one, and became one; neither is any such thing God. Neither if you were to think of the same spirits as without bodies — a thing indeed most difficult for carnal thought to do. Behold and see, if you can, O soul pressed down by the corruptible body, and weighed down by earthly thoughts, many and various; behold and see, if you can, that God is truth. For it is written that God is light; not in such way as these eyes see, but in such way as the heart sees, when it is said, He is truth [reality]. Ask not what is truth [reality] for immediately the darkness of corporeal images and the clouds of phantasms will put themselves in the way, and will disturb that calm which at the first twinkling shone forth to you, when I said truth [reality]. See that you remain, if you can, in that first twinkling with which you are dazzled, as it were, by a flash, when it is said to you, Truth [Reality]. But you can not; you will glide back into those usual and earthly things. And what weight, pray, is it that will cause you so to glide back, unless it be the bird-lime of the stains of appetite you have contracted, and the errors of your wandering from the right path?

Look again and see if you understand this. You certainly don't love anything except what is good. Good is the earth, with its high mountains, properly measured hills, and level plains. Good is a pleasant and fertile estate. Good is a house that has proper proportions and is spacious and bright. Good are living bodies with souls. Good is air that is mild and healthy. Good is food that is pleasant and nutritious. Good is health, without pain or exhaustion. Good is a person's face that has fitting proportions, a cheerful expression, and bright color. Good is a friend's mind, with the sweetness of harmony and the confidence of love. Good is a righteous man. Good are riches, since they are easily useful. Good is the heaven, with its sun, moon, and stars. Good are the angels, through their holy obedience. Good is speech that teaches sweetly and appropriately instructs the listener. Good is a poem that is harmonious in its rhythm and weighty in its meaning. Why add more and more examples? This thing is good and that thing is good, but set aside this and that, and consider good itself if you can—then you will see God, who is not good by some good other than himself, but the good of every good thing. For among all these good things, whether those I have mentioned or any others that can be observed or conceived, we could not say that one is better than another when we judge correctly, unless an understanding of the good itself had been imprinted on us, so that according to it we might both recognize things as good and prefer one good to another. This is how God must be loved—not this or that good, but the good itself. For the good that must be sought for the soul is not one that the soul judges and rises above, but one to which it clings through love. And what can this be except God? Not a good mind, or a good angel, or the good heaven, but the good good. Perhaps what I want to say can be understood more easily this way. For instance, when a mind is called good, there are two words, and from these words I understand two things—one by which it is a mind, and another by which it is good. The mind had no part in making itself a mind, for there was nothing yet to make itself be anything. But to make itself a good mind, I see, must come about through the will. Not because that by which it is a mind is not itself something good—for why else would it already be called, and most truly called, better than the body?—but it is not yet called a good mind because the action of the will is still needed to make it more excellent. If it has neglected this, it is justly blamed and rightly called not a good mind. For it then differs from the mind that does perform this action, and since the latter is praiseworthy, the former, which does not perform it, is surely blameworthy. But when it does this deliberately and becomes a good mind, it still cannot achieve this unless it turns itself toward something that it itself is not. And to what can it turn itself to become a good mind, except to the good which it loves, seeks, and obtains? And if it turns itself back away from this and becomes not good, then by the very act of turning away from the good, unless that good remains in it from which it turns away, it cannot turn itself back there again if it should wish to correct itself.

4. Behold again, and see if you can. You certainly do not love anything except what is good, since good is the earth, with the loftiness of its mountains, and the due measure of its hills, and the level surface of its plains; and good is an estate that is pleasant and fertile; and good is a house that is arranged in due proportions, and is spacious and bright; and good are animal and animate bodies; and good is air that is temperate, and salubrious; and good is food that is agreeable and fit for health; and good is health, without pains or lassitude; and good is the countenance of man that is disposed in fit proportions, and is cheerful in look, and bright in color; and good is the mind of a friend, with the sweetness of agreement, and with the confidence of love; and good is a righteous man; and good are riches, since they are readily useful; and good is the heaven, with its sun, and moon, and stars; and good are the angels, by their holy obedience; and good is discourse that sweetly teaches and suitably admonishes the hearer; and good is a poem that is harmonious in its numbers and weighty in its sense. And why add yet more and more? This thing is good and that good, but take away this and that, and regard good itself if you can, so will you see God, not good by a good that is other than Himself, but the good of all good. For in all these good things, whether those which I have mentioned, or any else that are to be discerned or thought, we could not say that one was better than another, when we judge truly, unless a conception of the good itself had been impressed upon us, such that according to it we might both approve some things as good, and prefer one good to another. So God is to be loved, not this and that good, but the good itself. For the good that must be sought for the soul is not one above which it is to fly by judging, but to which it is to cleave by loving; and what can this be except God? Not a good mind, or a good angel, or the good heaven, but the good good. For perhaps what I wish to say may be more easily perceived in this way. For when, for instance, a mind is called good, as there are two words, so from these words I understand two things — one whereby it is mind, and another whereby it is good. And itself had no share in making itself a mind, for there was nothing as yet to make itself to be anything; but to make itself to be a good mind, I see, must be brought about by the will: not because that by which it is mind is not itself anything good — for how else is it already called, and most truly called, better than the body?– but it is not yet called a good mind, for this reason, that the action of the will still is wanted, by which it is to become more excellent; and if it has neglected this, then it is justly blamed, and is rightly called not a good mind. For it then differs from the mind which does perform this; and since the latter is praiseworthy, the former doubtless, which does not perform, it is blameable. But when it does this of set purpose, and becomes a good mind, it yet cannot attain to being so unless it turn itself to something which itself is not. And to what can it turn itself that it may become a good mind, except to the good which it loves, and seeks, and obtains? And if it turns itself back again from this, and becomes not good, then by the very act of turning away from the good, unless that good remain in it from which it turns away, it cannot again turn itself back there if it should wish to amend.

Therefore, there would be no changeable goods unless there were the unchangeable good. When someone tells you about this or that good thing—things that in other ways can also be called not good—if you can set aside those things that are good by participating in the good, and perceive that good itself by participation in which they are good (for when this or that good thing is mentioned, you also understand the good itself along with them): if, I say, you can remove these things and perceive the good in itself, then you will have perceived God. And if you hold fast to him with love, you will immediately be blessed. But since other things are loved only because they are good, be ashamed that in holding fast to them, you do not love the good itself from which they are good. Even the mind, which is a mind simply because it is a mind—though it is not yet also good by turning itself to the unchangeable good, but, as I said, is only a mind—whenever it pleases us so much that we prefer it, if we understand rightly, even to all bodily light, it does not please us in itself, but in that skill by which it was made. For it is approved as made in that by which it is seen to have been meant to be made. This is truth, and simple good: for it is nothing else than the good itself, and for this reason also the chief good. For no good can be diminished or increased, except that which is good from some other good. Therefore the mind turns itself, in order to be good, to that by which it comes to be a mind. The will is then in harmony with nature, so that the mind may be perfected in good, when that good is loved by the turning of the will toward it—the good from which that other good also comes that is not lost by the will's turning away from it. For by turning itself from the chief good, the mind loses being a good mind, but it does not lose being a mind. And this too is already a good, and one better than the body. The will, therefore, loses what the will obtains. For the mind already existed, so it could wish to be turned to that from which it came, but that did not yet exist which could wish to be before it existed. And in this is our supreme good, when we see whether the thing ought to be or to have been—concerning which we comprehend that it ought to be or to have been—and when we see that the thing could not have been unless it ought to have been, though we also do not comprehend in what manner it ought to have been. This good, then, is not far from every one of us: for in it we live, and move, and have our being.

5. Wherefore there would be no changeable goods, unless there were the unchangeable good. Whenever then you are told of this good thing and that good thing, which things can also in other respects be called not good, if you can put aside those things which are good by the participation of the good, and discern that good itself by the participation of which they are good (for when this or that good thing is spoken of, you understand together with them the good itself also): if, then, I say you can remove these things, and can discern the good in itself, then you will have discerned God. And if you shall cleave to Him with love, you shall be immediately blessed. But whereas other things are not loved, except because they are good, be ashamed, in cleaving to them, not to love the good itself whence they are good. That also, which is a mind, only because it is a mind, while it is not yet also good by the turning itself to the unchangeable good, but, as I said, is only a mind; whenever it so pleases us, as that we prefer it even, if we understand aright, to all corporeal light, does not please us in itself, but in that skill by which it was made. For it is thence approved as made, wherein it is seen to have been to be made. This is truth, and simple good: for it is nothing else than the good itself, and for this reason also the chief good. For no good can be diminished or increased, except that which is good from some other good. Therefore the mind turns itself, in order to be good, to that by which it comes to be a mind. Therefore the will is then in harmony with nature, so that the mind may be perfected in good, when that good is loved by the turning of the will to it, whence that other good also comes which is not lost by the turning away of the will from it. For by turning itself from the chief good, the mind loses the being a good mind; but it does not lose the being a mind. And this, too, is a good already, and one better than the body. The will, therefore, loses that which the will obtains. For the mind already was, that could wish to be turned to that from which it was: but that as yet was not, that could wish to be before it was. And herein is our [supreme] good, when we see whether the thing ought to be or to have been, respecting which we comprehend that it ought to be or to have been, and when we see that the thing could not have been unless it ought to have been, of which we also do not comprehend in what manner it ought to have been. This good then is not far from every one of us: for in it we live, and move, and have our being.

We must hold firmly to God through love and cling to Him, so that we may enjoy the presence of the One by whom we exist—without whom we could not exist at all. Since we still walk by faith and not by sight, we certainly do not yet see God face to face, as the same apostle says. Yet we will never see Him unless we already love Him now. But who loves what he does not know? It is possible to know something and not love it, but I ask whether it is possible to love what is not known. If it is not possible, then no one loves God before knowing Him. And what does it mean to know God except to behold Him and steadfastly perceive Him with the mind? For He is not a body to be searched out by physical eyes. But even before we have the ability to behold and perceive God—as He can be beheld and perceived, which is granted to the pure in heart (for blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God)—unless He is loved by faith, it will not be possible for the heart to be cleansed so that it may be fit and ready to see Him. For where do those three things exist—the building up of which in the mind is the purpose of all the divine Scriptures, namely Faith, Hope, and Charity—except in a mind that believes what it does not yet see, and hopes for and loves what it believes? Therefore even He who is not known, but is believed, can be loved. But we must certainly take care that the mind believing what it does not see does not imagine something that is not real, and hope for and love what is false. For in that case, it would not be charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned, which is the goal of the commandment, as the same apostle says.

6. But it is by love that we must stand firm to this and cleave to this, in order that we may enjoy the presence of that by which we are, and in the absence of which we could not be at all. For as we walk as yet by faith, and not by sight, we certainly do not yet see God, as the same [apostle] says, face to face: whom however we shall never see, unless now already we love. But who loves what he does not know? For it is possible something may be known and not loved: but I ask whether it is possible that what is not known can be loved; since if it cannot, then no one loves God before he knows Him. And what is it to know God except to behold Him and steadfastly perceive Him with the mind? For He is not a body to be searched out by carnal eyes. But before also that we have power to behold and to perceive God, as He can be beheld and perceived, which is permitted to the pure in heart; for blessed are the pure in heart. for they shall see God; except He is loved by faith, it will not be possible for the heart to be cleansed, in order that it may be apt and meet to see Him. For where are there those three, in order to build up which in the mind the whole apparatus of the divine Scriptures has been raised up, namely Faith, Hope, and Charity, except in a mind believing what it does not yet see, and hoping and loving what it believes? Even He therefore who is not known, but yet is believed, can be loved. But indisputably we must take care, lest the mind believing that which it does not see, feign to itself something which is not, and hope for and love that which is false. For in that case, it will not be charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned, which is the end of the commandment, as the same apostle says.

When we believe in physical things through reading or hearing about them that we have not seen ourselves, our mind necessarily creates mental images with bodily shapes and forms, as they happen to occur in our thoughts. These images are either not true, or even if they happen to be true—which occurs very rarely—believing in them through faith does us no good. They are useful for some other purpose that is conveyed through them. For who reads or hears what the Apostle Paul wrote, or what was written about him, without picturing in his mind the face of the apostle himself and of all those whose names are mentioned there? Yet among such a large number of people who know these books, each person imagines those bodily features and forms differently, so it is certainly impossible to know which person imagines them more accurately and closer to reality. Our faith is not concerned with the physical appearance of those men, but only with this: that by the grace of God they lived and acted as Scripture testifies. This is what is both useful to believe and must not be despaired of and must be sought. Even the physical face of our Lord Himself is imagined variously by countless different imaginations, yet it was one face, whatever it was. What is spiritually healthy in our faith concerning our Lord Jesus Christ is not what the mind imagines for itself—perhaps very different from reality—but what we think about man according to his kind. For we have a concept of human nature implanted in us, like a rule, by which we know immediately that whatever such thing we see is a man or the form of a man.

7. But it must needs be, that, when by reading or hearing of them we believe in any corporeal things which we have not seen, the mind frames for itself something under bodily features and forms, just as it may occur to our thoughts; which either is not true, or even if it be true, which can most rarely happen, yet this is of no benefit to us to believe in by faith, but it is useful for some other purpose, which is intimated by means of it. For who is there that reads or hears what the Apostle Paul has written, or what has been written of him, that does not imagine to himself the countenance both of the apostle himself, and of all those whose names are there mentioned? And whereas, among such a multitude of men to whom these books are known, each imagines in a different way those bodily features and forms, it is assuredly uncertain which it is that imagines them more nearly and more like the reality. Nor, indeed, is our faith busied therein with the bodily countenance of those men; but only that by the grace of God they so lived and so acted as that Scripture witnesses: this it is which it is both useful to believe, and which must not be despaired of, and must be sought. For even the countenance of our Lord Himself in the flesh is variously fancied by the diversity of countless imaginations, which yet was one, whatever it was. Nor in our faith which we have of our Lord Jesus Christ, is that wholesome which the mind imagines for itself, perhaps far other than the reality, but that which we think of man according to his kind: for we have a notion of human nature implanted in us, as it were by rule, according to which we know immediately, that whatever such thing we see is a man or the form of a man.

We form our understanding according to this idea when we believe that God became man for our sake, as an example of humility and to demonstrate God's love toward us. This is what is good for us to believe and to hold firmly and unshakably in our hearts: that the humility by which God was born of a woman and was led to death through such great insults by mortal men is the greatest remedy by which the swelling of our pride may be healed, and the profound mystery by which the bond of sin may be broken. Likewise, because we know what omnipotence is, we believe in the omnipotent God through the power of His miracles and of His resurrection, and we form mental images regarding such actions according to the categories and types of things that are either implanted in us by nature or gathered through experience, so that our faith may not be false. For we do not know the face of the Virgin Mary, from whom He was miraculously born without contact with a husband and without her being corrupted in the birth itself. We have not seen what the features of Lazarus's body were, nor have we seen Bethany, nor the tomb and that stone which He commanded to be removed when He raised him from the dead, nor the new tomb cut out of the rock from which He Himself arose, nor the Mount of Olives from which He ascended into heaven. In short, those of us who have not seen these things do not know whether they are as we imagine them to be—indeed, we should probably judge that they are not so. For when the appearance of either a place, a person, or any other body that we imagined before we saw it turns out to be the same when it comes before our sight as it was when it came to our mind, we are struck with considerable wonder. This happens so rarely and almost never. And yet we believe those things most firmly because we imagine them according to a specific and general concept of which we are certain. For we believe our Lord Jesus Christ to be born of a virgin who was called Mary. But what a virgin is, what it is to be born, and what a proper name is—these things we do not merely believe but certainly know. Whether the face of Mary that came to mind when speaking about these things or remembering them was actually her face, we neither know nor believe. In this case, then, it is acceptable to say without violating the faith, perhaps she had such and such a face, perhaps she did not. But no one could say without violating the Christian faith that perhaps Christ was born of a virgin.

Our conception is framed according to this notion, when we believe that God was made man for us, as an example of humility, and to show the love of God towards us. For this it is which it is good for us to believe, and to retain firmly and unshakenly in our heart, that the humility by which God was born of a woman, and was led to death through contumelies so great by mortal men, is the chiefest remedy by which the swelling of our pride may be cured, and the profound mystery by which the bond of sin may be loosed. So also, because we know what omnipotence is, we believe concerning the omnipotent God in the power of His miracles and of His resurrection, and we frame conceptions respecting actions of this kind, according to the species and genera of things that are either ingrafted in us by nature, or gathered by experience, that our faith may not be feigned. For neither do we know the countenance of the Virgin Mary; from whom, untouched by a husband, nor tainted in the birth itself, He was wonderfully born. Neither have we seen what were the lineaments of the body of Lazarus; nor yet Bethany; nor the sepulchre, and that stone which He commanded to be removed when He raised Him from the dead; nor the new tomb cut out in the rock, whence He Himself arose; nor the Mount of Olives, from whence He ascended into heaven. And, in short, whoever of us have not seen these things, know not whether they are as we conceive them to be, nay judge them more probably not to be so. For when the aspect either of a place, or a man, or of any other body, which we happened to imagine before we saw it, turns out to be the same when it occurs to our sight as it was when it occurred to our mind, we are moved with no little wonder. So scarcely and hardly ever does it happen. And yet we believe those things most steadfastly, because we imagine them according to a special and general notion, of which we are certain. For we believe our Lord Jesus Christ to be born of a virgin who was called Mary. But what a virgin is, or what it is to be born, and what is a proper name, we do not believe, but certainly know. And whether that was the countenance of Mary which occurred to the mind in speaking of those things or recollecting them, we neither know at all, nor believe. It is allowable, then, in this case to say without violation of the faith, perhaps she had such or such a countenance, perhaps she had not: but no one could say without violation of the Christian faith, that perhaps Christ was born of a virgin.

Therefore, since we want to understand the eternity, equality, and unity of the Trinity as much as we are allowed, but must believe before we understand, and since we must be careful that our faith is not false—because we must enjoy this same Trinity in order to live blessedly, but if we have believed something false about it, our hope would be worthless and our love would not be pure—how can we love by believing in a Trinity that we do not know? Is it according to a particular or general idea, like the way we love the Apostle Paul? In his case, even if he did not have the appearance that comes to our minds when we think of him (and we do not know this at all), we still know what a human being is. For without going far away from ourselves, this is what we are, and it is clear that he too was this, and that his soul joined to his body lived in the manner of mortals. Therefore we believe this about him based on what we find in ourselves, according to the form or category that includes all human nature alike. What then do we know, either specifically or generally, about that most excellent Trinity, as if there were many such trinities, some of which we had learned through experience, so that we might believe that Trinity too is like them, through the rule of similarity impressing upon us either a particular or general idea, and thus also love that thing which we believe but do not yet know, based on the likeness of what we do know? But this is certainly not the case. Or is it that, just as we love in our Lord Jesus Christ that he rose from the dead, even though we have never seen anyone rise from death, so we can believe in and love the Trinity which we do not see and the like of which we have never seen? But we certainly know what it is to die and what it is to live, because we both live and have from time to time seen and experienced both dead and dying people. And what else is rising again except living again, that is, returning to life from death? When, therefore, we say and believe that there is a Trinity, we know what a trinity is, because we know what three things are. But this is not what we love. For we can easily have this whenever we want (to pass over other things) by just holding up three fingers. Or do we indeed love, not every trinity, but the Trinity, that is, God? We love then in the Trinity that it is God. But we have never seen or known any other God, because God is one—he alone whom we have not yet seen, and whom we love by believing. But the question is, from what likeness or comparison of known things can we believe, in order that we may love God, whom we do not yet know?

8. Wherefore, since we desire to understand the eternity, and equality, and unity of the Trinity, as much as is permitted us, but ought to believe before we understand; and since we must watch carefully, that our faith be not feigned; since we must have the fruition of the same Trinity, that we may live blessedly; but if we have believed anything false of it, our hope would be worthless, and our charity not pure: how then can we love, by believing, that Trinity which we do not know? Is it according to the special or general notion, according to which we love the Apostle Paul? In whose case, even if he was not of that countenance which occurs to us when we think of him (and this we do not know at all), yet we know what a man is. For not to go far away, this we are; and it is manifest he, too, was this, and that his soul joined to his body lived after the manner of mortals. Therefore we believe this of him, which we find in ourselves, according to the species or genus under which all human nature alike is comprised. What then do we know, whether specially or generally, of that most excellent Trinity, as if there were many such trinities, some of which we had learned by experience, so that we may believe that Trinity, too, to have been such as they, through the rule of similitude, impressed upon us, whether a special or a general notion; and thus love also that thing which we believe and do not yet know, from the parity of the thing which we do know? But this certainly is not so. Or is it that, as we love in our Lord Jesus Christ, that He rose from the dead, although we never saw any one rise from thence, so we can believe in and love the Trinity which we do not see, and the like of which we never have seen? But we certainly know what it is to die, and what it is to live; because we both live, and from time to time have seen and experienced both dead and dying persons. And what else is it to rise again, except to live again, that is, to return to life from death? When, therefore, we say and believe that there is a Trinity, we know what a Trinity is, because we know what three are; but this is not what we love. For we can easily have this whenever we will, to pass over other things, by just holding up three fingers. Or do we indeed love, not every trinity, but the Trinity, that is God? We love then in the Trinity, that it is God: but we never saw or knew any other God, because God is One; He alone whom we have not yet seen, and whom we love by believing. But the question is, from what likeness or comparison of known things can we believe, in order that we may love God, whom we do not yet know?

Come back with me and let us examine why we love the apostle. Do we love him because of his human nature, which we understand well since we believe he was a man? Certainly not, because if that were the case, we would not love him now, since he is no longer that man—his soul has separated from his body. What we love in him is what we believe still lives, namely his righteous mind. By what general or specific standard do we know this, except that we know both what a mind is and what it means to be righteous? We can appropriately say that we know what a mind is because we also have a mind. We have never seen it with our eyes or formed a general or specific concept from observing multiple minds. Rather, as I said before, we know it because we ourselves have one. What is known so intimately and perceives itself to be itself as that by which all other things are perceived—the mind itself? We also recognize the movements of bodies by which we perceive that others live besides ourselves, through resemblance to ourselves, since we move our own body in living just as we observe those bodies to be moved. When a living body moves, our eyes cannot see the mind, which cannot be seen by eyes. But we perceive that something is contained in that body, similar to what is contained in ourselves that moves our own body—the life and soul. This is not uniquely human foresight and reason, since even animals perceive that not only they themselves live but also other animals reciprocally, and that we ourselves live. They do not see our souls except through bodily movements, and they do this immediately and easily by some natural agreement. Therefore we both know anyone's mind from our own and believe from our own concerning someone we do not know. For we not only perceive that there is a mind, but we can also know what a mind is by reflecting on our own, since we have a mind. But how do we know what a righteous man is? We said above that we love the apostle for no other reason than that he is a righteous mind. We know what a righteous man is just as we know what a mind is. What a mind is, as has been said, we know from ourselves because there is a mind in us. But how do we know what a righteous man is if we are not righteous? If only a righteous person knows what a righteous man is, then only a righteous person loves a righteous man. For one cannot love someone whom one believes to be righteous precisely because one believes him to be righteous, if one does not know what it means to be righteous—according to what we showed above, that no one loves what he believes but does not see except by some general or specific standard. If only a righteous person loves a righteous person, how will anyone who is not yet righteous wish to become righteous? For no one wishes to be what he does not love. But certainly, for someone who is not righteous to become so, he must wish to be righteous. In order to wish to be righteous, he loves the righteous man. Therefore, even someone who is not yet righteous loves the righteous man. But he cannot love the righteous man if he does not know what a righteous man is. Accordingly, even someone who is not yet righteous knows what a righteous man is. How does he know this? Does he see it with his eyes? Is anything righteous corporeal, like white or black or square or round? Who could say this? Yet with one's eyes one sees nothing except corporeal things. But nothing in a man is righteous except the mind. When a man is called righteous, he is called so from the mind, not from the body. For righteousness is a kind of beauty of the mind by which people are beautiful—many who are misshapen and deformed in body. As the mind is not seen with the eyes, neither is its beauty. From where then does someone who is not yet righteous know what a righteous man is and love the righteous man so that he may become righteous? Do certain signs shine forth through bodily movement by which this or that person is shown to be righteous? But how does anyone know that these are signs of a righteous mind when he is completely ignorant of what it means to be righteous? Therefore he does know. But how do we know what it means to be righteous, even when we are not yet righteous? If we know from outside ourselves, we know it through something bodily. But this is not a bodily thing. Therefore we know within ourselves what it means to be righteous. For I find this nowhere else when I seek to express it except within myself. If I ask another what it means to be righteous, he seeks within himself what to answer. Whoever can answer truly from there has found within himself what to answer. When I wish to speak of Carthage, I seek within myself what to say, and I find within myself a concept or image of Carthage. But I received this through the body—that is, through bodily perception—since I was present in that city in the body, saw and perceived it, and retained it in my memory so that I might find within myself a word concerning it whenever I might wish to speak of it. For its word is the image itself of it in my memory, not the sound of two syllables when Carthage is named, or even when that name itself is thought silently from time to time, but what I discern in my mind when I utter those two syllables with my voice, or even before I utter them. Similarly, when I wish to speak of Alexandria, which I have never seen, an image of it is present with me. Because I had heard from many people and had believed that city to be great, described to me as it could be told, I formed an image of it in my mind as I was able. This is its word with me when I wish to speak of it, before I utter with my voice the five syllables that make the name almost everyone knows. Yet if I could bring forth that image from my mind to the eyes of people who know Alexandria, certainly all would either say it is not it, or if they said it is, I would greatly wonder. As I gazed at it in my mind—that is, at the image which was like its picture—I still would not know it to be it, but would believe those who retained an image they had seen. But I do not ask what it means to be righteous in this way, nor do I find it this way, nor do I gaze upon it this way when I express it. Neither am I approved when I am heard in this way, nor do I approve when I hear in this way—as though I have seen such a thing with my eyes or learned it through some bodily perception or heard it from those who had learned it that way. For when I say, and say knowingly, that a mind is righteous which knowingly and deliberately assigns to everyone his due in life and conduct, I do not think of anything absent like Carthage or imagine it as I am able like Alexandria, whether it is so or not. Rather, I discern something present, and I discern it within myself, though I myself am not that which I discern. Many who hear will approve it. Whoever hears me and knowingly approves also discerns this same thing within himself, even though he himself is not what he discerns. But when a righteous man says this, he discerns and says what he himself is. How does he discern it except within himself? But this is not surprising, for where should he discern himself except within himself? The remarkable thing is that the mind should see within itself what it has seen nowhere else, and should see truly, and should see the very true righteous mind, and should itself be a mind, yet not a righteous mind, which nevertheless it sees within itself. Is there another mind that is righteous in a mind that is not yet righteous? Or if there is not, what does it see there when it sees and says what a righteous mind is, seeing it nowhere else but in itself, when it itself is not a righteous mind? Is what it sees an inner truth present to the mind that has the power to behold it? Yet not all have that power, and those who have the power to behold it are not all also what they behold—that is, they are not also righteous minds themselves, even though they are able to see and to say what a righteous mind is. How will they be able to become so except by clinging to that very form itself which they behold, so that from there they may be formed and may be righteous minds? They will not only discern and say that the mind is righteous which knowingly and deliberately assigns to everyone what is his due in life and conduct, but likewise they themselves may live righteously and be righteous in character by assigning to everyone what is his due, so as to owe no one anything but to love one another. How can anyone cling to that form except by loving it? Why then do we love another whom we believe to be righteous and not love that form itself in which we see what a righteous mind is, so that we also may be able to be righteous? Is it that unless we loved that also, we would not love at all the person whom we love through it? But while we are not righteous, we love that form too little to be able to be righteous. Therefore, the person who is believed

9. Return then with me, and let us consider why we love the apostle. Is it at all on account of his human kind, which we know right well, in that we believe him to have been a man? Assuredly not; for if it were so, he now is not him whom we love, since he is no longer that man, for his soul is separated from his body. But we believe that which we love in him to be still living, for we love his righteous mind. From what general or special rule then, except that we know both what a mind is, and what it is to be righteous? And we say, indeed, not unfitly, that we therefore know what a mind is, because we too have a mind. For neither did we ever see it with our eyes, and gather a special or general notion from the resemblance of more minds than one, which we had seen; but rather, as I have said before, because we too have it. For what is known so intimately, and so perceives itself to be itself, as that by which also all other things are perceived, that is, the mind itself? For we recognize the movements of bodies also, by which we perceive that others live besides ourselves, from the resemblance of ourselves; since we also so move our body in living as we observe those bodies to be moved. For even when a living body is moved, there is no way opened to our eyes to see the mind, a thing which cannot be seen by the eyes; but we perceive something to be contained in that bulk, such as is contained in ourselves, so as to move in like manner our own bulk, which is the life and the soul. Neither is this, as it were, the property of human foresight and reason, since brute animals also perceive that not only they themselves live, but also other brute animals interchangeably, and the one the other, and that we ourselves do so. Neither do they see our souls, save from the movements of the body, and that immediately and most easily by some natural agreement. Therefore we both know the mind of any one from our own, and believe also from our own of him whom we do not know. For not only do we perceive that there is a mind, but we can also know what a mind is, by reflecting upon our own: for we have a mind. But whence do we know what a righteous man is? For we said above that we love the apostle for no other reason except that he is a righteous mind. We know, then, what a righteous man also is, just as we know what a mind is. But what a mind is, as has been said, we know from ourselves, for there is a mind in us. But whence do we know what a righteous man is, if we are not righteous? But if no one but he who is righteous knows what is a righteous man, no one but a righteous man loves a righteous man; for one cannot love him whom one believes to be righteous, for this very reason that one does believe him to be righteous, if one does not know what it is to be righteous; according to that which we have shown above, that no one loves what he believes and does not see, except by some rule of a general or special notion. And if for this reason no one but a righteous man loves a righteous man, how will any one wish to be a righteous man who is not yet so? For no one wishes to be that which he does not love. But, certainly, that he who is not righteous may be so, it is necessary that he should wish to be righteous; and in order that he may wish to be righteous, he loves the righteous man. Therefore, even he who is not yet righteous, loves the righteous man. But he cannot love the righteous man, who is ignorant what a righteous man is. Accordingly, even he who is not yet righteous, knows what a righteous man is. Whence then does he know this? Does he see it with his eyes? Is any corporeal thing righteous, as it is white, or black, or square, or round? Who could say this? Yet with one's eyes one has seen nothing except corporeal things. But there is nothing righteous in a man except the mind; and when a man is called a righteous man, he is called so from the mind, not from the body. For righteousness is in some sort the beauty of the mind, by which men are beautiful; very many too who are misshapen and deformed in body. And as the mind is not seen with the eyes, so neither is its beauty. From whence then does he who is not yet righteous know what a righteous man is, and love the righteous man that he may become righteous? Do certain signs shine forth by the motion of the body, by which this or that man is manifested to be righteous? But whence does any one know that these are the signs of a righteous mind when he is wholly ignorant what it is to be righteous? Therefore he does know. But whence do we know what it is to be righteous, even when we are not yet righteous? If we know from without ourselves, we know it by some bodily thing. But this is not a thing of the body. Therefore we know in ourselves what it is to be righteous. For I find this nowhere else when I seek to utter it, except within myself; and if I ask another what it is to be righteous, he seeks within himself what to answer; and whosoever hence can answer truly, he has found within himself what to answer. And when indeed I wish to speak of Carthage, I seek within myself what to speak, and I find within myself a notion or image of Carthage; but I have received this through the body, that is, through the perception of the body, since I have been present in that city in the body, and I saw and perceived it, and retained it in my memory, that I might find within myself a word concerning it, whenever I might wish to speak of it. For its word is the image itself of it in my memory, not that sound of two syllables when Carthage is named, or even when that name itself is thought of silently from time to time, but that which I discern in my mind, when I utter that dissyllable with my voice, or even before I utter it. So also, when I wish to speak of Alexandria, which I never saw, an image of it is present with me. For whereas I had heard from many and had believed that city to be great, in such way as it could be told me, I formed an image of it in my mind as I was able; and this is with me its word when I wish to speak of it, before I utter with my voice the five syllables which make the name that almost every one knows. And yet if I could bring forth that image from my mind to the eyes of men who know Alexandria, certainly all either would say, It is not it; or if they said, It is, I should greatly wonder; and as I gazed at it in my mind, that is, at the image which was as it were its picture, I should yet not know it to be it, but should believe those who retained an image they had seen. But I do not so ask what it is to be righteous, nor do I so find it, nor do I so gaze upon it, when I utter it; neither am I so approved when I am heard, nor do I so approve when I hear; as though I have seen such a thing with my eyes, or learned it by some perception of the body, or heard it from those who had so learned it. For when I say, and say knowingly, that mind is righteous which knowingly and of purpose assigns to every one his due in life and behavior, I do not think of anything absent, as Carthage, or imagine it as I am able, as Alexandria, whether it be so or not; but I discern something present, and I discern it within myself, though I myself am not that which I discern; and many if they hear will approve it. And whoever hears me and knowingly approves, he too discerns this same thing within himself, even though he himself be not what he discerns. But when a righteous man says this, he discerns and says that which he himself is. And whence also does he discern it, except within himself? But this is not to be wondered at; for whence should he discern himself except within himself? The wonderful thing is, that the mind should see within itself that which it has seen nowhere else, and should see truly, and should see the very true righteous mind, and should itself be a mind, and yet not a righteous mind, which nevertheless it sees within itself. Is there another mind that is righteous in a mind that is not yet righteous? Or if there is not, what does it there see when it sees and says what is a righteous mind, nor sees it anywhere else but in itself, when itself is not a righteous mind? Is that which it sees an inner truth present to the mind which has power to behold it? Yet all have not that power; and they who have power to behold it, are not all also that which they behold, that is, they are not also righteous minds themselves, just as they are able to see and to say what is a righteous mind. And whence will they be able to be so, except by cleaving to that very same form itself which they behold, so that from thence they may be formed and may be righteous minds; not only discerning and saying that the mind is righteous which knowingly and of purpose assigns to every one that which is his due in life and behavior, but so likewise that they themselves may live righteously and be righteous in character, by assigning to every one that which is his due, so as to owe no man anything, but to love one another. And whence can any one cleave to that form but by loving it? Why then do we love another whom we believe to be righteous, and do not love that form itself wherein we see what is a righteous mind, that we also may be able to be righteous? Is it that unless we loved that also, we should not love him at all, whom through it we love; but while we are not righteous, we love that form too little to allow of our being able to be righteous? The man therefore who is believed to be righteous, is loved through that form and truth which he who loves discerns and understands within himself; but that very form and truth itself cannot be loved from any other source than itself. For we do not find any other such thing besides itself, so that by believing we might love it when it is unknown, in that we here already know another such thing. For whatsoever of such a kind one may have seen, is itself; and there is not any other such thing, since itself alone is such as itself is. He therefore who loves men, ought to love them either because they are righteous, or that they may become righteous. For so also he ought to love himself, either because he is righteous, or that he may become righteous; for in this way he loves his neighbor as himself without any risk. For he who loves himself otherwise, loves himself wrongfully, since he loves himself to this end that he may be unrighteous; therefore to this end that he may be wicked; and hence it follows next that he does not love himself; for, He who loves iniquity, hates his own soul.

In this inquiry into the Trinity and knowing God, nothing is more important to consider than what true love is—or rather, what love itself is. Only genuine love should be called love; otherwise it is merely desire. So people who desire are said to love incorrectly, just as people who love are said to desire incorrectly. True love is this: clinging to the truth so we may live righteously, and so we may value all mortal things less than our love for people, through which we desire them to live righteously. This way we should be ready even to die for our brothers and sisters for their benefit, as our Lord Jesus Christ taught us by his example. There are two commandments on which all the Law and the prophets depend: love of God and love of neighbor. Not without reason does Scripture usually put one in place of both. Sometimes it mentions only God's love, as in this passage: "For we know that all things work together for good to them that love God"; and again, "But if any man love God, the same is known of Him"; and, "Because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us"; and many other passages. The person who loves God must necessarily do what God has commanded, and loves him in proportion to how well he obeys; therefore he must necessarily also love his neighbor, because God has commanded it. Sometimes Scripture mentions only love of neighbor, as in: "Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ"; and again, "For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this, You shall love your neighbor as yourself"; and in the Gospel, "All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them; for this is the Law and the prophets." Many other passages in sacred writings seem to command only love of neighbor for perfection while passing over love of God in silence, even though the Law and the prophets hang on both commandments. But this is because whoever loves his neighbor must necessarily also love, above all else, love itself. But God is love; and he that dwells in love dwells in God. Therefore he must necessarily love God above all else.

10. No other thing, then, is chiefly to be regarded in this inquiry, which we make concerning the Trinity and concerning knowing God, except what is true love, nay, rather what is love. For that is to be called love which is true, otherwise it is desire; and so those who desire are said improperly to love, just as they who love are said improperly to desire. But this is true love, that cleaving to the truth we may live righteously, and so may despise all mortal things in comparison with the love of men, whereby we wish them to live righteously. For so we should be prepared also to die profitably for our brethren, as our Lord Jesus Christ taught us by His example. For as there are two commandments on which hang all the Law and the prophets, love of God and love of our neighbor; not without cause the Scripture mostly puts one for both: whether it be of God only, as is that text, For we know that all things work together for good to them that love God; and again, But if any man love God, the same is known of Him; and that, Because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us; and many other passages; because he who loves God must both needs do what God has commanded, and loves Him just in such proportion as he does so; therefore he must needs also love his neighbor, because God has commanded it: or whether it be that Scripture only mentions the love of our neighbor, as in that text, Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ; and again, For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this, You shall love your neighbor as yourself; and in the Gospel, All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them; for this is the Law and the prophets. And many other passages occur in the sacred writings, in which only the love of our neighbor seems to be commanded for perfection, while the love of God is passed over in silence; whereas the Law and the prophets hang on both precepts. But this, too, is because he who loves his neighbor must needs also love above all else love itself. But God is love; and he that dwells in love, dwells in God. Therefore he must needs above all else love God.

Therefore, those who seek God through the Powers that rule over the world or parts of it are removed and cast far away from Him. This separation is not measured by physical distance, but by a difference in their affections and desires. They try to find a path outwardly and abandon their own inner being, where God actually dwells. So even if they may have heard about some holy heavenly Power or somehow thought about it, they still covet the miraculous deeds that amaze human weakness rather than imitating the piety that leads to divine rest. Through pride, they prefer to be able to do what an angel does rather than, through devotion, to be what an angel is. No holy being rejoices in his own power, but in the power of Him from whom he receives whatever power he can rightly have. Such a being knows that it is a greater mark of power to be united to the Omnipotent through a devout will than to be able, by one's own power and will, to do things that terrify those who cannot do them. Therefore, the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, while doing such miraculous things, wanted to teach better things to those who marveled at them and to turn those who were focused on and uncertain about unusual temporal matters toward eternal and inner realities. He says, Come unto me, all you that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you. He does not say, Learn of me because I raise those who have been dead four days, but instead says, Learn of me, for I am meek and lowly in heart. For humility, which is most solid, is more powerful and safer than pride, which is utterly inflated. And so He continues, And you shall find rest unto your souls, for Love is not puffed up, and God is Love. Those who are faithful in love shall rest in Him, called back from the noise of the outer world to silent joys. Look, God is Love. Why do we go out and run to the heights of heaven and the depths of the earth, seeking Him who is within us, if we want to be with Him?

11. Wherefore they who seek God through those Powers which rule over the world, or parts of the world, are removed and cast away far from Him; not by intervals of space, but by difference of affections: for they endeavor to find a path outwardly, and forsake their own inward things, within which is God. Therefore, even although they may either have heard some holy heavenly Power, or in some way or another may have thought of it, yet they rather covet its deeds at which human weakness marvels, but do not imitate the piety by which divine rest is acquired. For they prefer, through pride, to be able to do that which an angel does, more than, through devotion, to be that which an angel is. For no holy being rejoices in his own power, but in His from whom he has the power which he fitly can have; and he knows it to be more a mark of power to be united to the Omnipotent by a pious will, than to be able, by his own power and will, to do what they may tremble at who are not able to do such things. Therefore the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, in doing such things, in order that He might teach better things to those who marvelled at them, and might turn those who were intent and in doubt about unusual temporal things to eternal and inner things, says, Come unto me, all you that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you. And He does not say, Learn of me, because I raise those who have been dead four days; but He says, Learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart. For humility, which is most solid, is more powerful and safer than pride, that is most inflated. And so He goes on to say, And you shall find rest unto your souls, for Love is not puffed up; and God is Love; and such as be faithful in love shall rest in Him, called back from the din which is without to silent joys. Behold, God is Love: why do we go forth and run to the heights of the heavens and the lowest parts of the earth, seeking Him who is within us, if we wish to be with Him?

Let no one say, I don't know what I love. Let him love his brother, and he will love the same love. For he knows the love with which he loves better than the brother whom he loves. So now he can know God better than he knows his brother: clearly known better, because more present; known better, because more within him; known better, because more certain. Embrace the love of God, and by love embrace God. That is love itself, which binds together all good angels and all the servants of God by the bond of holiness, and joins together us and them mutually with ourselves, and joins us under Him. Therefore, to the extent that we are healed from the swelling of pride, to that extent we are more filled with love; and what is he full of who is full of love, except God? Well, but you will say, I see love, and as far as I am able, I look upon it with my mind, and I believe the Scripture saying that God is love, and he that dwells in love dwells in God; but when I see love, I do not see the Trinity in it. No, but you do see the Trinity if you see love. But if I can, I will remind you, so that you may see that you see it; only let love itself be present, that we may be moved by love to something good. Since when we love love, we love one who loves something, and that precisely because he does love something; therefore what does love love, that love itself also may be loved? For that is not love which loves nothing. But if it loves itself, it must love something, so that it may love itself as love. For as a word indicates something and also indicates itself, but does not indicate itself to be a word unless it indicates that it does indicate something; so love also loves itself, but unless it loves itself as loving something, it does not love itself as love. What therefore does love love, except that which we love with love? But this, to begin from what is nearest to us, is our brother. And listen how greatly the Apostle John commends brotherly love: He that loves his brother abides in the light, and there is no occasion of stumbling in him. It is clear that he placed the perfection of righteousness in the love of our brother; for he certainly is perfect in whom there is no occasion of stumbling. And yet he seems to have passed over the love of God in silence; which he never would have done, unless he intended God to be understood in brotherly love itself. For in this same epistle, a little further on, he says most plainly: Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God, and everyone that loves is born of God and knows God. He that loves not knows not God, for God is love. And this passage declares sufficiently and plainly that this same brotherly love itself (for that is brotherly love by which we love each other) is set forth by so great authority not only to be from God, but also to be God. When therefore we love our brother from love, we love our brother from God; nor can it be that we do not love above all else that same love by which we love our brother. From this it may be gathered that these two commandments cannot exist unless together. For since God is love, he who loves love certainly loves God; but he must love love who loves his brother. And so a little after he says, For he that loves not his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen? because the reason that he does not see God is that he does not love his brother. For he who does not love his brother does not abide in love; and he who does not abide in love does not abide in God, because God is love. Further, he who does not abide in God does not abide in light; for God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all. He therefore who does not abide in light, what wonder is it if he does not see light, that is, does not see God, because he is in darkness? But he sees his brother with human sight, with which God cannot be seen. But if he loved with spiritual love him whom he sees with human sight, he would see God, who is love itself, with the inner sight by which He can be seen. Therefore he who does not love his brother whom he sees, how can he love God, whom for that reason he does not see, because God is love, which he does not have who does not love his brother? Neither let that further question trouble us, how much of love we ought to spend upon our brother and how much upon God: incomparably more upon God than upon ourselves, but upon our brother as much as upon ourselves; and we love ourselves so much the more, the more we love God. Therefore we love God and our neighbor from one and the same love; but we love God for the sake of God, and ourselves and our neighbors for the sake of God.

12. Let no one say, I do not know what I love. Let him love his brother, and he will love the same love. For he knows the love with which he loves, more than the brother whom he loves. So now he can know God more than he knows his brother: clearly known more, because more present; known more, because more within him; known more, because more certain. Embrace the love of God, and by love embrace God. That is love itself, which associates together all good angels and all the servants of God by the bond of sanctity, and joins together us and them mutually with ourselves, and joins us subordinately to Himself. In proportion, therefore, as we are healed from the swelling of pride, in such proportion are we more filled with love; and with what is he full, who is full of love, except with God? Well, but you will say, I see love, and, as far as I am able, I gaze upon it with my mind, and I believe the Scripture, saying, that God is love; and he that dwells in love, dwells in God; but when I see love, I do not see in it the Trinity. Nay, but you see the Trinity if you see love. But if I can I will put you in mind, that you may see that you see it; only let itself be present, that we may be moved by love to something good. Since, when we love love, we love one who loves something, and that on account of this very thing, that he does love something; therefore what does love love, that love itself also may be loved? For that is not love which loves nothing. But if it loves itself it must love something, that it may love itself as love. For as a word indicates something, and indicates also itself, but does not indicate itself to be a word, unless it indicates that it does indicate something; so love also loves indeed itself, but except it love itself as loving something, it loves itself not as love. What therefore does love love, except that which we love with love? But this, to begin from that which is nearest to us, is our brother. And listen how greatly the Apostle John commends brotherly love: He that loves his brother abides in the light, and there is none occasion of stumbling in him. It is manifest that he placed the perfection of righteousness in the love of our brother; for he certainly is perfect in whom there is no occasion of stumbling. And yet he seems to have passed by the love of God in silence; which he never would have done, unless because he intends God to be understood in brotherly love itself. For in this same epistle, a little further on, he says most plainly thus: Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loves is born of God, and knows God. He that loves not, knows not God; for God is love. And this passage declares sufficiently and plainly, that this same brotherly love itself (for that is brotherly love by which we love each other) is set forth by so great authority, not only to be from God, but also to be God. When, therefore, we love our brother from love, we love our brother from God; neither can it be that we do not love above all else that same love by which we love our brother: whence it may be gathered that these two commandments cannot exist unless interchangeably. For since God is love, he who loves love certainly loves God; but he must needs love love, who loves his brother. And so a little after he says, For he that loves not his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen? because the reason that he does not see God is, that he does not love his brother. For he who does not love his brother, abides not in love; and he who abides not in love, abides not in God, because God is love. Further, he who abides not in God, abides not in light; for God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all. He therefore who abides not in light, what wonder is it if he does not see light, that is, does not see God, because he is in darkness? But he sees his brother with human sight, with which God cannot be seen. But if he loved with spiritual love him whom he sees with human sight, he would see God, who is love itself, with the inner sight by which He can be seen. Therefore he who does not love his brother whom he sees, how can he love God, whom on that account he does not see, because God is love, which he has not who does not love his brother? Neither let that further question disturb us, how much of love we ought to spend upon our brother, and how much upon God: incomparably more upon God than upon ourselves, but upon our brother as much as upon ourselves; and we love ourselves so much the more, the more we love God. Therefore we love God and our neighbor from one and the same love; but we love God for the sake of God, and ourselves and our neighbors for the sake of God.

Why is it that we are stirred with passion when we hear and read, "Look, now is the acceptable time; look, now is the day of salvation: giving no offense in anything, so that the ministry will not be blamed, but in all things proving ourselves as God's ministers, in much patience, in afflictions, in hardships, in distresses, in beatings, in imprisonments, in riots, in labors, in sleepless nights, in hunger; by purity, by knowledge, by patience, by kindness, by the Holy Spirit, by sincere love, by the word of truth, by God's power, by the armor of righteousness on the right hand and on the left, through honor and dishonor, through bad reports and good reports: as deceivers, and yet true; as unknown, and yet well known; as dying, and look, we live; as punished, and not killed; as sorrowful, yet always rejoicing; as poor, yet making many rich; as having nothing, and yet possessing all things"? Why are we set on fire with love for the Apostle Paul when we read these things, unless we believe that this is how he actually lived? But we do not believe that God's ministers ought to live this way because we have heard it from someone, but because we see it inwardly within ourselves, or rather above ourselves, in truth itself. Therefore, the person whom we believe lived this way, we love because of what we see. And unless we loved above all else that form which we perceive as always steadfast and unchangeable, we would not love him for this reason—because we hold firmly in our belief that his life, when he was living in the flesh, was fitted to and in harmony with this form. But somehow we are stirred up even more to love this form itself, through the belief by which we believe someone lived this way, and through the hope by which we no longer despair at all that we too are able to live this way—we who are human beings—from this very fact: that some people have lived this way. So we both desire this more eagerly and pray for it more confidently. Thus both our love of that form, according to which they are believed to have lived, causes the lives of these people themselves to be loved by us, and their life as we believe it stirs up a more burning love toward that same form. So the more ardently we love God, the more certainly and the more calmly we see Him, because we behold in God the unchangeable form of righteousness, according to which we judge that a person ought to live. Therefore faith serves toward the knowledge and love of God, not as though He were completely unknown or completely unloved, but so that through faith He may be known more clearly and loved more steadfastly.

13. For why is it, pray, that we burn when we hear and read, Behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation: giving no offense in anything, that the ministry be not blamed: but in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God, in much patience, in afflictions, in necessities, in distresses, in stripes, in imprisonments, in tumults, in labors, in watchings, in fastings; by pureness, by knowledge, by long-suffering, by kindness, by the Holy Ghost, by love unfeigned, by the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armor of righteousness on the right hand and on the left, by honor and dishonor, by evil report and good report: as deceivers, and yet true; as unknown, and yet well known; as dying, and, behold, we live; as chastened, and not killed; as sorrowful, yet always rejoicing; as poor, yet making many rich; as having nothing, and yet possessing all things? Why is it that we are inflamed with love of the Apostle Paul, when we read these things, unless that we believe him so to have lived? But we do not believe that the ministers of God ought so to live because we have heard it from any one, but because we behold it inwardly within ourselves, or rather above ourselves, in the truth itself. Him, therefore, whom we believe to have so lived, we love for that which we see. And except we loved above all else that form which we discern as always steadfast and unchangeable, we should not for that reason love him, because we hold fast in our belief that his life, when he was living in the flesh, was adapted to, and in harmony with, this form. But somehow we are stirred up the more to the love of this form itself, through the belief by which we believe some one to have so lived; and to the hope by which we no more at all despair, that we, too, are able so to live; we who are men, from this fact itself, that some men have so lived, so that we both desire this more ardently, and pray for it more confidently. So both the love of that form, according to which they are believed to have lived, makes the life of these men themselves to be loved by us; and their life thus believed stirs up a more burning love towards that same form; so that the more ardently we love God, the more certainly and the more calmly do we see Him, because we behold in God the unchangeable form of righteousness, according to which we judge that man ought to live. Therefore faith avails to the knowledge and to the love of God, not as though of one altogether unknown, or altogether not loved; but so that thereby He may be known more clearly, and loved more steadfastly.

Love or charity, which divine Scripture so greatly praises and proclaims, is simply the love of good. But love belongs to someone who loves, and through love something is loved. So here are three things: the one who loves, that which is loved, and love itself. What is love, then, except a kind of life that joins together or tries to join together two things—the one who loves and that which is loved? This is true even in external and physical loves. But to take in something more pure and clear, let us set aside the flesh and rise to the mind. What does the mind love in a friend if not the mind? So there too are three things: the one who loves, that which is loved, and love. What remains is to climb higher still from here and to seek the things above, as far as is permitted to human beings. But let our inquiry pause here for a moment—not because it thinks it has already found what it is looking for, but rather like when we must first find the place where something should be searched for: the thing itself has not yet been found, but we have already discovered where to look for it. So let what we have said be enough to give us, as it were, the hinge of a starting point from which to develop the rest of our discussion.

14. But what is love or charity, which divine Scripture so greatly praises and proclaims, except the love of good? But love is of some one that loves, and with love something is loved. Behold, then, there are three things: he that loves, and that which is loved, and love. What, then, is love, except a certain life which couples or seeks to couple together some two things, namely, him that loves, and that which is loved? And this is so even in outward and carnal loves. But that we may drink in something more pure and clear, let us tread down the flesh and ascend to the mind. What does the mind love in a friend except the mind? There, then, also are three things: he that loves, and that which is loved, and love. It remains to ascend also from hence, and to seek those things which are above, as far as is given to man. But here for a little while let our purpose rest, not that it may think itself to have found already what it seeks; but just as usually the place has first to be found where anything is to be sought, while the thing itself is not yet found, but we have only found already where to look for it; so let it suffice to have said thus much, that we may have, as it were, the hinge of some starting-point, whence to weave the rest of our discourse.

Let us now inquire more carefully, as far as God grants, into what we postponed a little earlier: whether each person in the Trinity can also be called God, or great, or wise, or true, or omnipotent, or just, or anything else that can be said of God absolutely (not relatively) by Himself and not with the other two; or whether these things can only be said when the Trinity is understood as a whole. The question arises because it is written, "Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God"—is the Father related to His own wisdom and His own power in such a way that He is wise with the wisdom He begot, and powerful with the power He begot? And since He is always powerful and wise, did He always beget power and wisdom? If so, then as we have said, why is He not also the Father of His own greatness by which He is great, and of His own goodness by which He is good, and of His own justice by which He is just, and whatever else there is? Or if all these things are understood to be in the same wisdom and power, even though they have more than one name, so that greatness is the same as power, goodness is the same as wisdom, and wisdom is the same as power, as we have already argued, then let us remember that when I mention any one of these, I should be taken as if I mentioned all. The question is this: is the Father also wise by Himself, and is He Himself His own wisdom? Or is He wise in the same way as He speaks? For He speaks by the Word which He begot—not by a word that is uttered, sounds, and passes away, but by the Word which was with God, and the Word was God, and all things were made by Him: by the Word which is equal to Himself, by whom He always and unchangeably utters Himself. For He is not Himself the Word, just as He is not the Son or the image. But in speaking (setting aside those words of God in time which are produced in the creature, for they sound and pass away), in speaking by that coeternal Word, He is not understood alone, but with that Word itself, without whom certainly He does not speak. Is He then wise in the same way as He is one who speaks, so that He relates to wisdom as He relates to the Word, so that to be the Word is to be wisdom, that is, also to be power, so that power and wisdom and the Word are the same thing and are called relatively as the Son and the image? And is the Father not powerful or wise by Himself alone, but together with the power and wisdom itself which He begot, just as He is not one who speaks by Himself alone, but by that Word and together with that Word which He begot, and likewise great by that and together with that greatness which He begot? And if He is not great by one thing and God by another, but great by that whereby He is God, because for Him to be great and to be God are not different things, it follows that He is not God by Himself alone either, but by that and together with that deitas which He begot, so that the Son is the deitas of the Father, as He is the wisdom and power of the Father, and as He is the Word and image of the Father. And because for Him to be and to be God are not different things, the Son is also the essence of the Father, as He is His Word and image. And therefore—except that He is the Father—the Father is not anything unless because He has the Son, so that not only what is meant by Father (which He is manifestly called not relatively to Himself but to the Son, and therefore is the Father because He has the Son), but also what He is in respect to His own substance is so called, because He begot His own essence. For just as He is great only with that greatness which He begot, so also He is, only with that essence which He begot, because for Him to be and to be great are not different things. Is He therefore the Father of His own essence, in the same way as He is the Father of His own greatness, as He is the Father of His own power and wisdom? Since His greatness is the same as His power, and His essence the same as His greatness.

1. Let us now inquire more carefully, so far as God grants, into that which a little before we deferred; whether each person also in the Trinity can also by Himself and not with the other two be called God, or great, or wise, or true, or omnipotent, or just, or anything else that can be said of God, not relatively, but absolutely; or whether these things cannot be said except when the Trinity is understood. For the question is raised — because it is written, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God, — whether He is so the Father of His own wisdom and His own power, as that He is wise with that wisdom which He begot, and powerful with that power which He begot; and whether, since He is always powerful and wise, He always begot power and wisdom. For if it be so, then, as we have said, why is He not also the Father of His own greatness by which He is great, and of His own goodness by which He is good, and of His own justice by which He is just, and whatever else there is? Or if all these things are understood, although under more names than one, to be in the same wisdom and power, so that that is greatness which is power, that is goodness which is wisdom, and that again is wisdom which is power, as we have already argued; then let us remember, that when I mention any one of these, I am to be taken as if I mentioned all. It is asked, then, whether the Father also by Himself is wise, and is Himself His own wisdom itself; or whether He is wise in the same way as He speaks. For He speaks by the Word which He begot, not by the word which is uttered, and sounds, and passes away, but by the Word which was with God, and the Word was God, and all things were made by Him: by the Word which is equal to Himself, by whom He always and unchangeably utters Himself. For He is not Himself the Word, as He is not the Son nor the image. But in speaking (putting aside those words of God in time which are produced in the creature, for they sound and pass away — in speaking then) by that co-eternal Word, He is not understood singly, but with that Word itself, without whom certainly He does not speak. Is He then in such way wise as He is one who speaks, so as to be in such way wisdom, as He is the Word, and so that to be the Word is to be wisdom, that is, also to be power, so that power and wisdom and the Word may be the same, and be so called relatively as the Son and the image: and that the Father is not singly powerful or wise, but together with the power and wisdom itself which He begot ( genuit); just as He is not singly one who speaks, but by that Word and together with that Word which He begot; and in like way great by that and together with that greatness, which He begot? And if He is not great by one thing, and God by another, but great by that whereby He is God, because it is not one thing to Him to be great and another to be God; it follows that neither is He God singly, but by that and together with that deity ( deitas) which He begot; so that the Son is the deity of the Father, as He is the wisdom and power of the Father, and as He is the Word and image of the Father. And because it is not one thing to Him to be, another to be God, the Son is also the essence of the Father, as He is His Word and image. And hence also — except that He is the Father [the Unbegotten]– the Father is not anything unless because He has the Son; so that not only that which is meant by Father (which it is manifest He is not called relatively to Himself but to the Son, and therefore is the Father because He has the Son), but that which He is in respect to His own substance is so called, because He begot His own essence. For as He is great, only with that greatness which He begot, so also He is, only with that essence which He begot; because it is not one thing to Him to be, and another to be great. Is He therefore the Father of His own essence, in the same way as He is the Father of His own greatness, as He is the Father of His own power and wisdom? Since His greatness is the same as His power, and His essence the same as His greatness.

This discussion arose from what is written, that Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God. Our argument is therefore forced into these tight constraints, while we struggle to express what cannot be expressed: either we must say that Christ is not the power of God and the wisdom of God, and thus shamelessly and impiously contradict the apostle; or we must acknowledge that Christ is indeed the power of God and the wisdom of God, but that His Father is not the Father of His own power and wisdom, which is equally impious—for then He would not be the Father of Christ, since Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God; or that the Father is not powerful by His own power, or wise by His own wisdom, and who would dare say this? Or again, that we must understand that in the Father it is one thing to exist and another thing to be wise, so that He does not exist by that by which He is wise—something usually understood of the soul, which is sometimes unwise and other times wise, being by nature changeable and not absolutely and perfectly simple. Or again, that the Father is not anything in respect to His own substance, and that not only His being the Father but His very being is said relatively to the Son. How then can the Son be of the same essence as the Father, if the Father in respect to Himself is neither His own essence nor exists at all in respect to Himself, but even His essence exists in relation to the Son? But on the contrary, He is much more of one and the same essence, since the Father and Son are one and the same essence, seeing that the Father has His very being not in respect to Himself but to the Son—which essence He begot and by which essence He is whatever He is. Therefore neither person exists in respect to Himself alone, and both exist relatively to one another. Or is the Father alone not called Father of Himself, but whatever He is called is called relatively to the Son, while the Son is spoken of in reference to Himself? And if so, what is said of Him in reference to Himself? Is it His essence itself? But the Son is the essence of the Father, just as He is the power and wisdom of the Father, as He is the Word of the Father and the image of the Father. Or if the Son is called essence in reference to Himself, but the Father is not essence but the begetter of the essence, and does not exist in respect to Himself but exists by that very essence which He begot—just as He is great by that greatness which He begot—therefore the Son is also called greatness in respect to Himself; therefore He is also called, in the same way, power and wisdom and word and image. But what could be more absurd than that He should be called image in respect to Himself? Or if image and word are not the same as power and wisdom, but the former are spoken relatively and the latter in respect to self and not to another, then we arrive at this: that the Father is not wise by that wisdom which He begot, because He Himself cannot be spoken relatively to it, and it cannot be spoken relatively to Him. For all things that are said relatively are said reciprocally; therefore it follows that even in essence the Son is spoken of relatively to the Father. But from this emerges a most unexpected meaning: that essence itself is not essence, or at least that when it is called essence, not essence but something relative is indicated. Just as when we speak of a master, essence is not indicated but a relation that refers to a slave; but when we speak of a man or anything else said in respect to self and not to something else, then essence is indicated. Therefore when a man is called a master, the man himself is essence, but he is called master relatively; for he is called man in respect to himself but master in respect to his slave. But regarding the point from which we started, if essence itself is spoken relatively, essence itself is not essence. Add further that every essence that is spoken of relatively is also something even when the relation is removed; for example, in the case of a man who is a master and a man who is a slave and a horse that is a beast of burden and money that is a pledge, the man and the horse and the money are spoken in respect to themselves and are substances or essences; but master and slave and beast of burden and pledge are spoken relatively to something. But if there were not a man, that is, some substance, there would be no one who could be called relatively a master; and if there were no horse having a certain essence, there would be nothing that could be called relatively a beast of burden; so if money were not some kind of substance, it could not be called relatively a pledge. Therefore, if the Father also is not something in respect to Himself, then there is no one at all who can be spoken of relatively to something. For it is not like it is with color. The color of a thing is referred to the thing colored, and color is never spoken at all in reference to substance but is always of something that is colored; but that thing of which it is the color, even if it is referred to color in respect to being colored, is nevertheless, in respect to being a body, spoken of in respect to substance. But we must in no way think similarly that the Father cannot be called anything in respect to His own substance, but that whatever He is called, He is called in relation to the Son, while the same Son is spoken of both in respect to His own substance and in relation to the Father, when He is called great greatness and powerful power, plainly in respect to Himself, and the greatness and power of the great and powerful Father by which the Father is great and powerful. It is not so; but both are substance, and both are one substance. And just as it is absurd to say that whiteness is not white, so it is absurd to say that wisdom is not wise; and just as whiteness is called white in respect to itself, so also wisdom is called wise in respect to itself. But the whiteness of a body is not an essence, since the body itself is the essence and whiteness is a quality of it; and hence also a body is said from that quality to be white, for which body to be is not the same thing as to be white. For the form in it is one thing and the color another, and both are not in themselves but in a certain bulk, which bulk is neither form nor color but is formed and colored. True wisdom is both wise and wise in itself. And since in the case of every soul that becomes wise by partaking of wisdom, if it again becomes foolish, wisdom in itself still remains; nor when that soul was changed into foolishness was wisdom likewise changed; therefore wisdom is not in the one who becomes wise by it in the same way that whiteness is in the body that is made white by it. For when the body has been changed into another color, that whiteness will not remain but will cease to exist entirely. But if the Father who begot wisdom is also made wise by it, and to be is not to Him the same as to be wise, then the Son is His quality, not His offspring, and there will no longer be absolute simplicity in the Godhead. But far be it from being so, since in truth in the Godhead there is absolutely simple essence, and therefore to be is there the same as to be wise. But if to be is there the same as to be wise, then the Father is not wise by that wisdom which He begot; otherwise He did not beget it but it begot Him. For what else do we say when we say that to Him to be is the same as to be wise, except that He exists by that whereby He is wise? Therefore, that which is the cause to Him of being wise is itself also the cause to Him that He exists; and accordingly, if the wisdom which He begot is the cause to Him of being wise, it is also the cause to Him that He exists; and this cannot be the case except either by begetting or by creating Him. But no one ever said in any sense that wisdom is either the begetter or the creator of the Father, for what could be more senseless? Therefore both the Father Himself is wisdom, and the Son is called the wisdom of the Father in such a way as He is called the light of the Father; that is, in the same manner as light from light and yet both one light, so we are to understand wisdom of wisdom and yet both one wisdom, and therefore also one essence, since in God to be is the same as to be wise. For what to be wise is to wisdom, and to be able is to power, and to be eternal is to eternity, and to be just is to justice, and to be great is to greatness, that being itself is to essence. And since in the divine simplicity to be wise is nothing other than to be, therefore wisdom there is the same as essence.

2. This discussion has arisen from that which is written, that Christ is the power of God, and the wisdom of God. Wherefore our discourse is compressed into these narrow limits, while we desire to speak things unspeakable; that either we must say that Christ is not the power of God and the wisdom of God, and so shamelessly and impiously resist the apostle; or we must acknowledge that Christ is indeed the power of God and the wisdom of God, but that His Father is not the Father of His own power and wisdom, which is not less impious; for so neither will He be the Father of Christ, because Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God; or that the Father is not powerful with His own power, or wise with His own wisdom: and who shall dare to say this? Or yet, again, that we must understand, that in the Father it is one thing to be, another thing to be wise, so that He is not by that by which He is wise: a thing usually understood of the soul, which is at some times unwise, at others wise; as being by nature changeable, and not absolutely and perfectly simple. Or, again, that the Father is not anything in respect to His own substance; and that not only that He is the Father, but that He is, is said relatively to the Son. How then can the Son be of the same essence as the Father, seeing that the Father, in respect to Himself, is neither His own essence, nor is at all in respect to Himself, but even His essence is in relation to the Son? But, on the contrary, much more is He of one and the same essence, since the Father and Son are one and the same essence; seeing that the Father has His being itself not in respect to Himself, but to the Son, which essence He begot, and by which essence He is whatever He is. Therefore neither [person] is in respect to Himself alone; and both exist relatively the one to the other. Or is the Father alone not called Father of himself, but whatever He is called, is called relatively to the Son, but the Son is predicated of in reference to Himself? And if it be so, what is predicated of Him in reference to Himself? Is it His essence itself? But the Son is the essence of the Father, as He is the power and wisdom of the Father, as He is the Word of the Father, and the image of the Father. Or if the Son is called essence in reference to Himself, but the Father is not essence, but the begetter of the essence, and is not in respect to Himself, but is by that very essence which He begot; as He is great by that greatness which He begot: therefore the Son is also called greatness in respect to Himself; therefore He is also called, in like manner, power, and wisdom, and word, and image. But what can be more absurd than that He should be called image in respect to Himself? Or if image and word are not the very same with power and wisdom, but the former are spoken relatively, and the latter in respect to self, not to another; then we get to this, that the Father is not wise with that wisdom which He begot, because He Himself cannot be spoken relatively to it, and it cannot be spoken relatively to Him. For all things which are said relatively are said reciprocally; therefore it remains that even in essence the Son is spoken of relatively to the Father. But from this is educed a most unexpected sense: that essence itself is not essence, or at least that, when it is called essence, not essence but something relative is intimated. As when we speak of a master, essence is not intimated, but a relative which has reference to a slave; but when we speak of a man, or any such thing which is said in respect to self not to something else, then essence is intimated. Therefore when a man is called a master, man himself is essence, but he is called master relatively; for he is called man in respect to himself, but master in respect to his slave. But in regard to the point from which we started, if essence itself is spoken relatively, essence itself is not essence. Add further, that all essence which is spoken of relatively, is also something, although the relation be taken away; as e.g. in the case of a man who is a master, and a man who is a slave, and a horse that is a beast of burden, and money that is a pledge, the man, and the horse, and the money are spoken in respect to themselves, and are substances or essences; but master, and slave, and beast of burden, and pledge, are spoken relatively to something. But if there were not a man, that is, some substance, there would be none who could be called relatively a master; and if there were no horse having a certain essence, there would be nothing that could be called relatively a beast of burden; so if money were not some kind of substance, it could not be called relatively a pledge. Wherefore, if the Father also is not something in respect to Himself then there is no one at all that can be spoken of relatively to something. For it is not as it is with color. The color of a thing is referred to the thing colored, and color is not spoken at all in reference to substance, but is always of something that is colored; but that thing of which it is the color, even if it is referred to color in respect to its being colored, is yet, in respect to its being a body, spoken of in respect to substance. But in no way may we think, in like manner, that the Father cannot be called anything in respect to His own substance, but that whatever He is called, He is called in relation to the Son; while the same Son is spoken of both in respect to His own substance and in relation to the Father, when He is called great greatness, and powerful power, plainly in respect to Himself, and the greatness and power of the great and powerful Father, by which the Father is great and powerful. It is not so; but both are substance, and both are one substance. And as it is absurd to say that whiteness is not white, so is it absurd to say that wisdom is not wise; and as whiteness is called white in respect to itself, so also wisdom is called wise in respect to itself. But the whiteness of a body is not an essence, since the body itself is the essence, and that is a quality of it; and hence also a body is said from that quality to be white, to which body to be is not the same thing as to be white. For the form in it is one thing, and the color another; and both are not in themselves, but in a certain bulk, which bulk is neither form nor color, but is formed and colored. True wisdom is both wise, and wise in itself. And since in the case of every soul that becomes wise by partaking of wisdom, if it again becomes foolish, yet wisdom in itself remains; nor when that soul was changed into folly is the wisdom likewise so changed; therefore wisdom is not in him who becomes wise by it, in the same manner as whiteness is in the body which is by it made white. For when the body has been changed into another color, that whiteness will not remain, but will altogether cease to be. But if the Father who begot wisdom is also made wise by it, and to be is not to Him the same as to be wise, then the Son is His quality, not His offspring; and there will no longer be absolute simplicity in the Godhead. But far be it from being so, since in truth in the Godhead is absolutely simple essence, and therefore to be is there the same as to be wise. But if to be is there the same as to be wise, then the Father is not wise by that wisdom which He begot; otherwise He did not beget it, but it begot Him. For what else do we say when we say, that to Him to be is the same as to be wise, unless that He is by that whereby He is wise? Wherefore, that which is the cause to Him of being wise, is itself also the cause to Him that He is; and accordingly, if the wisdom which He begot is the cause to Him of being wise, it is also the cause to Him that He is; and this cannot be the case, except either by begetting or by creating Him. But no one ever said in any sense that wisdom is either the begetter or the creator of the Father; for what could be more senseless? Therefore both the Father Himself is wisdom, and the Son is in such way called the wisdom of the Father, as He is called the light of the Father; that is, that in the same manner as light from light, and yet both one light, so we are to understand wisdom of wisdom, and yet both one wisdom; and therefore also one essence, since, in God, to be, is the same as to be wise. For what to be wise is to wisdom, and to be able is to power, and to be eternal is to eternity, and to be just to justice, and to be great to greatness, that being itself is to essence. And since in the Divine simplicity, to be wise is nothing else than to be, therefore wisdom there is the same as essence.

Therefore the Father and the Son together are one essence, one greatness, one truth, and one wisdom. But the Father and Son together are not one Word, because together they are not one Son. For just as the Son is referred to the Father and is not called Son in respect to Himself, so also the Word is referred to the one whose Word it is when it is called the Word. Since He is the Son in that He is the Word, and He is the Word in that He is the Son. Therefore, since the Father and the Son together are certainly not one Son, it follows that the Father and the Son together are not the one Word of both. And so He is not the Word in that He is wisdom, since He is not called the Word in respect to Himself, but only in relation to the one whose Word He is, just as He is called the Son in relation to the Father. But He is wisdom by that whereby He is essence. And therefore, because one essence, one wisdom. But since the Word is also wisdom, yet is not therefore the Word because He is wisdom—for He is understood to be the Word relatively, but wisdom essentially—let us understand that when He is called the Word, it means wisdom that is born, so as to be both the Son and the Image. When these two words are used, namely "wisdom is born," in one of the two, namely "born," both Word and Image and Son are understood, and in all these names essence is not expressed, since they are spoken relatively. But in the other word, namely wisdom, since it is spoken also in respect to substance—for wisdom is wise in itself—essence also is expressed, and that being of His which is to be wise. Therefore the Father and Son together are one wisdom, because one essence, and individually wisdom of wisdom, as essence of essence. And they are not therefore not one essence because the Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father, or because the Father is unbegotten but the Son is begotten, since by these names only their relative attributes are expressed. But both together are one wisdom and one essence, in which to be is the same as to be wise. And both together are not the Word or the Son, since to be is not the same as to be the Word or the Son, as we have already sufficiently shown that these terms are spoken relatively.

3. Therefore the Father and the Son together are one essence, and one greatness, and one truth, and one wisdom. But the Father and Son both together are not one Word, because both together are not one Son. For as the Son is referred to the Father, and is not so called in respect to Himself, so also the Word is referred to him whose Word it is, when it is called the Word. Since He is the Son in that He is the Word, and He is the Word in that He is the Son. Inasmuch, therefore, as the Father and the Son together are certainly not one Son, it follows that the Father and the Son together are not the one Word of both. And therefore He is not the Word in that He is wisdom; since He is not called the Word in respect to Himself, but only relatively to Him whose Word He is, as He is called the Son in relation to the Father; but He is wisdom by that whereby He is essence. And therefore, because one essence, one wisdom. But since the Word is also wisdom, yet is not thereby the Word because He is wisdom for He is understood to be the Word relatively, but wisdom essentially: let us understand, that when He is called the Word, it is meant, wisdom that is born, so as to be both the Son and the Image; and that when these two words are used, namely wisdom ( is) born, in one of the two, namely born, both Word, and Image, and Son, are understood, and in all these names essence is not expressed, since they are spoken relatively; but in the other word, namely wisdom, since it is spoken also in respect to substance, for wisdom is wise in itself, essence also is expressed, and that being of His which is to be wise. Whence the Father and Son together are one wisdom, because one essence, and singly wisdom of wisdom, as essence of essence. And hence they are not therefore not one essence, because the Father is not the Son, and the Son is not the Father, or because the Father is un-begotten, but the Son is begotten: since by these names only their relative attributes are expressed. But both together are one wisdom and one essence; in which to be, is the same as to be wise. And both together are not the Word or the Son, since to be is not the same as to be the Word or the Son, as we have already sufficiently shown that these terms are spoken relatively.

Why, then, do the Scriptures almost never mention wisdom except to show that it is begotten or created by God? It is begotten in the case of that Wisdom by which all things are made, but it is created or made in human beings when they are converted to that Wisdom which is not created and made but begotten, and are thereby enlightened. In these people there comes to be something that can be called their wisdom, just as the Scriptures predict or describe that the Word was made flesh and lived among us. In this way Christ was made wisdom, because he was made human. Is this why wisdom does not speak in these books, and nothing is said about it except to declare that it is born of God or made by him (even though the Father himself is wisdom)? It is because wisdom should be commended and imitated by us, and through imitating it we are rightly fashioned. The Father speaks it so that it may be his Word, yet not as a word producing sound proceeds from the mouth or is thought before being spoken. Such a word is completed in certain periods of time, but that Word is eternal and speaks to us by enlightening us about what should be spoken to human beings, both concerning itself and concerning the Father. Therefore he says, "No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him," since the Father reveals through the Son, that is, through his Word. For if the word we speak, which is temporal and passing, declares both itself and what we are speaking about, how much more does the Word of God, by which all things are made? This Word declares the Father as he is the Father because the Word both is and is what the Father is, insofar as it is wisdom and ousia. For insofar as it is the Word, it is not what the Father is, because the Word is not the Father, and Word is spoken relatively, as is also Son, which certainly is not the Father. Therefore Christ is the power and wisdom of God, because he himself, being also power and wisdom, is from the Father, who is power and wisdom, just as he is light from the Father who is light, and the fountain of life with God the Father, who is himself certainly the fountain of life. For it says, "With you is the fountain of life, and in your light we shall see light." Because as the Father has life in himself, so he has given to the Son to have life in himself. And "He was the true Light, which enlightens every person coming into the world," and this light, the Word, was with God, but the Word also was God. And God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. But this is a light that is not bodily but spiritual, yet not spiritual in such a way that it was produced by illumination, as it was said to the apostles, "You are the light of the world," but the light that enlightens every person, that very supreme wisdom itself who is God, of whom we are now speaking. The Son therefore is Wisdom from wisdom, namely the Father, just as he is Light from light and God from God, so that both the Father alone is light and the Son alone is light, and the Father alone is God and the Son alone is God. Therefore the Father also alone is wisdom, and the Son alone is wisdom. And as both together are one light and one God, so both are one wisdom. But the Son is made by God unto us wisdom and righteousness and sanctification, because we turn ourselves to him in time, that is, from some particular time, so that we may remain with him forever. And he himself from a certain time was the Word made flesh and lived among us.

4. Why, then, is scarcely anything ever said in the Scriptures of wisdom, unless to show that it is begotten or created of God? — begotten in the case of that Wisdom by which all things are made; but created or made, as in men, when they are converted to that Wisdom which is not created and made but begotten, and are so enlightened; for in these men themselves there comes to be something which may be called their wisdom: even as the Scriptures foretell or narrate, that the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us; for in this way Christ was made wisdom, because He was made man. Is it on this account that wisdom does not speak in these books, nor is anything spoken of it, except to declare that it is born of God, or made by Him (although the Father is Himself wisdom), namely, because wisdom ought to be commended and imitated by us, by the imitation of which we are fashioned [rightly]? For the Father speaks it, that it may be His Word: yet not as a word producing a sound proceeds from the mouth, or is thought before it is pronounced. For this word is completed in certain spaces of time, but that is eternal, and speaks to us by enlightening us, what ought to be spoken to men, both of itself and of the Father. And therefore He says, No man knows the Son, but the Father; neither knows any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him: since the Father reveals by the Son, that is, by His Word. For if that word which we utter, and which is temporal and transitory, declares both itself, and that of which we speak, how much more the Word of God, by which all things are made? For this Word so declares the Father as He is the Father; because both itself so is, and is that which is the Father, in so far as it is wisdom and essence. For in so far as it is the Word, it is not what the Father is; because the Word is not the Father, and Word is spoken relatively, as is also Son, which assuredly is not the Father. And therefore Christ is the power and wisdom of God, because He Himself, being also power and wisdom, is from the Father, who is power and wisdom; as He is light of the Father, who is light, and the fountain of life with God the Father, who is Himself assuredly the fountain of life. For with You, He says, is the fountain of life, and in Your light shall we see light. Because, as the Father has life in Himself, so has He given to the Son to have life in Himself: and, He was the true Light, which lights every man that comes into the world: and this light, the Word, was with God; but the Word also was God; and God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all: but a light that is not corporeal, but spiritual; yet not in such way spiritual, that it was wrought by illumination, as it was said to the apostles, You are the light of the world, but the light which lights every man, that very supreme wisdom itself who is God, of whom we now treat. The Son therefore is Wisdom of wisdom, namely the Father, as He is Light of light, and God of God; so that both the Father singly is light, and the Son singly is light; and the Father singly is God, and the Son singly is God: therefore the Father also singly is wisdom, and the Son singly is wisdom. And as both together are one light and one God, so both are one wisdom. But the Son is by God made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification; because we turn ourselves to Him in time, that is, from some particular time, that we may remain with Him forever. And He Himself from a certain time was the Word made flesh, and dwelt among us.

When Scripture speaks about wisdom or presents wisdom itself speaking, it primarily points us to the Son. Following his example—he who is the Image—let us also not turn away from God, since we too are the Image of God. We are not, however, an image equal to him, because we were made as such by the Father through the Son, not born from the Father as he was. We are an image because we are enlightened with light, while he is the light that enlightens. Therefore, having no pattern himself, he becomes a pattern for us. He does not imitate anyone who came before him in his relationship to the Father, from whom he is never separated at all, since he is the very same substance (ousia) as the one from whom he comes. But we, by striving, imitate him who remains unchanging, and we follow him who stands still. Walking in him, we reach toward him, because through his humiliation he was made for us a way in time, and through his divinity he is for us an eternal dwelling place. To pure spiritual beings who have not fallen through pride, he gives an example in the form of God, as equal with God and as God. But in order to also give himself as an example of return to fallen humanity—who because of the impurity of sins and the punishment of mortality cannot see God—he emptied himself. He did this not by changing his own divinity, but by taking on our changeableness. Taking the form of a servant, he came to us into this world, though he was already in this world because the world was made by him. He became an example upward to those who see God, an example downward to those who admire humanity, an example to the healthy to persevere, an example to the sick to be healed, an example to those about to die that they need not fear, an example to the dead that they may rise again—so that in all things he might have first place. Since humanity should follow only God to reach blessedness, yet cannot perceive God, by following God made human, a person can follow at once someone he can perceive and someone he ought to follow. Let us therefore love him and cling to him, through the love poured out in our hearts by the Holy Spirit who is given to us. We should not be surprised, then, that when Scripture speaks of wisdom, it speaks of the Son—because of the example the Image, who is equal to the Father, gives us so we may be refashioned after the image of God. We follow him by living wisely. Yet the Father is also wisdom, just as he is also light and God.

5. On this account, then, when anything concerning wisdom is declared or narrated in the Scriptures, whether as itself speaking, or where anything is spoken of it, the Son chiefly is intimated to us. And by the example of Him who is the image, let us also not depart from God, since we also are the Image of God: not indeed that which is equal to Him, since we are made so by the Father through the Son, and not born of the Father, as that is. And we are so, because we are enlightened with light; but that is so, because it is the light that enlightens; and which, therefore, being without pattern, is to us a pattern. For He does not imitate any one going before Him, in respect to the Father, from whom He is never separable at all, since He is the very same substance with Him from whom He is. But we by striving imitate Him who abides, and follow Him who stands still, and walking in Him, reach out towards Him; because He is made for us a way in time by His humiliation, which is to us an eternal abiding-place by His divinity. For since to pure intellectual spirits, who have not fallen through pride, He gives an example in the form of God and as equal with God and as God; so, in order that He might also give Himself as an example of returning to fallen man who on account of the uncleanness of sins and the punishment of mortality cannot see God, He emptied Himself; not by changing His own divinity, but by assuming our changeableness: and taking upon Him the form of a servant He came to us into this world, who was in this world, because the world was made by Him; that He might be an example upwards to those who see God, an example downwards to those who admire man, an example to the sound to persevere, an example to the sick to be made whole, an example to those who are to die that they may not fear, an example to the dead that they may rise again, that in all things He might have the pre-eminence. So that, because man ought not to follow any except God to blessedness, and yet cannot perceive God; by following God made man, he might follow at once Him whom he could perceive, and whom he ought to follow. Let us then love Him and cleave to Him, by charity spread abroad in our hearts, through the Holy Spirit which is given unto us. It is not therefore to be wondered at, if, on account of the example which the Image, which is equal to the Father, gives to us, in order that we may be refashioned after the image of God, Scripture, when it speaks of wisdom, speaks of the Son, whom we follow by living wisely; although the Father also is wisdom, as He is both light and God.

The Holy Spirit—whether we should understand Him as that absolute love which unites Father and Son and also joins us from below (so that what is written, "God is love," is not unfittingly said)—how is He not also Himself wisdom, since He is light, because God is light? Or even if the essence of the Holy Spirit should be uniquely and properly named in some other way, still, since He is God, He is certainly light; and since He is light, He is certainly wisdom. That the Holy Spirit is God, Scripture proclaims through the apostle, who says, "Do you not know that you are the temple of God?" and immediately adds, "And the Spirit of God dwells in you," for God dwells in His own temple. The Spirit of God does not dwell in the temple of God as a servant, since he says more plainly in another place, "Do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit which is in you, and which you have of God, and you are not your own? For you are bought with a great price: therefore glorify God in your body." But what is wisdom, except spiritual and unchangeable light? For that sun is also light, but it is bodily; and the spiritual creature is also light, but it is not unchangeable. Therefore the Father is light, the Son is light, and the Holy Spirit is light; but together not three lights, but one light. And so the Father is wisdom, the Son is wisdom, and the Holy Spirit is wisdom, and together not three wisdoms, but one wisdom. And because in the Trinity to be is the same as to be wise, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one essence. Neither in the Trinity is it one thing to be and another to be God; therefore the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one God.

6. The Holy Spirit also, whether we are to call Him that absolute love which joins together Father and Son, and joins us also from beneath, that so that is not unfitly said which is written, God is love; how is He not also Himself wisdom, since He is light, because God is light? Or whether after any other way the essence of the Holy Spirit is to be singly and properly named; then, too, since He is God, He is certainly light; and since He is light, He is certainly wisdom. But that the Holy Spirit is God, Scripture proclaims by the apostle, who says, Do you not know that you are the temple of God? and immediately subjoins, And the Spirit of God dwells in you; for God dwells in His own temple. For the Spirit of God does not dwell in the temple of God as a servant, since he says more plainly in another place, Do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, and which you have of God, and you are not your own? For you are bought with a great price: therefore glorify God in your body. But what is wisdom, except spiritual and unchangeable light? For yonder sun also is light, but it is corporeal; and the spiritual creature also is light, but it is not unchangeable. Therefore the Father is light, the Son is light, and the Holy Spirit is light; but together not three lights, but one light. And so the Father is wisdom, the Son is wisdom, and the Holy Spirit is wisdom, and together not three wisdoms, but one wisdom: and because in the Trinity to be is the same as to be wise, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are one essence. Neither in the Trinity is it one thing to be and another to be God; therefore the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are one God.

For the sake of speaking of things that cannot be fully expressed, so that we may somehow put into words what we can never fully articulate, our Greek friends have spoken of one ousia, three hypostases; but the Latins speak of one essence or substance, three persons. This is because, as we have already said, essence usually means nothing other than substance in our language, that is, in Latin. As long as what is said is understood only as a mystery, this way of speaking was sufficient, in order that there might be something to say when asked what the three are, which true faith declares to be three, when it both declares that the Father is not the Son, and that the Holy Spirit, which is the gift of God, is neither the Father nor the Son. When asked what the three are, or who the three are, we search for some special or general term under which we may include these three; but no such term comes to mind, because the supreme excellence of the Godhead surpasses the power of ordinary speech. For God is more truly thought than He is spoken of, and exists more truly than He is thought. When we say that Jacob was not the same as Abraham, but that Isaac was neither Abraham nor Jacob, certainly we acknowledge that they are three: Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. But when asked what three, we answer three men, calling them in the plural by a specific name; or if we were to say three animals, then by a generic name. For man, as the ancients have defined him, is a rational, mortal animal; or again, as our Scriptures usually speak, three souls, since it is appropriate to name the whole from the better part, that is, to name both body and soul, which is the whole man, from the soul. This is why it is said that seventy-five souls went down into Egypt with Jacob, instead of saying so many men. Again, when we say that your horse is not mine, and that a third belonging to someone else is neither mine nor yours, then we acknowledge that there are three; and if anyone asks what three, we answer three horses by a specific name, but three animals by a generic one. And yet again, when we say that an ox is not a horse, but that a dog is neither an ox nor a horse, we speak of three; and if anyone asks us what three, we do not speak now by a specific name of three horses, or three oxen, or three dogs, because the three are not contained under the same species, but by a generic name, three animals; or if under a higher genus, three substances, or three creatures, or three natures. But whatever things are expressed in the plural number specifically by one name can also be expressed generically by one name. But all things which are generically called by one name cannot also be called specifically by one name. For three horses, which is a specific name, we also call three animals; but a horse, an ox, and a dog, we call only three animals or substances, which are generic names, or anything else that can be spoken generically concerning them; but we cannot speak of them as three horses, or oxen, or dogs, which are specific names. For we express those things by one name, although in the plural number, which have in common that which is signified by the name. For Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob have in common that which is man; therefore they are called three men. A horse, an ox, and a dog also have in common that which is animal; therefore they are called three animals. So three separate laurels we also call three trees; but a laurel, a myrtle, and an olive, we call only three trees, or three substances, or three natures. And so three stones we call also three bodies; but stone, wood, and iron, we call only three bodies, or by any other higher generic name by which they can be called. Of the Father, therefore, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, seeing that they are three, let us ask what three they are, and what they have in common. For being the Father is not common to them, so that they should be interchangeably fathers to one another, as friends, since they are so called relatively to each other, can be called three friends because they are so mutually to each other. But this is not the case in the Trinity, since the Father only is there father, and not Father of two, but of the Son only. Neither are they three Sons, since the Father there is not the Son, nor is the Holy Spirit. Neither three Holy Spirits, because the Holy Spirit also, in that proper meaning by which He is also called the gift of God, is neither the Father nor the Son. What three therefore? For if three persons, then that which is meant by person is common to them; therefore this name is either specific or generic to them, according to the manner of speaking. But where there is no difference of nature, things that are several in number are expressed generically in such a way that they can also be expressed specifically. For the difference of nature causes a laurel, a myrtle, and an olive, or a horse, an ox, and a dog, not to be called by the specific name, the former of three laurels, or the latter of three oxen, but by the generic name, the former of three trees, and the latter of three animals. But here, where there is no difference of essence, it is necessary that these three should have a specific name, which yet is not to be found. For person is a generic name, insomuch that man also can be so called, although there is so great a difference between man and God.

7. For the sake, then, of speaking of things that cannot be uttered, that we may be able in some way to utter what we are able in no way to utter fully, our Greek friends have spoken of one essence, three substances; but the Latins of one essence or substance, three persons; because, as we have already said, essence usually means nothing else than substance in our language, that is, in Latin. And provided that what is said is understood only in a mystery, such a way of speaking was sufficient, in order that there might be something to say when it was asked what the three are, which the true faith pronounces to be three, when it both declares that the Father is not the Son, and that the Holy Spirit, which is the gift of God, is neither the Father nor the Son. When, then, it is asked what the three are, or who the three are, we betake ourselves to the finding out of some special or general name under which we may embrace these three; and no such name occurs to the mind, because the super-eminence of the Godhead surpasses the power of customary speech. For God is more truly thought than He is altered, and exists more truly than He is thought. For when we say that Jacob was not the same as Abraham, but that Isaac was neither Abraham nor Jacob, certainly we confess that they are three, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. But when it is asked what three, we reply three men, calling them in the plural by a specific name; but if we were to say three animals, then by a generic name; for man, as the ancients have defined him, is a rational, mortal animal: or again, as our Scriptures usually speak, three souls, since it is fitting to denominate the whole from the better part, that is, to denominate both body and soul, which is the whole man, from the soul; for so it is said that seventy-five souls went down into Egypt with Jacob, instead of saying so many men. Again, when we say that your horse is not mine, and that a third belonging to some one else is neither mine nor yours, then we confess that there are three; and if any one ask what three, we answer three horses by a specific name, but three animals by a generic one. And yet again, when we say that an ox is not a horse, but that a dog is neither an ox nor a horse, we speak of a three; and if any one questions us what three, we do not speak now by a specific name of three horses, or three oxen, or three dogs, because the three are not contained under the same species, but by a generic name, three animals; or if under a higher genus, three substances, or three creatures, or three natures. But whatsoever things are expressed in the plural number specifically by one name, can also be expressed generically by one name. But all things which are generically called by one name cannot also be called specifically by one name. For three horses, which is a specific name, we also call three animals; but, a horse, and an ox, and a dog, we call only three animals or substances, which are generic names, or anything else that can be spoken generically concerning them; but we cannot speak of them as three horses, or oxen, or dogs, which are specific names; for we express those things by one name, although in the plural number, which have that in common that is signified by the name. For Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, have in common that which is man; therefore they are called three men: a horse also, and an ox, and a dog, have in common that which is animal; therefore they are called three animals. So three several laurels we also call three trees; but a laurel, and a myrtle, and an olive, we call only three trees, or three substances, or three natures: and so three stones we call also three bodies; but stone, and wood, and iron, we call only three bodies, or by any other higher generic name by which they can be called. Of the Father, therefore, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, seeing that they are three, let us ask what three they are, and what they have in common. For the being the Father is not common to them, so that they should be interchangeably fathers to one another: as friends, since they are so called relatively to each other, can be called three friends, because they are so mutually to each other. But this is not the case in the Trinity, since the Father only is there father; and not Father of two, but of the Son only. Neither are they three Sons, since the Father there is not the Son, nor is the Holy Spirit. Neither three Holy Spirits, because the Holy Spirit also, in that proper meaning by which He is also called the gift of God, is neither the Father nor the Son. What three therefore? For if three persons, then that which is meant by person is common to them; therefore this name is either specific or generic to them, according to the manner of speaking. But where there is no difference of nature, there things that are several in number are so expressed generically, that they can also be expressed specifically. For the difference of nature causes, that a laurel, and a myrtle, and an olive, or a horse, and an ox, and a dog, are not called by the specific name, the former of three laurels, or the latter of three oxen, but by the generic name, the former of three trees, and the latter of three animals. But here, where there is no difference of essence, it is necessary that these three should have a specific name, which yet is not to be found. For person is a generic name, insomuch that man also can be so called, although there is so great a difference between man and God.

Further, regarding that very generic word, if we say "three persons" because what "person" means is common to them (otherwise they couldn't be called this at all, just as they aren't called three sons because what "son" means isn't common to them), why don't we also say "three Gods"? After all, since the Father is a person, and the Son a person, and the Holy Spirit a person, there are three persons. So then, since the Father is God, and the Son God, and the Holy Spirit God, why not three Gods? Or else, since because of their ineffable union these three together are one God, why not also one person, so that we couldn't say three persons—even though we call each one a person individually—just as we can't say three Gods, although we call each one individually God, whether the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit? Is it because Scripture doesn't say "three Gods"? But we don't find Scripture mentioning three persons anywhere either. Or is it because Scripture doesn't call these three either "three persons" or "one person" (for we read of the person of the Lord, but not of the Lord as a person), that it was therefore permissible through the sheer necessity of speaking and reasoning to say "three persons"—not because Scripture says it, but because Scripture doesn't contradict it? Whereas if we were to say "three Gods," Scripture would contradict it, which says, "Hear, O Israel; the Lord your God is one God." Why then isn't it also permissible to say "three essences," which likewise Scripture doesn't say but also doesn't contradict? For if essence is a specific name common to the three, why aren't they called three essences, as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are called three men, because "man" is the specific name common to all men? But if essence isn't a specific name but a generic one, since man, and cattle, and tree, and constellation, and angel are called essences, why aren't these called three essences, as three horses are called three animals, and three laurels are called three trees, and three stones three bodies? Or if they aren't called three essences, but one essence, on account of the unity of the Trinity, why isn't it the case that on account of this same unity of the Trinity they aren't to be called three substances or three persons, but one substance and one person? For as the name of essence is common to them, so that each individually is called essence, so the name of either substance or person is common to them. For what must be understood of persons according to our usage, this is to be understood of substances according to the Greek usage; for they say three substances, one essence, in the same way as we say three persons, one essence or substance.

8. Further, in regard to that very generic ( generalis) word, if on this account we say three persons, because that which person means is common to them (otherwise they can in no way be so called, just as they are not called three sons, because that which son means is not common to them); why do we not also say three Gods? For certainly, since the Father is a person, and the Son a person, and the Holy Spirit a person, therefore there are three persons: since then the Father is God, and the Son God, and the Holy Spirit God, why not three Gods? Or else, since on account of their ineffable union these three are together one God, why not also one person; so that we could not say three persons, although we call each a person singly, just as we cannot say three Gods, although we call each singly God, whether the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit? Is it because Scripture does not say three Gods? But neither do we find that Scripture anywhere mentions three persons. Or is it because Scripture does not call these three, either three persons or one person (for we read of the person of the Lord, but not of the Lord as a person), that therefore it was lawful through the mere necessity of speaking and reasoning to say three persons, not because Scripture says it, but because Scripture does not contradict it: whereas, if we were to say three Gods, Scripture would contradict it, which says, Hear, O Israel; the Lord your God is one God? Why then is it not also lawful to say three essences; which, in like manner, as Scripture does not say, so neither does it contradict? For if essence is a specific ( specialis) name common to three, why are They not to be called three essences, as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are called three men, because man is the specific name common to all men? But if essence is not a specific name, but a generic one, since man, and cattle, and tree, and constellation, and angel, are called essences; why are not these called three essences, as three horses are called three animals, and three laurels are called three trees, and three stones three bodies? Or if they are not called three essences, but one essence, on account of the unity of the Trinity, why is it not the case, that on account of the same unity of the Trinity they are not to be called three substances or three persons, but one substance and one person? For as the name of essence is common to them, so that each singly is called essence, so the name of either substance or person is common to them. For that which must be understood of persons according to our usage, this is to be understood of substances according to the Greek usage; for they say three substances, one essence, in the same way as we say three persons, one essence or substance.

What remains, then, except to admit that these terms arose from the necessity of speaking when extensive reasoning was needed to counter the schemes or errors of the heretics? When human weakness tried to express in words to human understanding what it grasps in the hidden recesses of the mind according to its capacity regarding the Lord God its creator—whether through devout faith or any level of insight—it feared to say three essences, lest any difference be understood to exist in that absolute equality. On the other hand, it could not say that there were not three somethings, because when Sabellius said this, he fell into heresy. For it must be devoutly believed, as most certainly known from the Scriptures, and must be grasped by the mind's eye with unwavering perception, that there is both Father and Son and Holy Spirit, and that the Son is not the same as the Father, nor is the Holy Spirit the same as the Father or the Son. So it sought what to call these three, and answered substances or persons. By these names it did not intend to suggest diversity, but to deny that they are a single one. This way not only would unity be understood from their being called one essence, but also Trinity from their being called three substances or persons. For if being and subsisting are the same thing for God, they should not be called three substances any more than they are called three essences. Just as, because being and being wise are the same thing for God, we do not say three essences and likewise do not say three wisdoms. Similarly, because being God and being are the same thing for Him, it is not right to say three essences, just as it is not right to say three Gods. But if being is one thing for God and subsisting is another—just as being is one thing for God and being the Father or Lord is another (for what He is, is spoken with respect to Himself, but He is called Father in relation to the Son, and Lord in relation to the creature that serves Him)—then He subsists relatively, just as He begets relatively and rules relatively. In that case, substance would no longer be substance, because it would be relative. For just as from being He is called essence, so from subsisting we speak of substance. But it is absurd that substance should be spoken of relatively, since everything subsists in respect to itself—how much more does God?

9. What therefore remains, except that we confess that these terms sprang from the necessity of speaking, when copious reasoning was required against the devices or errors of the heretics? For when human weakness endeavored to utter in speech to the senses of man what it grasps in the secret places of the mind in proportion to its comprehension respecting the Lord God its creator, whether by devout faith, or by any discernment whatsoever; it feared to say three essences, lest any difference should be understood to exist in that absolute equality. Again, it could not say that there were not three somewhats ( tria quædam), for it was because Sabellius said this that he fell into heresy. For it must be devoutly believed, as most certainly known from the Scriptures, and must be grasped by the mental eye with undoubting perception, that there is both Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit; and that the Son is not the same with the Father, nor the Holy Spirit the same with the Father or the Son. It sought then what three it should call them, and answered substances or persons; by which names it did not intend diversity to be meant, but singleness to be denied: that not only unity might be understood therein from the being called one essence, but also Trinity from the being called three substances or persons. For if it is the same thing with God to be ( esse) as to subsist ( subsistere), they were not to be called three substances, in such sense as they are not called three essences; just as, because it is the same thing with God to be as to be wise, as we do not say three essences, so neither three wisdoms. For so, because it is the same thing to Him to be God as to be, it is not right to say three essences, as it is not right to say three Gods. But if it is one thing to God to be, another to subsist, as it is one thing to God to be, another to be the Father or the Lord (for that which He is, is spoken in respect to Himself, but He is called Father in relation to the Son, and Lord in relation to the creature which serves Him); therefore He subsists relatively, as He begets relatively, and bears rule relatively: so then substance will be no longer substance, because it will be relative. For as from being, He is called essence, so from subsisting, we speak of substance. But it is absurd that substance should be spoken relatively, for everything subsists in respect to itself; how much more God?

If, however, it is fitting to say that God subsists—for this word is rightly applied to those things that serve as subjects for things that are said to be in a subject, as color or shape exists in a body. The body subsists and is therefore substance, while those things are in the body that subsists and serves as their subject, and they are not substances but exist in a substance. So if either that color or that shape ceases to be, it does not prevent the body from being a body, because it is not essential to being a body that it should retain this or that shape or color. Therefore neither changeable nor simple things are properly called substances. If, I say, God subsists in such a way that He can be properly called a substance, then there is something in Him as if in a subject, and He is not simple—that is, He would not be such that for Him to be is the same as whatever else is said about Him in relation to Himself, such as great, omnipotent, good, and whatever of this kind is fittingly said of God. But it is impious to say that God subsists and is a subject in relation to His own goodness, and that this goodness is not a substance or rather ousia, and that God Himself is not His own goodness but that it exists in Him as in a subject. And from this it is clear that God is improperly called substance, so that He may be understood to be, by the more common term ousia, which He is truly and properly called. So perhaps it is right that God alone should be called ousia. For He truly alone is, because He is unchangeable, and He declared this to be His own name to His servant Moses when He says, I am that I am, and, Thus you shall say to the children of Israel: He who is has sent me to you. However, whether He is called ousia, which He is properly called, or substance, which He is called improperly, He is called both in respect to Himself, not in relation to anything else. Therefore for God, to be is the same thing as to subsist, and so the Trinity, if one ousia, is also one substance. Perhaps therefore they are more conveniently called three persons than three substances.

10. If, however, it is fitting that God should be said to subsist — (For this word is rightly applied to those things, in which as subjects those things are, which are said to be in a subject, as color or shape in body. For body subsists, and so is substance; but those things are in the body, which subsists and is their subject, and they are not substances, but are in a substance: and so, if either that color or that shape ceases to be, it does not deprive the body of being a body, because it is not of the being of body, that it should retain this or that shape or color; therefore neither changeable nor simple things are properly called substances.) — If, I say, God subsists so that He can be properly called a substance, then there is something in Him as it were in a subject, and He is not simple, i.e. such that to Him to be is the same as is anything else that is said concerning Him in respect to Himself; as, for instance, great, omnipotent, good, and whatever of this kind is not unfitly said of God. But it is an impiety to say that God subsists, and is a subject in relation to His own goodness, and that this goodness is not a substance or rather essence, and that God Himself is not His own goodness, but that it is in Him as in a subject. And hence it is clear that God is improperly called substance, in order that He may be understood to be, by the more usual name essence, which He is truly and properly called; so that perhaps it is right that God alone should be called essence. For He is truly alone, because He is unchangeable; and declared this to be His own name to His servant Moses, when He says, I am that I am; and, Thus shall you say unto the children of Israel: He who is has sent me unto you. However, whether He be called essence, which He is properly called, or substance, which He is called improperly, He is called both in respect to Himself, not relatively to anything; whence to God to be is the same thing as to subsist; and so the Trinity, if one essence, is also one substance. Perhaps therefore they are more conveniently called three persons than three substances.

But to avoid appearing to favor ourselves [the Latins], let's investigate this further. Although they [the Greeks] could also call three persons three prosopa, just as they call three substances three hypostases, they preferred the word that was perhaps more consistent with their language's usage. For the same issue applies to the word persons. To God, being and being a person are not two different things, but absolutely the same thing. For if "being" is said in respect to Himself, but "person" relatively, then we should say three persons—the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—just as we speak of three friends, or three relations, or three neighbors, because they are so in relation to each other, not because each one is so in respect to himself. Therefore any one of these is the friend of the other two, or the relation, or the neighbor, because these names have a relative meaning. What then? Are we to call the Father the person of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, or the Son the person of the Father and of the Holy Spirit, or the Holy Spirit the person of the Father and of the Son? But the word person is not commonly used this way in any case. Nor in this Trinity, when we speak of the person of the Father, do we mean anything other than the substance of the Father. Therefore, just as the substance of the Father is the Father Himself, not as He is the Father, but as He is, so also the person of the Father is nothing other than the Father Himself. For He is called a person in respect to Himself, not in respect to the Son or the Holy Spirit, just as He is called in respect to Himself both God and great and good and just and anything else of this kind. And just as for Him to be is the same as to be God, or to be great, or to be good, so for Him to be is the same as to be a person. Why, therefore, do we not call these three together one person, as one essence and one God, but say three persons, while we do not say three Gods or three essences? It is because we want some one word to express the meaning by which the Trinity is understood, so that we are not completely silent when asked "what three?" while we confess that they are three. For if essence is the genus, and substance or person the species, as some think, then I must set aside what I just said, that they ought to be called three essences, as they are called three substances or persons—just as three horses are called three horses, and the same are called three animals, since horse is the species, animal the genus. For in this case the species is not spoken of in the plural and the genus in the singular, as if we were to say that three horses were one animal. But as they are three horses by the specific name, so they are three animals by the generic one. But if they say that the name of substance or person does not signify species, but something singular and individual, so that one is not called a substance or person as he is called a man (for man is common to all men), but in the same manner as he is called this or that man, as Abraham, as Isaac, as Jacob, or anyone else who, if present, could be pointed out with the finger—then the same reasoning applies to these too. For as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are called three individuals, so are they called three men and three souls. Why then are the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, if we are to reason about them also according to genus and species and individual, not called three essences, as they are called three substances or persons? But this, as I said, I pass over. But I do affirm that if essence is a genus, then a single essence has no species, just as, because animal is a genus, a single animal has no species. Therefore the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not three species of one essence. But if essence is a species, as man is a species, and those are three which we call substances or persons, then they have the same species in common, in the same way as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob have in common the species called man—not that man is subdivided into Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, for one man cannot also be subdivided into several individual men, since this is altogether impossible, as one man is already a single man. Why then is one essence subdivided into three substances or persons? For if essence is a species, as man is, then one essence is as one man is. Or do we, as we say that any three human beings of the same sex, of the same bodily constitution, of the same mind, are one nature (for they are three human beings, but one nature), also say in the Trinity three substances one essence, or three persons one substance or essence? But this is somehow a parallel case, since the ancients also who spoke Latin, before they had these terms which have not long come into use—that is, essence or substance—used to say nature in their place. We do not therefore use these terms according to genus or species, but as if according to a common and identical matter. Just as if three statues were made of the same gold, we should say three statues one gold, yet should neither call the gold genus and the statues species, nor the gold species and the statues individuals. For no species goes beyond its own individuals so as to include anything external to them. For when I define what man is, which is a specific name, every individual man that exists is contained in the same individual definition, nor does anything belong to it which is not a man. But when I define gold, not only statues, if they are gold, but also rings and anything else made of gold will belong to gold; and even if nothing were made of it, it would still be called gold, since even if there were no gold statues, there would still be statues. Likewise no species goes beyond the definition of its genus. For when I define animal, since horse is a species of this genus, every horse is an animal; but every statue is not gold. So, although in the case of three golden statues we should rightly say three statues, one gold, we do not say it in such a way as to understand gold to be the genus and the statues to be species. Therefore neither do we call the Trinity three persons or substances, one essence and one God, as though three somethings subsisted out of one matter (leaving a remainder); although whatever that is, it is unfolded in these three. For there is nothing else of that essence besides the Trinity. Yet we say three persons of the same essence, or three persons one essence; but we do not say three persons out of the same essence, as though in it essence were one thing and person another, as we can say three statues out of the same gold, for there it is one thing to be gold, another to be statues. And when we say three men one nature, or three men of the same nature, they also can be called three men out of the same nature, since out of the same nature there can also be three other such men. But in that essence of the Trinity, in no way can any other person exist out of the same essence. Further, in these things, one man is not as much as three men together; and two men are something more than one man. And in equal statues, three together amount to more gold than each singly, and one amounts to less gold than two. But in God it is not so. For the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit together is not a greater essence than the Father alone or the Son alone; but these three substances or persons, if they must be so called, together are equal to each singly. This the natural man does not comprehend. For he cannot think except under the conditions of bulk and space, either small or great, since images or phantasms of bodies flit about in his mind.

11. But lest I should seem to favor ourselves [the Latins], let us make this further inquiry. Although they [the Greeks] also, if they pleased, as they call three substances three hypostases, so might call three persons three prosopa, yet they preferred that word which, perhaps, was more in accordance with the usage of their language. For the case is the same with the word persons also; for to God it is not one thing to be, another to be a person, but it is absolutely the same thing. For if to be is said in respect to Himself, but person relatively; in this way we should say three persons, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; just as we speak of three friends, or three relations, or three neighbors, in that they are so mutually, not that each one of them is so in respect to himself. Wherefore any one of these is the friend of the other two, or the relation, or the neighbor, because these names have a relative signification. What then? Are we to call the Father the person of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, or the Son the person of the Father and of the Holy Spirit, or the Holy Spirit the person of the Father and of the Son? But neither is the word person commonly so used in any case; nor in this Trinity, when we speak of the person of the Father, do we mean anything else than the substance of the Father. Wherefore, as the substance of the Father is the Father Himself, not as He is the Father, but as He is, so also the person of the Father is not anything else than the Father Himself; for He is called a person in respect to Himself, not in respect to the Son, or the Holy Spirit: just as He is called in respect to Himself both God and great, and good, and just, and anything else of the kind; and just as to Him to be is the same as to be God, or as to be great, or as to be good, so it is the same thing to Him to be, as to be a person. Why, therefore, do we not call these three together one person, as one essence and one God, but say three persons, while we do not say three Gods or three essences; unless it be because we wish some one word to serve for that meaning whereby the Trinity is understood, that we might not be altogether silent, when asked, what three, while we confessed that they are three? For if essence is the genus, and substance or person the species, as some think, then I must omit what I just now said, that they ought to be called three essences, as they are called three substances or persons; as three horses are called three horses, and the same are called three animals, since horse is the species, animal the genus. For in this case the species is not spoken of in the plural, and the genus in the singular, as if we were to say that three horses were one animal; but as they are three horses by the special name, so they are three animals by the generic one. But if they say that the name of substance or person does not signify species, but something singular and individual; so that any one is not so called a substance or person as he is called a man, for man is common to all men, but in the same manner as he is called this or that man, as Abraham, as Isaac, as Jacob, or anyone else who, if present, could be pointed out with the finger: so will the same reason reach these too. For as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, are called three individuals, so are they called three men, and three souls. Why then are both the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, if we are to reason about them also according to genus and species and individual, not so called three essences, as they are called three substances or persons? But this, as I said, I pass over: but I do affirm, that if essence is a genus, then a single essence has no species; just as, because animal is a genus, a single animal has no species. Therefore the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not three species of one essence. But if essence is a species, as man is a species, but those are three which we call substances or persons, then they have the same species in common, in such way as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob have in common the species which is called man; not as man is subdivided into Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, so can one man also be subdivided into several single men; for this is altogether impossible, since one man is already a single man. Why then is one essence subdivided into three substances or persons? For if essence is a species, as man is, then one essence is as one man is: or do we, as we say that any three human beings of the same sex, of the same constitution of body, of the same mind, are one nature, — for they are three human beings, but one nature, — so also say in the Trinity three substances one essence, or three persons one substance or essence? But this is somehow a parallel case, since the ancients also who spoke Latin, before they had these terms, which have not long come into use, that is, essence or substance, used for them to say nature. We do not therefore use these terms according to genus or species, but as if according to a matter that is common and the same. Just as if three statues were made of the same gold, we should say three statues one gold, yet should neither call the gold genus, and the statues species; nor the gold species, and the statues individuals. For no species goes beyond its own individuals, so as to comprehend anything external to them. For when I define what man is, which is a specific name, every several man that exists is contained in the same individual definition, neither does anything belong to it which is not a man. But when I define gold, not statues alone, if they be gold, but rings also, and anything else that is made of gold, will belong to gold; and even if nothing were made of it, it would still be called gold; since, even if there were no gold statues, there will not therefore be no statues at all. Likewise no species goes beyond the definition of its genus. For when I define animal, since horse is a species of this genus, every horse is an animal; but every statue is not gold. So, although in the case of three golden statues we should rightly say three statues, one gold; yet we do not so say it, as to understand gold to be the genus, and the statues to be species. Therefore neither do we so call the Trinity three persons or substances, one essence and one God, as though three somethings subsisted out of one matter [leaving a remainder, i. e.]; although whatever that is, it is unfolded in these three. For there is nothing else of that essence besides the Trinity. Yet we say three persons of the same essence, or three persons one essence; but we do not say three persons out of the same essence, as though therein essence were one thing, and person another, as we can say three statues out of the same gold; for there it is one thing to be gold, another to be statues. And when we say three men one nature, or three men of the same nature, they also can be called three men out of the same nature, since out of the same nature there can be also three other such men. But in that essence of the Trinity, in no way can any other person whatever exist out of the same essence. Further, in these things, one man is not as much as three men together; and two men are something more than one man: and in equal statues, three together amount to more of gold than each singly, and one amounts to less of gold than two. But in God it is not so; for the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit together is not a greater essence than the Father alone or the Son alone; but these three substances or persons, if they must be so called, together are equal to each singly: which the natural man does not comprehend. For he cannot think except under the conditions of bulk and space, either small or great, since phantasms or as it were images of bodies flit about in his mind.

Until a person is cleansed from this spiritual uncleanness, let him believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—one God, alone, great, omnipotent, good, just, merciful, Creator of all things visible and invisible, and whatever can be worthily and truly said of Him within the limits of human understanding. When he is told that the Father alone is God, let him not separate the Son or the Holy Spirit from Him. For together with the Father, the Son is the only God, and together with Him He is one God. When we are told that the Son also is the only God, we must understand this without any separation of the Father or the Holy Spirit. Let him speak of one essence in such a way that he does not think one Person is greater or better than another, or different from another in any way—yet not thinking that the Father Himself is both Son and Holy Spirit, or whatever else each is called individually in relation to the others, such as Word, which is said only of the Son, or Gift, which is said only of the Holy Spirit. For this reason they also use the plural number, as it is written in the Gospel: "I and my Father are one." He has said both "one" and "are," according to essence because they are the same God; "are," according to relation, because the one is Father and the other is Son. Sometimes the unity of essence is left unstated and only the relational terms are mentioned in the plural: "My Father and I will come to him and make our abode with him." "Will come" and "will make our abode" are plural because it was said before, "I and my Father"—that is, the Son and the Father, terms used in relation to one another. Sometimes the meaning is completely hidden, as in Genesis: "Let us make man after our image and likeness." Both "let us make" and "our" are plural and should be understood only as referring to relations. For it was not that gods might make, or make after the image and likeness of gods, but that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit might make after the image of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, so that man might exist as the image of God. And God is the Trinity. But because that image of God was not made completely equal to Him—since it was not born of Him but created by Him—in order to show this, man is the image in such a way that he is "after the image." That is, he is not made equal by parity, but approaches God by a kind of likeness. For approaching God is not by spatial intervals but by likeness, and withdrawing from Him is by unlikeness. Now there are some who make this distinction: they say the Son is the image, but man is not the image but rather "after the image." But the apostle refutes them, saying, "For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God." He did not say "after the image" but "the image." Yet this image, since it is elsewhere spoken of as "after the image," is not as if it were said in relation to the Son, who is the image equal to the Father. Otherwise he would not say "after our image." For how could he say "our" when the Son is the image of the Father alone? But man is said to be "after the image" because of the inequality of the likeness, as we have said. Therefore "after our image" means that man is the image of the Trinity—not equal to the Trinity as the Son is equal to the Father, but approaching it, as has been said, by a certain likeness, just as nearness can in a sense be indicated in things distant from each other, not in respect to place but by a kind of imitation. For it is also said, "Be transformed by the renewing of your mind," and to them he likewise says, "Be therefore imitators of God as dear children." For it is said to the new man "who is renewed in knowledge after the image of Him who created him." Now if we choose to use the plural number to meet the needs of argument, even setting aside relational terms, so that we can answer with one term when asked "what three?" and say three substances or three persons, then let no one think of any size or interval or any distance of even the slightest unlikeness, so that in the Trinity any Person should be understood to be even a little less than another in any way that one thing can be less than another. This is to ensure that there is neither a confusion of persons nor such a distinction that there would be any inequality. If this cannot be grasped by the understanding, let it be held by faith until He dawns in the heart who says through the prophet, "If you will not believe, surely you shall not understand."

12. And until he be purged from this uncleanness, let him believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, one God, alone, great, omnipotent, good, just, merciful, Creator of all things visible and invisible, and whatsoever can be worthily and truly said of Him in proportion to human capacity. And when he is told that the Father only is God, let him not separate from Him the Son or the Holy Spirit; for together with Him He is the only God, together with whom also He is one God; because, when we are told that the Son also is the only God, we must needs take it without any separation of the Father or the Holy Spirit. And let him so say one essence, as not to think one to be either greater or better than, or in any respect differing from, another. Yet not that the Father Himself is both Son and Holy Spirit, or whatever else each is singly called in relation to either of the others; as Word, which is not said except of the Son, or Gift, which is not said except of the Holy Spirit. And on this account also they admit the plural number, as it is written in the Gospel, I and my Father are one. He has both said one, and we are one, according to essence, because they are the same God; we are, according to relation, because the one is Father, the other is Son. Sometimes also the unity of the essence is left unexpressed, and the relatives alone are mentioned in the plural number: My Father and I will come unto him, and make our abode with him. We will come, and we will make our abode, is the plural number, since it was said before, I and my Father, that is, the Son and the Father, which terms are used relatively to one another. Sometimes the meaning is altogether latent, as in Genesis: Let us make man after our image and likeness. Both let us make and our is said in the plural, and ought not to be received except as of relatives. For it was not that gods might make, or make after the image and likeness of gods; but that the Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit might make after the image of the Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit, that man might subsist as the image of God. And God is the Trinity. But because that image of God was not made altogether equal to Him, as being not born of Him, but created by Him; in order to signify this, he is in such way the image as that he is after the image, that is, he is not made equal by parity, but approaches to Him by a sort of likeness. For approach to God is not by intervals of place, but by likeness, and withdrawal from Him is by unlikeness. For there are some who draw this distinction, that they will have the Son to be the image, but man not to be the image, but after the image. But the apostle refutes them, saying, For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God. He did not say after the image, but the image. And this image, since it is elsewhere spoken of as after the image, is not as if it were said relatively to the Son, who is the image equal to the Father; otherwise he would not say after our image. For how our, when the Son is the image of the Father alone? But man is said to be after the image, on account, as we have said, of the inequality of the likeness; and therefore after our image, that man might be the image of the Trinity; not equal to the Trinity as the Son is equal to the Father, but approaching to it, as has been said, by a certain likeness; just as nearness may in a sense be signified in things distant from each other, not in respect of place, but of a sort of imitation. For it is also said, Be transformed by the renewing of your mind; to whom he likewise says, Be therefore imitators of God as dear children. For it is said to the new man, which is renewed to the knowledge of God, after the image of Him that created him. Or if we choose to admit the plural number, in order to meet the needs of argument, even putting aside relative terms, that so we may answer in one term when it is asked what three, and say three substances or three persons; then let no one think of any bulk or interval, or of any distance of howsoever little unlikeness, so that in the Trinity any should be understood to be even a little less than another, in whatsoever way one thing can be less than another: in order that there may be neither a confusion of persons, nor such a distinction as that there should be any inequality. And if this cannot be grasped by the understanding, let it be held by faith, until He shall dawn in the heart who says by the prophet, If you will not believe, surely you shall not understand.

Some people think they cannot accept the equality of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit because it is written, "Christ, the power of God, and the wisdom of God." They believe this shows inequality because the Father is not Himself power and wisdom, but rather the one who begets power and wisdom. In fact, people often ask very seriously how God can be called the Father of power and wisdom. The apostle does say, "Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God." Because of this, some on our side have argued in the following way against the Arians, at least against those who first opposed the Catholic faith. Arius himself is reported to have said that if He is a Son, then He was born; if He was born, there was a time when the Son did not exist. He failed to understand that for God, even being born is from all eternity, so that the Son is co-eternal with the Father, just as the brightness produced and spread by fire exists alongside it, and would be co-eternal if fire were eternal. Therefore some of the later Arians abandoned that opinion and confessed that the Son of God did not begin to exist in time. But among the arguments that those on our side used against those who said there was a time when the Son did not exist, some would present this argument: If the Son of God is the power and wisdom of God, and God was never without power and wisdom, then the Son is co-eternal with God the Father; but the apostle says, "Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God"; and a person would have to be senseless to say that God ever lacked power or wisdom; therefore there was no time when the Son did not exist.

1. Some think themselves hindered from admitting the equality of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, because it is written, Christ, the power of God, and the wisdom of God; in that, on this ground, there does not appear to be equality; because the Father is not Himself power and wisdom, but the begetter of power and wisdom. And, in truth, the question is usually asked with no common earnestness, in what way God can be called the Father of power and wisdom. For the apostle says, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. And hence some on our side have reasoned in this way against the Arians, at least against those who at first set themselves up against the Catholic faith. For Arius himself is reported to have said, that if He is a Son, then He was born; if He was born, there was a time when the Son was not: not understanding that even to be born is, to God, from all eternity; so that the Son is co-eternal with the Father, as the brightness which is produced and is spread around by fire is co-eval with it, and would be co-eternal, if fire were eternal. And therefore some of the later Arians have abandoned that opinion, and have confessed that the Son of God did not begin to be in time. But among the arguments which those on our side used to hold against them who said that there was a time when the Son was not, some were wont to introduce such an argument as this: If the Son of God is the power and wisdom of God, and God was never without power and wisdom, then the Son is co-eternal with God the Father; but the apostle says, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God; and a man must be senseless to say that God at any time had not power or wisdom; therefore there was no time when the Son was not.

This line of reasoning forces us to say that God the Father is not wise except by possessing the wisdom He begot, not by being wisdom itself in His own nature. Furthermore, if this is true, then just as the Son is called God of God and Light of Light, we must consider whether He can be called wisdom of wisdom, if God the Father is not wisdom itself but only the begetter of wisdom. And if we accept this, why wouldn't He also be the begetter of His own greatness, His own goodness, His own eternity, and His own omnipotence? In that case, He would not be His own greatness, His own goodness, His own eternity, and His own omnipotence, but would be great with the greatness He begot, good with the goodness, eternal with the eternity, and omnipotent with the omnipotence that was born from Him, just as He would not be His own wisdom but wise with the wisdom born from Him. We need not fear being forced to say there are many sons of God co-eternal with the Father (beyond the adoption of created beings) if He is the begetter of His own greatness, goodness, eternity, and omnipotence. This objection is easy to answer: it does not follow that because many things are named, He must be the Father of many co-eternal sons, just as it does not follow that He is the Father of two sons because Christ is called both the power of God and the wisdom of God. For what is the power is also the wisdom, and what is the wisdom is also the power. Likewise with the rest: what is the greatness is also the power, or any other of these attributes that have been mentioned above or may be mentioned later.

2. Now this argument compels us to say that God the Father is not wise, except by having the wisdom which He begot, not by the Father in Himself being wisdom itself. Further, if it be so, just as the Son also Himself is called God of God, Light of Light, we must consider whether He can be called wisdom of wisdom, if God the Father is not wisdom itself, but only the begetter of wisdom. And if we hold this, why is He not the begetter also of His own greatness, and of His own goodness, and of His own eternity, and of His own omnipotence; so that He is not Himself His own greatness, and His own goodness, and His own eternity, and His own omnipotence; but is great with that greatness which He begot, and good with that goodness, and eternal with that eternity, and omnipotent with that omnipotence, which was born of Him; just as He Himself is not His own wisdom, but is wise with that wisdom which was born of Him? For we need not be afraid of being compelled to say that there are many sons of God, over and above the adoption of the creature, co-eternal with the Father, if He be the begetter of His own greatness, and goodness, and eternity, and omnipotence. Because it is easy to reply to this cavil, that it does not at all follow, because many things are named, that He should be the Father of many co-eternal sons; just as it does not follow that He is the Father of two sons, because Christ is said to be the power of God, and the wisdom of God. For that certainly is the power which is the wisdom, and that is the wisdom which is the power; and in like manner, therefore, of the rest also; so that that is the greatness which is the power, or any other of those things which either have been mentioned above, or may hereafter be mentioned.

But if nothing is said of the Father specifically except what is said of Him in relation to the Son—that is, that He is His father, or begetter, or beginning—and if the begetter is therefore a beginning to what he begets from himself, then whatever else is said of Him is said together with the Son, or rather in the Son. Whether He is great with that greatness which He begot, or just with that justice which He begot, or good with that goodness which He begot, or powerful with that power which He begot, or wise with that wisdom which He begot—yet the Father is not called greatness itself, but the begetter of greatness. But the Son, just as He is called the Son in relation to the Father and not together with the Father, is not great in and by Himself, but is great with the Father, whose greatness He is. He is also called wise with the Father, whose wisdom He Himself is, just as the Father is called wise with the Son, because He is wise with that wisdom which He begot. Therefore, neither can be called without the other, whatever they are called in respect to themselves—that is, whatever they are called that shows their ousia. Both are called this together. If these things are so, then the Father is not God without the Son, nor is the Son God without the Father, but both together are God. And when it says "In the beginning was the Word," this means that the Word was in the Father. Or if "In the beginning" means "Before all things," then in what follows—"And the Word was with God"—the Son alone is understood to be the Word, not the Father and Son together as if both were one Word. For He is the Word in the same way as He is the Image, but the Father and Son are not both together the Image; rather, the Son alone is the Image of the Father, just as He is also the Son of the Father, for both together are not the Son. But in what is added—"And the Word was with God"—there is good reason to understand it this way: The Word, which is the Son alone, was with God, which is not the Father alone, but God the Father and the Son together. But what is remarkable about this, if it can be said in the case of some paired things widely different from each other? For what are so different as soul and body? Yet we can say the soul was with a man, that is, in a man, although the soul is not the body, and man is both soul and body together. So what follows in Scripture—"And the Word was God"—may be understood this way: The Word, which is not the Father, was God together with the Father. Are we then to say that the Father is the begetter of His own greatness, that is, the begetter of His own power, or the begetter of His own wisdom, and that the Son is greatness, and power, and wisdom, but that the great, omnipotent, and wise God is both together? How then "God of God, Light of Light"? For not both together are God of God, but only the Son is of God, that is to say, of the Father; nor are both together Light of Light, but the Son only is of Light, that is, of the Father. Unless, perhaps, it was said "God of God" and "Light of Light," or anything else of this kind, in order to suggest and teach briefly that the Son is co-eternal with the Father—as if to say, This which is not the Son without the Father, of this which is not the Father without the Son; that is, this Light which is not Light without the Father, of that Light, namely the Father, which is not Light without the Son. So when it is said "God" which is not the Son without the Father, and "of God" which is not the Father without the Son, it may be clearly understood that the Begetter did not precede what He begot. And if this is so, then this alone cannot be said of them, namely, this or that of this or that, which they are not both together. Just as the Word cannot be said to be of the Word, because both are not the Word together, but only the Son; nor image of image, since they are not both together the image; nor Son of Son, since both together are not the Son, according to what is said, "I and my Father are one." For "we are one" means what He is, that I am also, according to ousia, not according to relation.

3. But if nothing is spoken of the Father as such, except that which is spoken of Him in relation to the Son, that is, that He is His father, or begetter, or beginning; and if also the begetter is by consequence a beginning to that which he begets of himself; but whatever else is spoken of Him is so spoken as with the Son, or rather in the Son; whether that He is great with that greatness which He begot, or just with that justice which He begot, or good with that goodness which He begot, or powerful with that force or power which He begot, or wise with that wisdom which He begot: yet the Father is not said to be greatness itself, but the begetter of greatness; but the Son, as He is called the Son as such, is not so called with the Father but in relation to the Father, so is not great in and by himself, but with the Father, of whom He is the greatness; and so also is called wise with the Father, of whom He Himself is the wisdom; just as the Father is called wise with the Son, because He is wise with that wisdom which He begot; therefore the one is not called without the other, whatever they are called in respect to themselves; that is, whatever they are called that manifests their essential nature, both are so called together — if these things are so, then the Father is not God without the Son, nor the Son God without the Father, but both together are God. And that which is said, In the beginning was the Word, means that the Word was in the Father. Or if In the beginning is intended to mean, Before all things; then in that which follows, And the Word was with God, the Son alone is understood to be the Word, not the Father and Son together, as though both were one Word (for He is the Word in the same way as He is the Image, but the Father and Son are not both together the Image, but the Son alone is the Image of the Father: just as He is also the Son of the Father, for both together are not the Son). But in that which is added, And the Word was with God, there is much reason to understand thus: The Word, which is the Son alone, was with God, which is not the Father alone, but God the Father and the Son together. But what wonder is there, if this can be said in the case of some twofold things widely different from each other? For what are so different as soul and body? Yet we can say the soul was with a man, that is, in a man; although the soul is not the body, and man is both soul and body together. So that what follows in the Scripture, And the Word was God, may be understood thus: The Word, which is not the Father, was God together with the Father. Are we then to say thus, that the Father is the begetter of His own greatness, that is, the begetter of His own power, or the begetter of His own wisdom; and that the Son is greatness, and power, and wisdom; but that the great, omnipotent, and wise God, is both together? How then God of God, Light of Light? For not both together are God of God, but only the Son is of God, that is to say, of the Father; nor are both together Light of Light, but the Son only is of Light, that is, of the Father. Unless, perhaps, it was in order to intimate and inculcate briefly that the Son is co-eternal with the Father, that it is said, God of God, and Light of Light, or anything else of the like kind: as if to say, This which is not the Son without the Father, of this which is not the Father without the Son; that is, this Light which is not Light without the Father, of that Light, viz. the Father, which is not Light without the Son; so that, when it is said, God which is not the Son without the Father, and of God which is not the Father without the Son, it may be perfectly understood that the Begetter did not precede that which He begot. And if this be so, then this alone cannot be said of them, namely, this or that of this or that, which they are not both together. Just as the Word cannot be said to be of the Word, because both are not the Word together, but only the Son; nor image of image, since they are not both together the image; nor Son of Son, since both together are not the Son, according to that which is said, I and my Father are one. For we are one means, what He is, that am I also; according to essence, not according to relation.

And I do not know whether the words "They are one" are ever found in Scripture as spoken of things that have a different nature. But if there are more than one thing of the same nature, and they differ in opinion, they are not one, at least insofar as they differ in opinion. For if the disciples were already one by the fact of being human, He would not say "That they may be one, as we are one" when commending them to the Father. But because Paul and Apollos were both equally human and also of like opinions, He says "He who plants and he who waters are one." Therefore, when something is called one without specifying in what respect it is one, yet more than one thing is called one, then the same ousia and nature is signified, not differing nor disagreeing. But when it is specified in what respect it is one, it may mean that something is made one out of more than one thing, though they are different in nature. As soul and body are certainly not one—for what could be so different?—unless it is added or understood in what respect they are one, that is, one man or one animal. From this the apostle says "He who is joined to a harlot is one body"; he does not say "they are one" or "he is one," but he added "body," as though it were one body composed by being joined together from two different bodies, masculine and feminine. And he says "He who is joined to the Lord is one spirit"; he did not say "he who is joined to the Lord is one" or "they are one," but he added "spirit." For the spirit of man and the Spirit of God are different in nature, but by being joined they become one spirit from two different spirits, so that the Spirit of God is blessed and perfect without the human spirit, but the spirit of man cannot be blessed without God. Nor is it without cause, I think, that when the Lord said so much in the Gospel according to John, and so often, about unity itself, whether of His own with the Father or of ours with one another, He has nowhere said that we are also one with Himself, but rather "that they may be one as we also are one." Therefore the Father and the Son are one, undoubtedly according to unity of ousia, and there is one God, and one great, and one wise, as we have argued.

4. And I know not whether the words, They are one, are ever found in Scripture as spoken of things of which the nature is different. But if there are more things than one of the same nature, and they differ in sentiment, they are not one, and that so far as they differ in sentiment. For if the disciples were already one by the fact of being men, He would not say, That they may be one, as we are one, when commending them to the Father. But because Paul and Apollos were both alike men, and also of like sentiments, He that plants, he says, and he that waters are one. When, therefore, anything is so called one, that it is not added in what it is one, and yet more things than one are called one, then the same essence and nature is signified, not differing nor disagreeing. But when it is added in what it is one, it may be meant that something is made one out of things more than one, though they are different in nature. As soul and body are assuredly not one; for, what are so different? Unless there be added, or understood in what they are one, that is, one man, or one animal [person]. Thence the apostle says, He who is joined to a harlot, is one body; he does not say, they are one or he is one; but he has added body, as though it were one body composed by being joined together of two different bodies, masculine and feminine. And, He that is joined unto the Lord, he says, is one spirit: he did not say, he that is joined unto the Lord is one, or they are one; but he added, spirit. For the spirit of man and the Spirit of God are different in nature; but by being joined they become one spirit of two different spirits, so that the Spirit of God is blessed and perfect without the human spirit, but the spirit of man cannot be blessed without God. Nor is it without cause, I think, that when the Lord said so much in the Gospel according to John, and so often, of unity itself, whether of His own with the Father, or of ours interchangeably with ourselves; He has nowhere said, that we are also one with Himself, but, that they maybe one as we also are one. Therefore the Father and the Son are one, undoubtedly according to unity of substance; and there is one God, and one great, and one wise, as we have argued.

If the Father is greater, then He must be greater by greatness. But since the Son is His greatness, the Son is certainly not greater than the one who begot Him, nor is the Father greater than that greatness by which He is great. Therefore they are equal. How can He be equal if not in what He is—He for whom being and being great are not two different things? If the Father is greater in eternity, then the Son is not equal in anything at all. For how could He be equal? If you say in greatness, that greatness cannot be equal if it is less eternal, and the same applies to everything else. Or perhaps He is equal in power but not equal in wisdom? But how can power that is less wise be equal? Or is He equal in wisdom but not equal in power? But how can wisdom that is less powerful be equal? It follows, then, that if He is not equal in anything, He is not equal in all. But Scripture proclaims that He did not consider equality with God something to be grasped. Therefore any opponent of the truth, provided he accepts apostolic authority, must confess that the Son is equal with God in each and every thing. Let him choose whatever he wishes—from it he will be shown that the Son is equal in all things that are said of His substance.

5. Whence then is the Father greater? For if greater, He is greater by greatness; but whereas the Son is His greatness, neither assuredly is the Son greater than He who begot Him, nor is the Father greater than that greatness, whereby He is great; therefore they are equal. For whence is He equal, if not in that which He is, to whom it is not one thing to be, and another to be great? Or if the Father is greater in eternity, the Son is not equal in anything whatsoever. For whence equal? If you say in greatness, that greatness is not equal which is less eternal, and so of all things else. Or is He perhaps equal in power, but not equal in wisdom? But how is that power which is less wise, equal? Or is He equal in wisdom, but not equal in power? But how is that wisdom equal which is less powerful? It remains, therefore, that if He is not equal in anything, He is not equal in all. But Scripture proclaims, that He thought it not robbery to be equal with God. Therefore any adversary of the truth whatever, provided he feels bound by apostolic authority, must needs confess that the Son is equal with God in each one thing whatsoever. Let him choose that which he will; from it he will be shown, that He is equal in all things which are said of His substance.

For in the same way, the virtues that exist in the human mind, although each has its own distinct and different meaning, are never mutually separable from one another. For example, whoever are equal in courage are also equal in prudence, temperance, and justice. If you say that certain men are equal in courage, but that one of them is greater in prudence, it follows that the other's courage is less prudent, and so they are not equal in courage either, since the former's courage is more prudent. You will find this to be the case with the other virtues if you consider them one by one. For the question is not about bodily strength, but about courage of the mind. How much more is this the case in that unchangeable and eternal substance, which is incomparably more simple than the human mind? In the human mind, to be is not the same as to be strong, or prudent, or just, or temperate; for a mind can exist and yet have none of these virtues. But in God, to be is the same as to be strong, or to be just, or to be wise, or whatever is said of that simple multiplicity, or multifold simplicity, by which we signify His substance. Therefore, whether we say God of God in such a way that this name belongs to each, yet not so that both together are two Gods, but one God—for they are united with each other in such a way as, according to the apostle's testimony, may take place even in diverse and differing substances; for the Lord alone is a Spirit, and the spirit of a man alone is certainly a spirit; yet if it clings to the Lord, it is one spirit—how much more is this true there, where there is an absolutely inseparable and eternal union? So that He may not seem absurdly to be called, as it were, the Son of both when He is called the Son of God, if that which is called God is only said of both together. Or perhaps whatever is said of God so as to indicate His substance is not said except of both together, indeed of the Trinity itself together? Whether it is this or that (which needs a closer inquiry), it is enough for the present to see from what has been said that the Son is in no respect equal with the Father if He is found to be unequal in anything that has to do with signifying His substance, as we have already shown. But the apostle has said that He is equal. Therefore the Son is equal with the Father in all things, and is of one and the same substance.

6. For in like manner the virtues which are in the human mind, although each has its own several and different meaning, yet are in no way mutually separable; so that, for instance, whosoever were equal in courage, are equal also in prudence, and temperance, and justice. For if you say that such and such men are equal in courage, but that one of them is greater in prudence, it follows that the courage of the other is less prudent, and so neither are they equal in courage, since the courage of the former is more prudent. And so you will find it to be the case with the other virtues, if you consider them one by one. For the question is not of the strength of the body, but of the courage of the mind. How much more therefore is this the case in that unchangeable and eternal substance, which is incomparably more simple than the human mind is? Since, in the human mind, to be is not the same as to be strong, or prudent, or just, or temperate; for a mind can exist, and yet have none of these virtues. But in God to be is the same as to be strong, or to be just, or to be wise, or whatever is said of that simple multiplicity, or multifold simplicity, whereby to signify His substance. Wherefore, whether we say God of God in such way that this name belongs to each, yet not so that both together are two Gods, but one God; for they are in such way united with each other, as according to the apostle's testimony may take place even in diverse and differing substances; for both the Lord alone is a Spirit, and the spirit of a man alone is assuredly a spirit; yet, if it cleave to the Lord, it is one spirit: how much more there, where there is an absolutely inseparable and eternal union, so that He may not seem absurdly to be called as it were the Son of both, when He is called the Son of God, if that which is called God is only said of both together. Or perhaps it is, that whatever is said of God so as to indicate His substance, is not said except of both together, nay of the Trinity itself together? Whether therefore it be this or that (which needs a closer inquiry), it is enough for the present to see from what has been said, that the Son is in no respect equal with the Father, if He is found to be unequal in anything which has to do with signifying His substance, as we have already shown. But the apostle has said that He is equal. Therefore the Son is equal with the Father in all things, and is of one and the same substance.

Therefore the Holy Spirit also exists in the same unity of substance and in the same equality. For whether He is the unity of both, or the holiness, or the love, or the unity because He is the love, and the love because He is the holiness, it is clear that He is not one of the two, but rather the one through whom the two are joined, through whom the Begotten is loved by the Begetter and loves Him who begot Him, and through whom they maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace—not by participation or by the gift of any superior, but by their own ousia. We are commanded to imitate this by grace, both toward God and toward one another. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. So these three are God, one, alone, great, wise, holy, blessed. But we are blessed from Him, and through Him, and in Him, because we ourselves are made one by His gift, and are one spirit with Him, because our soul clings to Him so as to follow Him. And it is good for us to cling to God, since He will destroy everyone who is estranged from Him. Therefore the Holy Spirit, whatever He is, is something common both to the Father and the Son. But that communion itself is consubstantial and co-eternal. If it may fittingly be called friendship, let it be called so, but it is more appropriately called love. And this is also a substance, since God is a substance, and God is love, as it is written. But just as He is a substance together with the Father and the Son, so that substance is together with them great, and together with them good, and together with them holy, and whatever else is said in reference to substance—since for God to be is not one thing and to be great or to be good another thing, as we have shown above. For if love is less great in God than wisdom, then wisdom is loved to a lesser degree than it truly is. Love is therefore equal, so that wisdom may be loved according to its being. But wisdom is equal with the Father, as we have proved above. Therefore the Holy Spirit is also equal, and if equal, equal in all things, on account of the absolute simplicity which is in that substance. And therefore they are not more than three: One who loves Him who is from Himself, and One who loves Him from whom He is, and Love itself. And if this Love is nothing, how is God love? If it is not substance, how is God substance?

7. Wherefore also the Holy Spirit consists in the same unity of substance, and in the same equality. For whether He is the unity of both, or the holiness, or the love, or therefore the unity because the love, and therefore the love because the holiness, it is manifest that He is not one of the two, through whom the two are joined, through whom the Begotten is loved by the Begetter, and loves Him that begot Him, and through whom, not by participation, but by their own essence, neither by the gift of any superior, but by their own, they are keeping the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace; which we are commanded to imitate by grace, both towards God and towards ourselves. On which two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. So those three are God, one, alone, great, wise, holy, blessed. But we are blessed from Him, and through Him, and in Him; because we ourselves are one by His gift, and one spirit with Him, because our soul cleaves to Him so as to follow Him. And it is good for us to cleave to God, since He will destroy every man who is estranged from Him. Therefore the Holy Spirit, whatever it is, is something common both to the Father and Son. But that communion itself is consubstantial and co-eternal; and if it may fitly be called friendship, let it be so called; but it is more aptly called love. And this is also a substance, since God is a substance, and God is love, as it is written. But as He is a substance together with the Father and the Son, so that substance is together with them great, and together with them good, and together with them holy, and whatsoever else is said in reference to substance; since it is not one thing to God to be, and another to be great or to be good, and the rest, as we have shown above. For if love is less great therein [ i.e. in God] than wisdom, then wisdom is loved in less degree than according to what it is; love is therefore equal, in order that wisdom may be loved according to its being; but wisdom is equal with the Father, as we have proved above; therefore also the Holy Spirit is equal; and if equal, equal in all things, on account of the absolute simplicity which is in that substance. And therefore they are not more than three: One who loves Him who is from Himself, and One who loves Him from whom He is, and Love itself. And if this last is nothing, how is God love? If it is not substance, how is God substance?

But if someone asks how that substance is both simple and manifold: first consider why the creature is manifold but in no way truly simple. First, everything that is a body is composed of parts, so that in it one part is greater, another is smaller, and the whole is greater than any part, no matter how large. The heaven and the earth are parts of the whole mass of the world. The earth alone, and the heaven alone, are each composed of countless parts, and a third of it is less than what remains, and half of it is less than the whole. The whole body of the world, which is usually referred to by its two parts—namely, the heaven and the earth—is certainly greater than the heaven alone or the earth alone. In each individual body, size is one thing, color another, and shape another. The same color and the same shape can remain even when the size is reduced. The same shape and the same size can remain when the color is changed. Even when the same shape does not remain, the thing can still be just as large and of the same color. Whatever other things are predicated together of a body can be changed either all together or most of them without the rest. From this the nature of body is clearly proven to be manifold and in no respect simple. The spiritual creature—that is, the soul—is indeed more simple of the two when compared with the body. But if we set aside the comparison with the body, it is manifold and itself also not simple. It is more simple than the body because it is not spread out in bulk through extension in space. Rather, in each body it is both whole in the whole and whole in each individual part of it. Therefore, when something happens in any small particle of the body that the soul can feel, even though it does not happen in the whole body, the whole soul feels it, since the whole soul is aware of it. Nevertheless, in the soul it is one thing to be skillful, another to be lazy, another to be intelligent, another to have a good memory. Desire is one thing, fear another, joy another, sadness another. Since countless things in countless ways are found in the nature of the soul, some without others, and some in greater or lesser degree, it is clear that its nature is not simple but manifold. For nothing simple is changeable, but every creature is changeable.

8. But if it is asked how that substance is both simple and manifold: consider, first, why the creature is manifold, but in no way really simple. And first, all that is body is composed certainly of parts; so that therein one part is greater, another less, and the whole is greater than any part whatever or how great soever. For the heaven and the earth are parts of the whole bulk of the world; and the earth alone, and the heaven alone, is composed of innumerable parts; and its third part is less than the remainder, and the half of it is less than the whole; and the whole body of the world, which is usually called by its two parts, viz. the heaven and the earth, is certainly greater than the heaven alone or the earth alone. And in each several body, size is one thing, color another, shape another; for the same color and the same shape may remain with diminished size; and the same shape and the same size may remain with the color changed; and the same shape not remaining, yet the thing may be just as great, and of the same color. And whatever other things are predicated together of body can be changed either all together, or the larger part of them without the rest. And hence the nature of body is conclusively proved to be manifold, and in no respect simple. The spiritual creature also, that is, the soul, is indeed the more simple of the two if compared with the body; but if we omit the comparison with the body, it is manifold, and itself also not simple. For it is on this account more simple than the body, because it is not diffused in bulk through extension of place, but in each body, it is both whole in the whole, and whole in each several part of it; and, therefore, when anything takes place in any small particle whatever of the body, such as the soul can feel, although it does not take place in the whole body, yet the whole soul feels it, since the whole soul is not unconscious of it. But, nevertheless, since in the soul also it is one thing to be skillful, another to be indolent, another to be intelligent, another to be of retentive memory; since cupidity is one thing, fear another, joy another, sadness another; and since things innumerable, and in innumerable ways, are to be found in the nature of the soul, some without others, and some more, some less; it is manifest that its nature is not simple, but manifold. For nothing simple is changeable, but every creature is changeable.

God is truly called by many names: great, good, wise, blessed, true, and whatever else can be worthily said of Him. But His greatness is the same as His wisdom, for He is not great by size but by power. His goodness is the same as His wisdom and greatness, and His truth is the same as all these things. In Him, being blessed is not one thing and being great another, nor is being wise, true, or good something different, nor is being Himself something different from any of these.

But God is truly called in manifold ways, great, good, wise, blessed, true, and whatsoever other thing seems to be said of Him not unworthily: but His greatness is the same as His wisdom; for He is not great by bulk, but by power; and His goodness is the same as His wisdom and greatness, and His truth the same as all those things; and in Him it is not one thing to be blessed, and another to be great, or wise, or true, or good, or in a word to be Himself.

Just because God is a Trinity does not mean we should think of Him as triple. If we did, the Father alone or the Son alone would be less than the Father and Son together. Actually, it's difficult to even speak of the Father alone or the Son alone, since the Father is always with the Son, and the Son is always with the Father, inseparably. This doesn't mean both are the Father or both are the Son, but rather they are always one in relation to each other, and neither exists apart from the other. Yet we call the Trinity itself God alone, even though He is always with holy spirits and souls, and we say He only is God because they are not also God with Him. In the same way, we call the Father the Father alone, not because He is separate from the Son, but because they are not both together the Father.

9. Neither, since He is a Trinity, is He therefore to be thought triple ( triplex) otherwise the Father alone, or the Son alone, will be less than the Father and Son together. Although, indeed, it is hard to see how we can say, either the Father alone, or the Son alone; since both the Father is with the Son, and the Son with the Father, always and inseparably: not that both are the Father, or both are the Son; but because they are always one in relation to the other, and neither the one nor the other alone. But because we call even the Trinity itself God alone, although He is always with holy spirits and souls, but say that He only is God, because they are not also God with Him; so we call the Father the Father alone, not because He is separate from the Son, but because they are not both together the Father.

Since the Father alone, or the Son alone, or the Holy Spirit alone, is as great as the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit together, He cannot in any way be called threefold. Bodies grow larger when joined together. For example, although a man who joins with his wife becomes one body, it is a larger body than the husband's body alone or the wife's body alone would be. But in spiritual realities, when something lesser adheres to something greater—as a creature to the Creator—the former becomes greater than it was, not the latter. For in things that are not great by physical size, to be greater is to be better. And the spirit of any creature becomes better when it cleaves to the Creator than if it did not cleave to Him, and therefore it also becomes greater because it is better. Therefore, he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit, but the Lord does not become greater as a result, even though the one who is joined to the Lord does become greater. In God Himself, then, when the equal Son, or the Holy Spirit who is equal to the Father and the Son, is joined to the equal Father, God does not become greater than each of them individually, because that perfection cannot increase. Whether it is the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit, He is perfect, and God the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit is perfect; therefore He is a Trinity rather than triple.

Since, therefore, the Father alone, or the Son alone, or the Holy Spirit alone, is as great as is the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit together, in no manner is He to be called threefold. Forasmuch as bodies increase by union of themselves. For although he who cleaves to his wife is one body; yet it is a greater body than if it were that of the husband alone, or of the wife alone. But in spiritual things, when the less adheres to the greater, as the creature to the Creator, the former becomes greater than it was, not the latter. For in those things which are not great by bulk, to be greater is to be better. And the spirit of any creature becomes better, when it cleaves to the Creator, than if it did not so cleave; and therefore also greater because better. He, then, that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit: but yet the Lord does not therefore become greater, although he who is joined to the Lord does so. In God Himself, therefore when the equal Son, or the Holy Spirit equal to the Father and the Son, is joined to the equal Father, God does not become greater than each of them severally; because that perfectness cannot increase. But whether it be the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit, He is perfect, and God the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit is perfect; and therefore He is a Trinity rather than triple.

And since we are showing how we can say the Father alone, because there is no Father in the Godhead except Himself, we must also consider the opinion which holds that the only true God is not the Father alone, but the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. For if anyone should ask whether the Father alone is God, how can it be replied that He is not, unless perhaps we were to say that the Father indeed is God, but that He is not God alone, but that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are God alone? But then what shall we do with that testimony of the Lord? For He was speaking to the Father, and had named the Father as the one to whom He was speaking, when He says, "And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the one true God." And this the Arians indeed usually take as if the Son were not true God. Passing them by, however, we must see whether, when it is said to the Father, "That they may know You, the one true God," we are forced to understand it as if He wished to indicate that the Father alone is the true God; lest we should not understand anyone to be God, except the three together, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Are we therefore, from the testimony of the Lord, both to call the Father the one true God, and the Son the one true God, and the Holy Spirit the one true God, and the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit together, that is, the Trinity itself together, not three true Gods but one true God? Or because He added, "And Jesus Christ whom You have sent," are we to supply "the one true God"; so that the order of the words is this: "That they may know You, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent, the one true God"? Why then did He omit to mention the Holy Spirit? Is it because it follows that whenever we name One who is joined to One by a harmony so great that through this harmony both are one, this harmony itself must be understood, although it is not mentioned? For in that place, too, the apostle seems as if to pass over the Holy Spirit; and yet there, too, He is understood, where he says, "All are yours, and you are Christ's, and Christ is God's." And again, "The head of the woman is the man, the head of the man is Christ, and the head of Christ is God." But again, if God is only all three together, how can God be the head of Christ, that is, the Trinity the head of Christ, since Christ is in the Trinity in order that it may be the Trinity? Is that which is the Father with the Son the head of that which is the Son alone? For the Father with the Son is God, but the Son alone is Christ: especially since it is the Word already made flesh that speaks; and according to this His humiliation also, the Father is greater than He, as He says, "for my Father is greater than I"; so that the very being of God, which is one to Him with the Father, is itself the head of the man who is mediator, which He is alone. For if we rightly call the mind the chief thing of man, that is, as it were the head of the human substance, although the man himself together with the mind is man; why is not the Word with the Father, which together is God, much more suitably and much more the head of Christ, although Christ as man cannot be understood except with the Word which was made flesh? But this, as we have already said, we shall consider somewhat more carefully later. At present the equality and one and the same substance of the Trinity has been demonstrated as briefly as possible, that in whatever way that other question be determined, the more rigorous discussion of which we have deferred, nothing may prevent us from confessing the absolute equality of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

10. And since we are showing how we can say the Father alone, because there is no Father in the Godhead except Himself, we must consider also the opinion which holds that the only true God is not the Father alone, but the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. For if any one should ask whether the Father alone is God, how can it be replied that He is not, unless perhaps we were to say that the Father indeed is God, but that He is not God alone, but that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are God alone? But then what shall we do with that testimony of the Lord? For He was speaking to the Father, and had named the Father as Him to whom He was speaking, when He says, And this is life eternal, that they may know You the one true God. And this the Arians indeed usually take, as if the Son were not true God. Passing them by, however, we must see whether, when it is said to the Father, That they may know You the one true God, we are forced to understand it as if He wished to intimate that the Father alone is the true God; lest we should not understand any to be God, except the three together, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Are we therefore, from the testimony of the Lord, both to call the Father the one true God, and the Son the one true God, and the Holy Spirit the one true God, and the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit together, that is, the Trinity itself together, not three true Gods but one true God? Or because He added, And Jesus Christ whom You have sent, are we to supply the one true God; so that the order of the words is this, That they may know You, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent, the one true God? Why then did He omit to mention the Holy Spirit? Is it because it follows, that whenever we name One who cleaves to One by a harmony so great that through this harmony both are one, this harmony itself must be understood, although it is not mentioned? For in that place, too, the apostle seems as it were to pass over the Holy Spirit; and yet there, too, He is understood, where he says, All are yours, and you are Christ's, and Christ is God's. And again, The head of the woman is the man, the head of the man is Christ, and the head of Christ is God. But again, if God is only all three together, how can God be the head of Christ, that is, the Trinity the head of Christ, since Christ is in the Trinity in order that it may be the Trinity? Is that which is the Father with the Son, the head of that which is the Son alone? For the Father with the Son is God, but the Son alone is Christ: especially since it is the Word already made flesh that speaks; and according to this His humiliation also, the Father is greater than He, as He says, for my Father is greater than I; so that the very being of God, which is one to Him with the Father, is itself the head of the man who is mediator, which He is alone. For if we rightly call the mind the chief thing of man, that is, as it were the head of the human substance, although the man himself together with the mind is man; why is not the Word with the Father, which together is God, much more suitably and much more the head of Christ, although Christ as man cannot be understood except with the Word which was made flesh? But this, as we have already said, we shall consider somewhat more carefully hereafter. At present the equality and one and the same substance of the Trinity has been demonstrated as briefly as possible, that in whatever way that other question be determined, the more rigorous discussion of which we have deferred, nothing may hinder us from confessing the absolute equality of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

A certain writer, when he wanted to briefly indicate the special attributes of each of the persons in the Trinity, tells us that Eternity is in the Father, form in the Image, use in the Gift. Since he was a man of no small authority in handling the Scriptures and in asserting the faith—for it is Hilary who put this in his book On the Trinity, Book 2—I have searched into the hidden meaning of these words as far as I can: that is, of the Father, and the Image, and the Gift; of eternity, and of form, and of use. I do not think that he meant more by the word eternity than that the Father does not have a father from whom He comes; but the Son is from the Father, in such a way as to exist and to be co-eternal with Him. For if an image perfectly matches that of which it is the image, then the image is made equal to that of which it is the image, not the latter to its own image. And regarding this image he has named form, I believe on account of the quality of beauty, where there is at once such great fittingness, and supreme equality, and supreme likeness, differing in nothing, and unequal in no respect, and in no part unlike, but corresponding exactly to Him whose image it is: where there is supreme and absolute life, to whom it is not one thing to live and another to be, but the same thing to be and to live; and supreme and absolute intellect, to whom it is not one thing to live and another to understand, but to understand is to live, and is to be, and all things are one: like a perfect Word to which nothing is lacking, and a certain skill of the omnipotent and wise God, full of all living, unchangeable sciences, and all one in it, as it itself is one from one, with whom it is one. In it God knew all things which He made through it; and therefore, while times pass away and succeed one another, nothing passes away or succeeds in the knowledge of God. For created things are not known by God because they have been made; rather, they have been made, even though changeable, because they are known unchangeably by Him. Therefore that unspeakable union of the Father and His Image is not without enjoyment, without love, without joy. Therefore that love, delight, happiness, or blessedness—if indeed it can be worthily expressed by any human word—is called by him, in short, Use; and is the Holy Spirit in the Trinity, not begotten, but the sweetness of the begetter and of the begotten, filling all creatures according to their capacity with abundant bountifulness and copiousness, so that they may keep their proper order and rest satisfied in their proper place.

11. A certain writer, when he would briefly intimate the special attributes of each of the persons in the Trinity, tells us that Eternity is in the Father, form in the Image, use in the Gift. And since he was a man of no mean authority in handling the Scriptures, and in the assertion of the faith, for it is Hilary who put this in his book ( On the Trinity, ii.); I have searched into the hidden meaning of these words as far as I can, that is, of the Father, and the Image, and the Gift, of eternity, and of form, and of use. And I do not think that he intended more by the word eternity, than that the Father has not a father from whom He is; but the Son is from the Father, so as to be, and so as to be co-eternal with Him. For if an image perfectly fills the measure of that of which it is the image, then the image is made equal to that of which it is the image, not the latter to its own image. And in respect to this image he has named form, I believe in account of the quality of beauty, where there is at once such great fitness, and prime equality, and prime likeness, differing in nothing, and unequal in no respect, and in no part unlike, but answering exactly to Him whose image it is: where there is prime and absolute life, to whom it is not one thing to live, and another to be, but the same thing to be and to live; and prime and absolute intellect, to whom it is not one thing to live, another to understand, but to understand is to live, and is to be, and all things are one: as though a perfect Word, John 1:1 to which nothing is wanting, and a certain skill of the omnipotent and wise God, full of all living, unchangeable sciences, and all one in it, as itself is one from one, with whom it is one. Therein God knew all things which He made by it; and therefore, while times pass away and succeed, nothing passes away or succeeds to the knowledge of God. For things which are created are not therefore known by God, because they have been made; and not rather have been therefore made, even although changeable, because they are known unchangeably by Him. Therefore that unspeakable conjunction of the Father and His image is not without fruition, without love, without joy. Therefore that love, delight, felicity, or blessedness, if indeed it can be worthily expressed by any human word, is called by him, in short, Use; and is the Holy Spirit in the Trinity, not begotten, but the sweetness of the begetter and of the begotten, filling all creatures according to their capacity with abundant bountifulness and copiousness, that they may keep their proper order and rest satisfied in their proper place.

All these things that are made by divine skill show in themselves a certain unity, form, and order. Each of them is some one thing, such as the various natures of bodies and dispositions of souls. Each is fashioned in some form, such as the shapes or qualities of bodies and the different kinds of learning or skill in souls. Each seeks or preserves a certain order, such as the various weights or combinations of bodies and the loves or delights of souls. Therefore, when we contemplate the Creator, who is understood through the things that are made, we must necessarily understand the Trinity, of whom there appear traces in creation, as is fitting. For in that Trinity is the supreme source of all things, the most perfect beauty, and the most blessed delight. These three both seem to be mutually determined by each other and are in themselves infinite. But here in bodily things, one thing alone is not as much as three together, and two are something more than one. Yet in that highest Trinity, one is as much as the three together, and two are not anything more than one. And they are infinite in themselves. So each is in each, and all in each, and each in all, and all in all, and all are one. Let whoever sees this, whether in part or through a glass and in an enigma, rejoice in knowing God, and let him honor him as God and give thanks. But let whoever does not see it strive to see it through piety, not to attack it through blindness. Since God is one, but yet is a Trinity. We are neither to take the words "of whom, and through whom, and in whom are all things" as used without distinction, nor to denote many gods, for to him be glory forever and ever. Amen.

12. Therefore all these things which are made by divine skill, show in themselves a certain unity, and form, and order; for each of them is both some one thing, as are the several natures of bodies and dispositions of souls; and is fashioned in some form, as are the figures or qualities of bodies, and the various learning or skill of souls; and seeks or preserves a certain order, as are the several weights or combinations of bodies and the loves or delights of souls. When therefore we regard the Creator, who is understood by the things that are made we must needs understand the Trinity of whom there appear traces in the creature, as is fitting. For in that Trinity is the supreme source of all things, and the most perfect beauty, and the most blessed delight. Those three, therefore, both seem to be mutually determined to each other, and are in themselves infinite. But here in corporeal things, one thing alone is not as much as three together, and two are something more than one; but in that highest Trinity one is as much as the three together, nor are two anything more than one. And They are infinite in themselves. So both each are in each, and all in each, and each in all, and all in all, and all are one. Let him who sees this, whether in part, or through a glass and in an enigma, rejoice in knowing God; and let him honor Him as God, and give thanks; but let him who does not see it, strive to see it through piety, not to cavil at it through blindness. Since God is one, but yet is a Trinity. Neither are we to take the words, of whom, and through whom, and to whom are all things, as used indiscriminately [ i.e., to denote a unity without distinctions]; nor yet to denote many gods, for to Him, be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Beginning now to speak of subjects that cannot be fully expressed in words as they are conceived in thought—either by anyone, or at least not by me—I recognize that even our very thought, when we think of God the Trinity, falls far short (as we ourselves feel) of Him of whom we think, and does not comprehend Him as He is. Rather, He is seen, as it is written, even by those as great as the Apostle Paul was, through a glass and in an enigma. First, I pray to our Lord God Himself, of whom we ought always to think and of whom we are unable to think worthily, to whom blessing is to be rendered at all times in praise, and whom no speech is sufficient to declare, that He will grant me both help for understanding and explaining what I intend to address, and pardon if I offend in anything. For I am mindful not only of my desire but also of my weakness. I also ask my readers to pardon me where they perceive that I have had the desire rather than the ability to express what they either understand better themselves or fail to understand because of the obscurity of my language, just as I myself pardon them for what they cannot understand because of their own dullness.

1. Beginning, as I now do henceforward, to speak of subjects which cannot altogether be spoken as they are thought, either by any man, or, at any rate, not by myself; although even our very thought, when we think of God the Trinity, falls (as we feel) very far short of Him of whom we think, nor comprehends Him as He is; but He is seen, as it is written, even by those who are so great as was the Apostle Paul, through a glass and in an enigma: first, I pray to our Lord God Himself, of whom we ought always to think, and of whom we are not able to think worthily, in praise of whom blessing is at all times to be rendered, and whom no speech is sufficient to declare, that He will grant me both help for understanding and explaining that which I design, and pardon if in anything I offend. For I bear in mind, not only my desire, but also my infirmity. I ask also of my readers to pardon me, where they may perceive me to have had the desire rather than the power to speak, what they either understand better themselves, or fail to understand through the obscurity of my language, just as I myself pardon them what they cannot understand through their own dullness.

We will forgive one another more easily if we know, or at least firmly believe and hold, that whatever is said about a nature that is unchangeable, invisible, and possesses life absolutely and sufficiently in itself must not be measured according to the standard of things that are visible, changeable, mortal, or dependent on something else. Although we struggle and yet fail to grasp and know even those things that fall within the range of our bodily senses, or what we ourselves are in our inner being, still faithful piety pursues those divine and inexpressible things which are above us—and this is not shameless. I speak of a piety that is not puffed up by arrogance in its own power, but set aflame by the grace of our Creator and Savior himself. For with what understanding can a person comprehend God when he does not yet comprehend that very understanding of his own by which he wants to comprehend Him? And if he does already comprehend this, let him carefully consider that there is nothing better in his own nature than it. Let him see whether he can detect there any outlines of shapes, or brightness of colors, or greatness of space, or distance between parts, or extension of size, or any movements through intervals of place, or anything at all like this. Certainly we find none of this in that which is the best thing in our nature—that is, in our own intellect, by which we grasp wisdom according to our capacity. Therefore, what we do not find in our own best part, we should not seek in Him who is far better than the best thing in us. In this way we may understand God, if we are able and as much as we are able, as good without quality, great without quantity, a creator though lacking nothing, ruling but not from any position, sustaining all things without possessing them, present in His wholeness everywhere yet without place, eternal without time, making things that are changeable without any change in Himself, and without passion. Whoever thinks of God in this way, although he cannot yet discover in every respect what He is, nevertheless piously takes care, as much as he is able, to think nothing of Him that He is not.

2. And we shall mutually pardon one another the more easily, if we know, or at any rate firmly believe and hold, that whatever is said of a nature, unchangeable, invisible and having life absolutely and sufficient to itself, must not be measured after the custom of things visible, and changeable, and mortal, or not self-sufficient. But although we labor, and yet fail, to grasp and know even those things which are within the scope of our corporeal senses, or what we are ourselves in the inner man; yet it is with no shamelessness that faithful piety burns after those divine and unspeakable things which are above: piety, I say, not inflated by the arrogance of its own power, but inflamed by the grace of its Creator and Saviour Himself. For with what understanding can man apprehend God, who does not yet apprehend that very understanding itself of his own, by which he desires to apprehend Him? And if he does already apprehend this, let him carefully consider that there is nothing in his own nature better than it; and let him see whether he can there see any outlines of forms, or brightness of colors, or greatness of space, or distance of parts, or extension of size, or any movements through intervals of place, or any such thing at all. Certainly we find nothing of all this in that, than which we find nothing better in our own nature, that is, in our own intellect, by which we apprehend wisdom according to our capacity. What, therefore, we do not find in that which is our own best, we ought not to seek in Him who is far better than that best of ours; that so we may understand God, if we are able, and as much as we are able, as good without quality, great without quantity, a creator though He lack nothing, ruling but from no position, sustaining all things without having them, in His wholeness everywhere, yet without place, eternal without time, making things that are changeable, without change of Himself, and without passion. Whoever thus thinks of God, although he cannot yet find out in all ways what He is, yet piously takes heed, as much as he is able, to think nothing of Him that He is not.

He is, without doubt, a substance, or if it's better to call it this way, an essence, which the Greeks call ousia. For just as wisdom is so called from being wise, and knowledge from knowing, so from being comes what we call essence. And who exists more than He who said to His servant Moses, "I am that I am," and "Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, 'He who is has sent me to you'"? But other things that are called essences or substances can have accidents happen to them, which produce a change in them, whether great or small. But no accident of this kind can happen to God, and therefore He who is God is the only unchangeable substance or essence. To Him, being itself—from which comes the name essence—most especially and most truly belongs. For what is changed does not keep its own being, and what can be changed, even if it is not actually changed, is able not to be what it had been. Therefore, that which not only is not changed but also cannot be changed at all is alone what most truly, without difficulty or hesitation, falls under the category of being.

3. He is, however, without doubt, a substance, or, if it be better so to call it, an essence, which the Greeks call οὐσία. For as wisdom is so called from the being wise, and knowledge from knowing; so from being comes that which we call essence. And who is there that is, more than He who said to His servant Moses, I am that I am; and, Thus shall you say unto the children of Israel, He who is has sent me unto you? But other things that are called essences or substances admit of accidents, whereby a change, whether great or small, is produced in them. But there can be no accident of this kind in respect to God; and therefore He who is God is the only unchangeable substance or essence, to whom certainly being itself, whence comes the name of essence, most especially and most truly belongs. For that which is changed does not retain its own being; and that which can be changed, although it be not actually changed, is able not to be that which it had been; and hence that which not only is not changed, but also cannot at all be changed, alone falls most truly, without difficulty or hesitation, under the category of being.

When it comes to responding to those who oppose our faith—concerning matters that are neither expressed as they are conceived nor conceived as they really are—among the many arguments that the Arians typically raise against the Catholic faith, they seem to put forward this as their most cunning strategy: whatever is said or understood about God is said not according to accident but according to ousia, and therefore being unbegotten belongs to the Father according to ousia, and being begotten belongs to the Son according to ousia; but being unbegotten and being begotten are different; therefore the ousia of the Father and that of the Son are different. To them we reply: If whatever is spoken of God is spoken according to ousia, then what is said—"I and the Father are one"—is spoken according to ousia. Therefore there is one ousia of the Father and the Son. Or if this is not said according to ousia, then something is said of God not according to ousia, and therefore we are no longer forced to understand unbegotten and begotten according to ousia. It is also said of the Son, "He thought it not robbery to be equal with God." We ask, equal according to what? For if He is not said to be equal according to ousia, then they admit that something can be said of God not according to ousia. Let them admit, then, that unbegotten and begotten are not spoken according to ousia. And if they do not admit this, insisting that all things must be spoken of God according to ousia, then the Son is equal to the Father according to ousia.

4. Wherefore — to being now to answer the adversaries of our faith, respecting those things also, which are neither said as they are thought, nor thought as they really are:– among the many things which the Arians are wont to dispute against the Catholic faith, they seem chiefly to set forth this, as their most crafty device, namely, that whatsoever is said or understood of God, is said not according to accident, but according to substance, and therefore, to be unbegotten belongs to the Father according to substance, and to be begotten belongs to the Son according to substance; but to be unbegotten and to be begotten are different; therefore the substance of the Father and that of the Son are different. To whom we reply, If whatever is spoken of God is spoken according to substance, then that which is said, I and the Father are one, is spoken according to substance. Therefore there is one substance of the Father and the Son. Or if this is not said according to substance, then something is said of God not according to substance, and therefore we are no longer compelled to understand unbegotten and begotten according to substance. It is also said of the Son, He thought it not robbery to be equal with God. We ask, equal according to what? For if He is not said to be equal according to substance, then they admit that something may be said of God not according to substance. Let them admit, then, that unbegotten and begotten are not spoken according to substance. And if they do not admit this, on the ground that they will have all things to be spoken of God according to substance, then the Son is equal to the Father according to substance.

What is accidental commonly implies that it can be lost through some change in the thing to which it is an accident. For although some accidents are said to be inseparable, which in Greek are called ἀχώριστα, like the black color of a raven's feather, still the feather loses that color—not while it remains a feather, but because the feather does not last forever. Therefore the matter itself is changeable, and whenever that animal or that feather ceases to exist and the whole body is changed and turned into earth, it certainly loses that color as well. Even the kind of accident called separable can likewise be lost, not by separation but by change. For instance, blackness is called a separable accident in human hair because hair can turn white while remaining hair. Yet if we examine it carefully, it is clear enough that nothing actually departs from the head by separation when it turns white, as if blackness left and went somewhere while whiteness came to take its place. Rather, the quality of color there is turned and changed. Therefore there is nothing accidental in God, because there is nothing changeable or that can be lost in Him. But even if you want to call something accidental that, although it cannot be lost, can still be decreased or increased—for instance, the life of the soul, since as long as it is a soul it lives, and because the soul is always, it always lives; but because it lives more when it is wise and less when it is foolish, here too some change occurs, not such that life is absent as wisdom is absent to the foolish, but such that it is less—nothing of this kind happens to God either, because He remains altogether unchangeable.

5. That which is accidental commonly implies that it can be lost by some change of the thing to which it is an accident. For although some accidents are said to be inseparable, which in Greek are called ἀχώριστα, as the color black is to the feather of a raven; yet the feather loses that color, not indeed so long as it is a feather, but because the feather is not always. Wherefore the matter itself is changeable; and whenever that animal or that feather ceases to be, and the whole of that body is changed and turned into earth, it loses certainly that color also. Although the kind of accident which is called separable may likewise be lost, not by separation, but by change; as, for instance, blackness is called a separable accident to the hair of men, because hair continuing to be hair can grow white; yet, if carefully considered, it is sufficiently apparent, that it is not as if anything departed by separation away from the head when it grows white, as though blackness departed thence and went somewhere and whiteness came in its place, but that the quality of color there is turned and changed. Therefore there is nothing accidental in God, because there is nothing changeable or that may be lost. But if you choose to call that also accidental, which, although it may not be lost, yet can be decreased or increased — as, for instance, the life of the soul: for as long as it is a soul, so long it lives, and because the soul is always, it always lives; but because it lives more when it is wise, and less when it is foolish, here, too, some change comes to pass, not such that life is absent, as wisdom is absent to the foolish, but such that it is less — nothing of this kind, either, happens to God, because He remains altogether unchangeable.

Therefore, nothing is spoken of God in terms of accident, since nothing accidental applies to Him. Yet not everything said of Him is said according to substance. In created and changeable things, whatever is not said according to substance must necessarily be said according to accident. All things are accidents to them which can be lost or diminished, whether sizes or qualities, and likewise what is said in relation to something, such as friendships, kinships, services, similarities, equalities, and anything else of this kind, as well as positions and conditions, places and times, actions and passions. But in God nothing is said according to accident, because nothing in Him is changeable. Yet not everything said of Him is said according to substance. For some things are said in relation to something else, as the Father in relation to the Son and the Son in relation to the Father, which is not accident. Both the one is always Father and the other is always Son. This does not mean always from the time when the Son was born (natus), as though the Father stops being Father because the Son never stops being Son, but because the Son was always born and never began to be the Son. If He had begun to be at any time, or were at any time to cease to be the Son, then He would be called Son according to accident. But if the Father, insofar as He is called Father, were so called in relation to Himself and not to the Son, and the Son, insofar as He is called Son, were so called in relation to Himself and not to the Father, then both would be called Father and Son according to substance. But because the Father is not called Father except in that He has a Son, and the Son is not called Son except in that He has a Father, these things are not said according to substance. Each is not so called in relation to Himself, but the terms are used reciprocally and in relation to each other. Nor are they said according to accident, because both being called the Father and being called the Son is eternal and unchangeable for them. Therefore, although being the Father and being the Son is different, their substance is not different, because they are so called not according to substance but according to relation, which relation, however, is not accident, because it is not changeable.

6. Wherefore nothing in Him is said in respect to accident, since nothing is accidental to Him, and yet all that is said is not said according to substance. For in created and changeable things, that which is not said according to substance, must, by necessary alternative, be said according to accident. For all things are accidents to them, which can be either lost or diminished, whether magnitudes or qualities; and so also is that which is said in relation to something, as friendships, relationships, services, likenesses, equalities, and anything else of the kind; so also positions and conditions, places and times, acts and passions. But in God nothing is said to be according to accident, because in Him nothing is changeable; and yet everything that is said, is not said, according to substance. For it is said in relation to something, as the Father in relation to the Son and the Son in relation to the Father, which is not accident; because both the one is always Father, and the other is always Son: yet not always, meaning from the time when the Son was born [ natus], so that the Father ceases not to be the Father because the Son never ceases to be the Son, but because the Son was always born, and never began to be the Son. But if He had begun to be at any time, or were at any time to cease to be, the Son, then He would be called Son according to accident. But if the Father, in that He is called the Father, were so called in relation to Himself, not to the Son; and the Son, in that He is called the Son, were so called in relation to Himself, not to the Father; then both the one would be called Father, and the other Son, according to substance. But because the Father is not called the Father except in that He has a Son, and the Son is not called Son except in that He has a Father, these things are not said according to substance; because each of them is not so called in relation to Himself, but the terms are used reciprocally and in relation each to the other; nor yet according to accident, because both the being called the Father, and the being called the Son, is eternal and unchangeable to them. Wherefore, although to be the Father and to be the Son is different, yet their substance is not different; because they are so called, not according to substance, but according to relation, which relation, however, is not accident, because it is not changeable.

But if they think they can answer this argument by saying that the Father is indeed called Father in relation to the Son, and the Son is called Son in relation to the Father, but that they are called unbegotten and begotten in relation to themselves, not in relation to each other—since calling Him unbegotten is not the same as calling Him the Father, because there would be nothing to prevent us from calling Him unbegotten even if He had not begotten the Son; and if someone begets a son, he is not therefore himself unbegotten, for men who are begotten by other men also beget others themselves; and therefore they say the Father is called Father in relation to the Son, and the Son is called Son in relation to the Father, but unbegotten is said in relation to Himself, and begotten in relation to Himself; and therefore, if whatever is said in relation to oneself is said according to ousia, while being unbegotten and being begotten are different, then the ousia is different—if this is what they say, then they do not understand that while they do say something that requires more careful discussion regarding the term unbegotten, because no one is a father simply because he is unbegotten, nor unbegotten simply because he is a father, and for that reason he is supposed to be called unbegotten not in relation to anything else but in respect to himself; yet on the other hand, with remarkable blindness, they do not see that no one can be said to be begotten except in relation to something. For he is a son because he is begotten; and because he is a son, he is certainly begotten. And as the relation of son to father is, so is the relation of the begotten to the begetter; and as the relation of father to son is, so is the relation of the begetter to the begotten. And therefore anyone is understood to be a begetter under one concept, but understood to be unbegotten under another. For though both are said of God the Father, the former is said in relation to the begotten, that is to the Son, which indeed they do not deny; but that He is called unbegotten, they declare to be said in respect to Himself. They say then, if anything is said to be a father in respect to itself which cannot be said to be a son in respect to itself, and whatever is said in respect to self is said according to ousia; and He is said to be unbegotten in respect to Himself, which the Son cannot be said to be; therefore He is said to be unbegotten according to ousia; and because the Son cannot be so said to be, therefore He is not of the same ousia. This clever argument must be answered by forcing them to say themselves according to what the Son is equal to the Father; whether according to that which is said in relation to Himself, or according to that which is said in relation to the Father. For it is not according to that which is said in relation to the Father, since in relation to the Father He is said to be Son, and the Father is not Son, but Father. Since Father and Son are not called these things in relation to each other in the same way as friends and neighbors are; for a friend is so called in relation to his friend, and if they love each other equally, then the same friendship is in both; and a neighbor is so called in relation to a neighbor, and because they are equally neighbors to each other (for each is neighbor to the other to the same degree as the other is neighbor to him), there is the same neighborhood in both. But because the Son is not called Son in relation to the Son, but to the Father, it is not according to that which is said in relation to the Father that the Son is equal to the Father; and it remains that He is equal according to that which is said in relation to Himself. But whatever is said in relation to self is said according to ousia: it remains therefore that He is equal according to ousia; therefore the ousia of both is the same. But when the Father is said to be unbegotten, it is not said what He is, but what He is not; and when a relative term is denied, it is not denied according to ousia, since the relative itself is not affirmed according to ousia.

7. But if they think they can answer this reasoning thus — that the Father indeed is so called in relation to the Son, and the Son in relation to the Father, but that they are said to be unbegotten and begotten in relation to themselves, not in relation each to the other; for that it is not the same thing to call Him unbegotten as it is to call Him the Father, because there would be nothing to hinder our calling Him unbegotten even if He had not begotten the Son; and if any one beget a son, he is not therefore himself unbegotten, for men, who are begotten by other men, themselves also beget others; and therefore they say the Father is called Father in relation to the Son, and the Son is called Son in relation to the Father, but unbegotten is said in relation to Himself, and begotten in relation to Himself; and therefore, if whatever is said in relation to oneself is said according to substance, while to be unbegotten and to be begotten are different, then the substance is different:– if this is what they say, then they do not understand that they do indeed say something that requires more careful discussion in respect to the term unbegotten, because neither is any one therefore a father because unbegotten, nor therefore unbegotten because he is a father, and on that account he is supposed to be called unbegotten, not in relation to anything else, but in respect to himself; but, on the other hand, with a wonderful blindness, they do not perceive that no one can be said to be begotten except in relation to something. For he is therefore a son because begotten; and because a son, therefore certainly begotten. And as is the relation of son to father, so is the relation of the begotten to the begetter; and as is the relation of father to son, so is the relation of the begetter to the begotten. And therefore any one is understood to be a begetter under one notion, but understood to be unbegotten under another. For though both are said of God the Father, yet the former is said in relation to the begotten, that is to the Son, which, indeed, they do not deny; but that He is called unbegotten, they declare to be said in respect to Himself. They say then, If anything is said to be a father in respect to itself, which cannot be said to be a son in respect to itself, and whatever is said in respect to self is said according to substance; and He is said to be unbegotten in respect to Himself, which the Son cannot be said to be; therefore He is said to be unbegotten according to substance; and because the Son cannot be so said to be, therefore He is not of the same substance. This subtlety is to be answered by compelling them to say themselves according to what it is that the Son is equal to the Father; whether according to that which is said in relation to Himself, or according to that which is said in relation to the Father. For it is not according to that which is said in relation to the Father, since in relation to the Father He is said to be Son, and the Father is not Son, but Father. Since Father and Son are not so called in relation to each other in the same way as friends and neighbors are; for a friend is so called relatively to his friend, and if they love each other equally, then the same friendship is in both; and a neighbor is so called relatively to a neighbor, and because they are equally neighbors to each other (for each is neighbor to the other, in the same degree as the other is neighbor to him), there is the same neighborhood in both. But because the Son is not so called relatively to the Son, but to the Father, it is not according to that which is said in relation to the Father that the Son is equal to the Father; and it remains that He is equal according to that which is said in relation to Himself. But whatever is said in relation to self is said according to substance: it remains therefore that He is equal according to substance; therefore the substance of both is the same. But when the Father is said to be unbegotten, it is not said what He is, but what He is not; and when a relative term is denied, it is not denied according to substance, since the relative itself is not affirmed according to substance.

This needs to be made clear with examples. First, we must notice that the word "begotten" signifies the same thing as the word "son." A son is such because he is begotten, and because he is a son, he is certainly begotten. Therefore, the word "unbegotten" declares that he is not a son. Both "begotten" and "unbegotten" are properly used terms, whereas in Latin we can use the word filius but cannot speak of infilius. However, it makes no difference in meaning if he is called non filius, just as it is the same thing if he is called non genitus instead of ingenitus. Both "neighbor" and "friend" are used relatively, yet we cannot speak of invicinus as we can of inimicus. Therefore, in speaking of this or that, we must not consider what our own language allows or does not allow, but what clearly appears to be the meaning of the things themselves. Let us no longer call it unbegotten, although it can be so called in Latin, but instead let us call it "not begotten," which means the same thing. Is this anything other than saying he is not a son? The addition of a negative particle does not make something that was said relatively now be said according to substance. It only denies what was affirmed without it, as in the other predicaments. When we say "he is a man," we denote substance. Anyone who says "he is not a man" speaks in no other kind of predicament but only denies that. Just as I affirm according to substance by saying "he is a man," so I deny according to substance by saying "he is not a man." When asked "how large is he?" and I say "he is quadrupedal," that is, four feet in measure, I affirm according to quantity, and whoever says "he is not quadrupedal" denies according to quantity. I say "he is white," I affirm according to quality; if I say "he is not white," I deny according to quality. I say "he is near," I affirm according to relation; if I say "he is not near," I deny according to relation. I affirm according to position when I say "he lies down"; I deny according to position when I say "he does not lie down." I speak according to condition when I say "he is armed"; I deny according to condition when I say "he is not armed," and it comes to the same thing as if I said "he is unarmed." I affirm according to time when I say "he is of yesterday"; I deny according to time when I say "he is not of yesterday." When I say "he is at Rome," I affirm according to place, and I deny according to place when I say "he is not at Rome." I affirm according to the predicament of action when I say "he smites," but if I say "he does not smite," I deny according to action, declaring that he does not so act. When I say "he is smitten," I affirm according to the predicament of passion, and I deny according to the same when I say "he is not smitten." In short, there is no kind of predicament by which we may affirm anything without being proved to deny according to the same predicament if we add a negative particle. Since this is so, if I affirm according to substance by saying "son," I should deny according to substance by saying "not son." But because I affirm relatively when I say "he is a son"—for I refer to the father—I therefore deny relatively if I say "he is not a son," for I refer the same negation to the father in that I wish to declare he has no parent. But if being called "son" is precisely equivalent to being called "begotten" (as we said before), then being called "not begotten" is precisely equivalent to being called "not son." But we deny relatively when we say "he is not son," therefore we deny relatively when we say "he is not begotten." Furthermore, what is "unbegotten" unless "not begotten"? We do not escape, therefore, from the relative predicament when he is called unbegotten. For just as "begotten" is not said in relation to self but in that he is of a begetter, so when one is called unbegotten, he is not so called in relation to himself, but it is declared that he is not of a begetter. Both meanings, however, turn upon the same predicament, which is called that of relation. But what is asserted relatively does not denote substance, and accordingly, although "begotten" and "unbegotten" are diverse, they do not denote a different substance, because, just as "son" is referred to "father" and "not son" to "not father," so it follows inevitably that "begotten" must be referred to "begetter" and "not-begotten" to "not-begetter."

8. This is to be made clear by examples. And first we must notice, that by the word begotten is signified the same thing as is signified by the word son. For therefore a son, because begotten, and because a son, therefore certainly begotten. By the word unbegotten, therefore, it is declared that he is not son. But begotten and unbegotten are both of them terms suitably employed; whereas in Latin we can use the word filius, but the custom of the language does not allow us to speak of infilius. It makes no difference, however, in the meaning if he is called non filius; just as it is precisely the same thing if he is called non genitus, instead of ingenitus. For so the terms of both neighbor and friend are used relatively, yet we cannot speak of invicinus as we can of inimicus. Wherefore, in speaking of this thing or that, we must not consider what the usage of our own language either allows or does not allow, but what clearly appears to be the meaning of the things themselves. Let us not therefore any longer call it unbegotten, although it can be so called in Latin; but instead of this let us call it not begotten, which means the same. Is this then anything else than saying that he is not a son? Now the prefixing of that negative particle does not make that to be said according to substance, which, without it, is said relatively; but that only is denied, which, without it, was affirmed, as in the other predicaments. When we say he is a man, we denote substance. He therefore who says he is not a man, enunciates no other kind of predicament, but only denies that. As therefore I affirm according to substance in saying he is a man, so I deny according to substance in saying he is not a man. And when the question is asked how large he is? And I say he is quadrupedal, that is, four feet in measure, I affirm according to quantity, and he who says he is not quadrupedal, denies according to quantity. I say he is white, I affirm according to quality; if I say he is not white, I deny according to quality. I say he is near, I affirm according to relation; if I say he is not near, I deny according to relation. I affirm according to position, when I say he lies down; I deny according to position, when I say he does not lie down. I speak according to condition, when I say he is armed; I deny according to condition, when I say he is not armed; and it comes to the same thing as if I should say he is unarmed. I affirm according to time, when I say he is of yesterday; I deny according to time, when I say he is not of yesterday. And when I say he is at Rome, I affirm according to place; and I deny according to place, when I say he is not at Rome. I affirm according to the predicament of action, when I say he smites; but if I say he does not smite, I deny according to action, so as to declare that he does not so act. And when I say he is smitten, I affirm according to the predicament of passion; and I deny according to the same, when I say he is not smitten. And, in a word, there is no kind of predicament according to which we may please to affirm anything, without being proved to deny according to the same predicament, if we prefix the negative particle. And since this is so, if I were to affirm according to substance, in saying son, I should deny according to substance, in saying not son. But because I affirm relatively when I say he is a son, for I refer to the father; therefore I deny relatively if I say he is not a son, for I refer the same negation to the father, in that I wish to declare that he has not a parent. But if to be called son is precisely equivalent to the being called begotten (as we said before), then to be called not begotten is precisely equivalent to the being called not son. But we deny relatively when we say he is not son, therefore we deny relatively when we say he is not begotten. Further, what is unbegotten, unless not begotten? We do not escape, therefore, from the relative predicament, when he is called unbegotten. For as begotten is not said in relation to self, but in that he is of a begetter; so when one is called unbegotten, he is not so called in relation to himself, but it is declared that he is not of a begetter. Both meanings, however, turn upon the same predicament, which is called that of relation. But that which is asserted relatively does not denote substance, and accordingly, although begotten and unbegotten are diverse, they do not denote a different substance; because, as son is referred to father, and not son to not father, so it follows inevitably that begotten must be referred to begetter, and not-begotten to not-begetter.

Therefore, let us hold this above all: whatever is said of that most excellent and divine majesty with respect to itself is said with respect to substance, but what is said in relation to something else is not said with respect to substance, but relatively. And the result of having the same substance in the Father and Son and Holy Spirit is that whatever is said of each of them with respect to themselves should be understood not in the plural collectively, but in the singular. For just as the Father is God, and the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God—which no one doubts is said with respect to substance—yet we do not say that the Supreme Trinity itself is three Gods, but one God. Similarly, the Father is great, the Son is great, and the Holy Spirit is great; yet not three greats, but one great. For it is not written of the Father alone, as they wrongly think, but of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit: "You are great; You are God alone." And the Father is good, the Son is good, and the Holy Spirit is good; yet not three goods, but one good, of whom it is said, "None is good, except one, that is, God." For when the Lord Jesus was addressed as a man—"Good Master"—by someone who seemed to understand Him only as a man, He does not therefore say, "There is none good, except the Father alone," but "None is good, except one, that is, God." For the Father by Himself is identified by the name Father, but by the name God, both He Himself and the Son and the Holy Spirit, because the Trinity is one God. But position, condition, places, and times are not properly said of God, but metaphorically and through comparisons. For He is said to dwell between the cherubim, which is spoken regarding position; and to be covered with the deep as with a garment, which is said regarding condition; and "Your years shall have no end," which is said regarding time; and "If I ascend up into heaven, You are there," which is said regarding place. And as for action or making, perhaps it may be said most truly of God alone, for God alone makes and is Himself not made. Nor is He subject to passions as far as that substance by which He is God is concerned. So the Father is omnipotent, the Son is omnipotent, and the Holy Spirit is omnipotent; yet not three omnipotents, but one omnipotent: "For of Him are all things, and through Him are all things, and in Him are all things; to whom be glory." Whatever, therefore, is spoken of God with respect to Himself is spoken individually of each person—that is, of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit—and together of the Trinity itself, not in the plural but in the singular. For since in God it is not one thing to exist and another thing to be great, but for Him it is the same thing to exist as it is to be great, therefore, just as we do not say three essences, so we do not say three greatnesses, but one essence and one greatness. I say essence, which in Greek is called ousia, and which we more commonly call substance.

9. Wherefore let us hold this above all, that whatsoever is said of that most eminent and divine loftiness in respect to itself, is said in respect to substance, but that which is said in relation to anything, is not said in respect to substance, but relatively; and that the effect of the same substance in Father and Son and Holy Spirit is, that whatsoever is said of each in respect to themselves, is to be taken of them, not in the plural in sum, but in the singular. For as the Father is God, and the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, which no one doubts to be said in respect to substance, yet we do not say that the very Supreme Trinity itself is three Gods, but one God. So the Father is great, the Son great, and the Holy Spirit great; yet not three greats, but one great. For it is not written of the Father alone, as they perversely suppose, but of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, You are great: You are God alone. And the Father is good, the Son good, and the Holy Spirit good; yet not three goods, but one good, of whom it is said, None is good, save one, that is, God. For the Lord Jesus, lest He should be understood as man only by him who said, Good Master, as addressing a man, does not therefore say, There is none good, save the Father alone; but, None is good, save one, that is, God. For the Father by Himself is declared by the name of Father; but by the name of God, both Himself and the Son and the Holy Spirit, because the Trinity is one God. But position, and condition, and places, and times, are not said to be in God properly, but metaphorically and through similitudes. For He is both said to dwell between the cherubims, which is spoken in respect to position; and to be covered with the deep as with a garment, which is said in respect to condition; and Your years shall have no end, which is said in respect of time; and, If I ascend up into heaven, You are there, which is said in respect to place. And as respects action (or making), perhaps it may be said most truly of God alone, for God alone makes and Himself is not made. Nor is He liable to passions as far as belongs to that substance whereby He is God. So the Father is omnipotent, the Son omnipotent, and the Holy Spirit is omnipotent; yet not three omnipotents, but one omnipotent: For of Him are all things, and through Him are all things, and in Him are all things; to whom be glory. Whatever, therefore, is spoken of God in respect to Himself, is both spoken singly of each person, that is, of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit; and together of the Trinity itself, not plurally but in the singular. For inasmuch as to God it is not one thing to be, and another thing to be great, but to Him it is the same thing to be, as it is to be great; therefore, as we do not say three essences, so we do not say three greatnesses, but one essence and one greatness. I say essence, which in Greek is called οὐσία, and which we call more usually substance.

They also use the word hypostasis, but they intend to make some kind of distinction between ousia and hypostasis. As a result, most of our theologians who write about these matters in the Greek language are accustomed to say mian ousian, treis hypostaseis, or in Latin, one essence, three substances.

10. They indeed use also the word hypostasis; but they intend to put a difference, I know not what, between οὐσία and hypostasis: so that most of ourselves who treat these things in the Greek language, are accustomed to say, μίαν οὐσίαν, τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις or in Latin, one essence, three substances.

But because we have already adopted the practice of understanding the same thing by essence that we understand by substance, we do not dare to say one essence and three substances, but rather one essence or substance and three persons. This is how many authoritative Latin writers who discuss these matters have expressed it, since they could not find any other more suitable way to put into words what they understood beyond words. For truly, since the Father is not the Son, and the Son is not the Father, and the Holy Spirit who is also called the gift of God is neither the Father nor the Son, they are certainly three. And so it is said in the plural, "I and my Father are one." For He did not say "is one," as the Sabellians claim, but "are one." Yet when the question is asked, "What three?" human language struggles with great poverty of expression. The answer, however, is given: three persons—not because this fully expresses it, but so that it might not be left completely unexpressed.

But because with us the usage has already obtained, that by essence we understand the same thing which is understood by substance; we do not dare to say one essence, three substances, but one essence or substance and three persons: as many writers in Latin, who treat of these things, and are of authority, have said, in that they could not find any other more suitable way by which to enunciate in words that which they understood without words. For, in truth, as the Father is not the Son, and the Son is not the Father, and that Holy Spirit who is also called the gift of God is neither the Father nor the Son, certainly they are three. And so it is said plurally, I and my Father are one. For He has not said, is one, as the Sabellians say; but, are one. Yet, when the question is asked, What three? human language labors altogether under great poverty of speech. The answer, however, is given, three persons, not that it might be [completely] spoken, but that it might not be left [wholly] unspoken.

Just as we do not speak of three essences, we also do not speak of three greatnesses or three who are great. In things that are great by participating in greatness—where being and being great are not the same thing, such as a great house, a great mountain, and a great mind—greatness is one thing and what is great because of greatness is another. A great house is certainly not absolute greatness itself. Rather, absolute greatness is that by which not only a great house is great and any great mountain is great, but also by which every other thing whatsoever that is called great is great. So greatness itself is one thing, and the things that are called great from it are another. And this greatness is certainly great primarily and in a much more excellent way than those things that are great by participating in it. But God is not great with a greatness that is not Himself, so that God in being great would be, as it were, a participant in that greatness—otherwise that greatness would be greater than God, whereas nothing is greater than God. Therefore, He is great with that greatness by which He Himself is that same greatness. And so, just as we do not say three essences, neither do we say three greatnesses, for it is the same thing for God to be and to be great. For the same reason we do not say three greats, but one who is great, since God is not great by participating in greatness but is great by Himself being great, because He Himself is His own greatness. The same should be said also of the goodness, the eternity, and the omnipotence of God, and in short, of all the predicates that can be predicated of God as He is spoken of in respect to Himself—not metaphorically and by similitude, but properly, if indeed anything can be spoken of Him properly by the mouth of man.

11. As, therefore, we do not say three essences, so we do not say three greatnesses, or three who are great. For in things which are great by partaking of greatness, to which it is one thing to be, and another to be great, as a great house, and a great mountain, and a great mind; in these things, I say, greatness is one thing, and that which is great because of greatness is another, and a great house, certainly, is not absolute greatness itself. But that is absolute greatness by which not only a great house is great, and any great mountain is great, but also by which every other thing whatsoever is great, which is called great; so that greatness itself is one thing, and those things are another which are called great from it. And this greatness certainly is primarily great, and in a much more excellent way than those things which are great by partaking of it. But since God is not great with that greatness which is not Himself, so that God, in being great, is, as it were, partaker of that greatness — otherwise that will be a greatness greater than God, whereas there is nothing greater than God; therefore, He is great with that greatness by which He Himself is that same greatness. And, therefore, as we do not say three essences, so neither do we say three greatnesses; for it is the same thing to God to be, and to be great. For the same reason neither do we say three greats, but one who is great; since God is not great by partaking of greatness, but He is great by Himself being great, because He Himself is His own greatness. Let the same be said also of the goodness, and of the eternity, and of the omnipotence of God, and, in short, of all the predicaments which can be predicated of God, as He is spoken of in respect to Himself, not metaphorically and by similitude, but properly, if indeed anything can be spoken of Him properly, by the mouth of man.

However, within this same Trinity, when certain things are specially predicated of each person individually, these are not said in reference to themselves but either in mutual reference to one another or in relation to the creature. Therefore, it is clear that such things are spoken relatively, not according to substance. The Trinity is called one God, great, good, eternal, omnipotent, and this same God can be called His own deity, His own magnitude, His own goodness, His own eternity, His own omnipotence. But the Trinity cannot in the same way be called the Father, except perhaps metaphorically in relation to the creature because of the adoption of sons. For what is written, "Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord," certainly should not be understood as excluding the Son or excluding the Holy Spirit. This one Lord our God we rightly call also our Father, as He regenerates us by His grace. Nor can the Trinity in any way be called the Son, but it can be called, in its entirety, the Holy Spirit, according to what is written, "God is a Spirit," because both the Father is a spirit and the Son is a spirit, and the Father is holy and the Son is holy. Therefore, since the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one God, and certainly God is holy and God is a spirit, the Trinity can also be called the Holy Spirit. Yet that Holy Spirit who is not the Trinity but is understood as within the Trinity is spoken of by His proper name of the Holy Spirit relatively, since He is referred both to the Father and to the Son, because the Holy Spirit is the Spirit both of the Father and of the Son. But the relation is not itself apparent in that name, though it is apparent when He is called the gift of God, for He is the gift of the Father and of the Son, because He proceeds from the Father, as the Lord says, and because what the apostle says, "Now, if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His," he certainly says of the Holy Spirit Himself. When we say, therefore, the gift of the giver and the giver of the gift, we speak in both cases relatively in reciprocal reference. Therefore the Holy Spirit is a certain unutterable communion of the Father and the Son, and for that reason, perhaps, He is so called, because the same name is suitable to both the Father and the Son. For He Himself is called specially what they are called in common, because both the Father is a spirit and the Son a spirit, both the Father is holy and the Son holy. In order, therefore, that the communion of both may be signified from a name that is suitable to both, the Holy Spirit is called the gift of both. And this Trinity is one God, alone, good, great, eternal, omnipotent—itself its own unity, deity, greatness, goodness, eternity, omnipotence.

12. But whereas, in the same Trinity, some things severally are specially predicated, these are in no way said in reference to themselves in themselves, but either in mutual reference, or in respect to the creature; and, therefore, it is manifest that such things are spoken relatively, not in the way of substance. For the Trinity is called one God, great, good, eternal, omnipotent; and the same God Himself may be called His own deity, His own magnitude, His own goodness, His own eternity, His own omnipotence: but the Trinity cannot in the same way be called the Father, except perhaps metaphorically, in respect to the creature, on account of the adoption of sons. For that which is written, Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord, ought certainly not to be understood as if the Son were excepted, or the Holy Spirit were excepted; which one Lord our God we rightly call also our Father, as regenerating us by His grace. Neither can the Trinity in any wise be called the Son, but it can be called, in its entirety, the Holy Spirit, according to that which is written, God is a Spirit; because both the Father is a spirit and the Son is a spirit, and the Father is holy and the Son is holy. Therefore, since the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are one God, and certainly God is holy, and God is a spirit, the Trinity can be called also the Holy Spirit. But yet that Holy Spirit, who is not the Trinity, but is understood as in the Trinity, is spoken of in His proper name of the Holy Spirit relatively, since He is referred both to the Father and to the Son, because the Holy Spirit is the Spirit both of the Father and of the Son. But the relation is not itself apparent in that name, but it is apparent when He is called the gift of God; for He is the gift of the Father and of the Son, because He proceeds from the Father, as the Lord says; and because that which the apostle says, Now, if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His, he says certainly of the Holy Spirit Himself. When we say, therefore, the gift of the giver, and the giver of the gift, we speak in both cases relatively in reciprocal reference. Therefore the Holy Spirit is a certain unutterable communion of the Father and the Son; and on that account, perhaps, He is so called, because the same name is suitable to both the Father and the Son. For He Himself is called specially that which they are called in common; because both the Father is a spirit and the Son a spirit, both the Father is holy and the Son holy. In order, therefore, that the communion of both may be signified from a name which is suitable to both, the Holy Spirit is called the gift of both. And this Trinity is one God, alone, good, great, eternal, omnipotent; itself its own unity, deity, greatness, goodness, eternity, omnipotence.

Neither should it influence us—since we have said that the Holy Spirit is called this relatively, not the Trinity itself, but He who is in the Trinity—that the name of the one to whom He is referred does not seem to correspond in return to His name. For we cannot say it the way we say servant of a master and master of a servant, son of a father and father of a son, because these things are said relatively. We speak of the Holy Spirit of the Father, but on the other hand we do not speak of the Father of the Holy Spirit, lest the Holy Spirit be understood to be His Son. Likewise we speak of the Holy Spirit of the Son, but we do not speak of the Son of the Holy Spirit, lest the Holy Spirit be understood to be His Father. For in many relative terms, no designation can be found by which those things that bear relation to each other may mutually correspond to each other in name. For what is more clearly spoken relatively than the word earnest? Since it is referred to that of which it is an earnest, and an earnest is always an earnest of something. Can we then, as we say the earnest of the Father and of the Son, say in turn the Father of the earnest or the Son of the earnest? But on the other hand, when we say the gift of the Father and of the Son, we cannot indeed say the Father of the gift or the Son of the gift; but so that these may correspond mutually to each other, we say the gift of the giver and the giver of the gift, because here a word in common use may be found, but there it cannot.

13. Neither ought it to influence us — since we have said that the Holy Spirit is so called relatively, not the Trinity itself, but He who is in the Trinity — that the designation of Him to whom He is referred, does not seem to answer in turn to His designation. For we cannot, as we say the servant of a master, and the master of a servant, the son of a father and the father of a son, so also say here — because these things are said relatively. For we speak of the Holy Spirit of the Father; but, on the other hand, we do not speak of the Father of the Holy Spirit, lest the Holy Spirit should be understood to be His Son. So also we speak of the Holy Spirit of the Son; but we do not speak of the Son of the Holy Spirit, lest the Holy Spirit be understood to be His Father. For it is the case in many relatives, that no designation is to be found by which those things which bear relation to each other may [in name] mutually correspond to each other. For what is more clearly spoken relatively than the word earnest? Since it is referred to that of which it is an earnest, and an earnest is always an earnest of something. Can we then, as we say, the earnest of the Father and of the Son, say in turn, the Father of the earnest or the Son of the earnest? But, on the other hand, when we say the gift of the Father and of the Son, we cannot indeed say the Father of the gift, or the Son of the gift; but that these may correspond mutually to each other, we say the gift of the giver and the giver of the gift; because here a word in use may be found, there it cannot.

The Father, therefore, is called so relatively, and He is also relatively said to be the Beginning, along with whatever else may be of this kind. But He is called the Father in relation to the Son, and the Beginning in relation to all things that are from Him. Likewise, the Son is relatively called so. He is also relatively called the Word and the Image. In all these names He is referred to the Father, but the Father is called by none of them. The Son is also called the Beginning. For when it was said to Him, "Who are You?" He replied, "Even the Beginning, who also speak to you." But is He, I ask, the Beginning of the Father? For He intended to show Himself to be the Creator when He said He was the Beginning, just as the Father is also the beginning of the creature in that all things are from Him. For "creator" too is spoken relatively to creature, as master to servant. And so when we say both that the Father is the Beginning and that the Son is the Beginning, we do not speak of two beginnings of the creature, since both the Father and the Son together are one beginning with respect to the creature, as one Creator, as one God. But if whatever remains within itself and produces or makes anything is a beginning to that thing which it produces or makes, then we cannot deny that the Holy Spirit is also rightly called the Beginning, since we do not separate Him from the name of Creator. And it is written of Him that He works, and certainly, in working, He remains within Himself, for He Himself is not changed and turned into any of the things which He makes. And see what it is that He does: "But the manifestation of the Spirit," he says, "is given to every man to profit withal. For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; to another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; to another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another the discerning of spirits; to another various kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues: but all these works that one and the self-same Spirit, dividing to every man severally as He will"—certainly as God, for who can work such great things but God? But it is the same God who works all in all. For if we are asked point by point concerning the Holy Spirit, we answer most truly that He is God, and together with the Father and the Son He is one God. Therefore, God is spoken of as one Beginning with respect to the creature, not as two or three beginnings.

14. The Father is called so, therefore, relatively, and He is also relatively said to be the Beginning, and whatever else there may be of the kind; but He is called the Father in relation to the Son, the Beginning in relation to all things, which are from Him. So the Son is relatively so called; He is called also relatively the Word and the Image. And in all these appellations He is referred to the Father, but the Father is called by none of them. And the Son is also called the Beginning; for when it was said to Him, Who are You? He replied, Even the Beginning, who also speak to you. But is He, pray, the Beginning of the Father? For He intended to show Himself to be the Creator when He said that He was the Beginning, as the Father also is the beginning of the creature in that all things are from Him. For creator, too, is spoken relatively to creature, as master to servant. And so when we say, both that the Father is the Beginning, and that the Son is the Beginning, we do not speak of two beginnings of the creature; since both the Father and the Son together is one beginning in respect to the creature, as one Creator, as one God. But if whatever remains within itself and produces or works anything is a beginning to that thing which it produces or works; then we cannot deny that the Holy Spirit also is rightly called the Beginning, since we do not separate Him from the appellation of Creator: and it is written of Him that He works; and assuredly, in working, He remains within Himself; for He Himself is not changed and turned into any of the things which He works. And see what it is that He works: But the manifestation of the Spirit, he says, is given to every man to profit withal. For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; to another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; to another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another the discerning of spirits; to another various kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues: but all these works that one and the self-same Spirit, dividing to every man severally as He will; certainly as God — for who can work such great things but God? — but it is the same God which works all in all. For if we are asked point by point concerning the Holy Spirit, we answer most truly that He is God; and with the Father and the Son together He is one God. Therefore, God is spoken of as one Beginning in respect to the creature, not as two or three beginnings.

But when we look at how the three persons relate to one another within the Trinity itself, if the one who begets is a beginning in relation to what he begets, then the Father is a beginning in relation to the Son because he begets him. However, whether the Father is also a beginning in relation to the Holy Spirit—since Scripture says "He proceeds from the Father"—is no small question. If this is the case, then he would be a beginning not only to what he begets or makes, but also to what he gives. And here another question emerges, one that often troubles many people: Why isn't the Holy Spirit also a son, since he too comes forth from the Father, as we read in the Gospel? The Spirit came forth not as born but as given, and therefore he is not called a son, because he was neither born as the Only-begotten was, nor made so that he might be born into adoption by God's grace as we are. For what is born of the Father is related to the Father alone when called Son, and so the Son is the Son of the Father and not our Son as well. But what is given is related both to the one who gave and to those to whom it was given. So the Holy Spirit is not only the Spirit of the Father and of the Son who gave him, but he is also called ours because we have received him—just as the salvation of the Lord who gives salvation is also called our salvation because we have received it. Therefore, the Spirit is both the Spirit of God who gave him and ours because we have received him. He is not, however, that spirit of ours by which we exist, because that is the spirit of a man which is in him. Rather, this Spirit is ours in a different way—in the same way we say "Give us this day our bread." Yet we certainly have also received that spirit which is called the spirit of a man. For as Paul says, "What do you have that you did not receive?" But it is one thing to receive what we need in order to exist, and another thing to receive what we need in order to be holy. This is why Scripture says of John that he came in the spirit and power of Elijah—and by the spirit of Elijah is meant the Holy Spirit, whom Elijah received. The same thing should be understood about Moses, when the Lord says to him, "And I will take of your spirit and will put it upon them"—that is, I will give to them some of the Holy Spirit which I have already given to you. If, therefore, what is given also has as its beginning the one by whom it is given, since it has received from no other source what proceeds from him, then we must acknowledge that the Father and the Son are a beginning of the Holy Spirit—not two beginnings, but one. Just as the Father and Son are one God, one Creator, and one Lord in relation to the creature, so they are one beginning in relation to the Holy Spirit. But the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit together are one beginning in relation to the creature, just as they are also one Creator and one God.

15. But in their mutual relation to one another in the Trinity itself, if the begetter is a beginning in relation to that which he begets, the Father is a beginning in relation to the Son, because He begets Him; but whether the Father is also a beginning in relation to the Holy Spirit, since it is said, He proceeds from the Father, is no small question. Because, if it is so, He will not only be a beginning to that thing which He begets or makes, but also to that which He gives. And here, too, that question comes to light, as it can, which is wont to trouble many, Why the Holy Spirit is not also a son, since He, too, comes forth from the Father, as it is read in the Gospel. For the Spirit came forth, not as born, but as given; and so He is not called a son, because He was neither born, as the Only-begotten, nor made, so that by the grace of God He might be born into adoption, as we are. For that which is born of the Father, is referred to the Father only when called Son, and so the Son is the Son of the Father, and not also our Son; but that which is given is referred both to Him who gave, and to those to whom He gave; and so the Holy Spirit is not only the Spirit of the Father and of the Son who gave Him, but He is also called ours, who have received Him: as The salvation of the Lord, who gives salvation, is said also to be our salvation, who have received it. Therefore, the Spirit is both the Spirit of God who gave Him, and ours who have received Him. Not, indeed, that spirit of ours by which we are, because that is the spirit of a man which is in him; but this Spirit is ours in another mode, viz. that in which we also say, Give us this day our bread. Although certainly we have received that spirit also, which is called the spirit of a man. For what have you, he says, which you did not receive? But that is one thing, which we have received that we might be; another, that which we have received that we might be holy. Whence it is also written of John, that he came in the spirit and power of Elias; and by the spirit of Elias is meant the Holy Spirit, whom Elias received. And the same thing is to be understood of Moses, when the Lord says to him, And I will take of your spirit, and will put it upon them; that is, I will give to them of the Holy Spirit, which I have already given to you. If, therefore, that also which is given has him for a beginning by whom it is given, since it has received from no other source that which proceeds from him; it must be admitted that the Father and the Son are a Beginning of the Holy Spirit, not two Beginnings; but as the Father and Son are one God, and one Creator, and one Lord relatively to the creature, so are they one Beginning relatively to the Holy Spirit. But the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is one Beginning in respect to the creature, as also one Creator and one God.

But it is asked further: just as the Son, by being born, has not only this—that He is the Son—but also that He exists absolutely; and likewise the Holy Spirit, by being given, has not only this—that He is given—but also that He exists absolutely—was He therefore already existing before He was given, but was not yet a gift? Or was He already a gift even before He was given, precisely because God was going to give Him? But if He does not proceed unless when He is given, and certainly could not proceed before there was someone to whom He might be given, how then did He exist in His very substance if He exists only because He is given? This is similar to how the Son, by being born, has not only this—that He is a Son, which is said relatively—but also His very substance absolutely, so that He exists. Does the Holy Spirit proceed always, and proceed not in time but from eternity? And because He proceeded in such a way that He was capable of being given, was He already a gift even before there was someone to whom He might be given? For there is a difference in meaning between a gift and a thing that has been given. A gift may exist even before it is given, but it cannot be called a thing that has been given unless it has actually been given.

16. But it is asked further, whether, as the Son, by being born, has not only this, that He is the Son, but that He is absolutely; and so also the Holy Spirit, by being given, has not only this, that He is given, but that He is absolutely — whether therefore He was, before He was given, but was not yet a gift; or whether, for the very reason that God was about to give Him, He was already a gift also before He was given. But if He does not proceed unless when He is given, and assuredly could not proceed before there was one to whom He might be given; how, in that case, was He [absolutely] in His very substance, if He is not unless because He is given? just as the Son, by being born, not only has this, that He is a Son, which is said relatively, but His very substance absolutely, so that He is. Does the Holy Spirit proceed always, and proceed not in time, but from eternity, but because He so proceeded that He was capable of being given, was already a gift even before there was one to whom He might be given? For there is a difference in meaning between a gift and a thing that has been given. For a gift may exist even before it is given; but it cannot be called a thing that has been given unless it has been given.

We should not be troubled by the fact that the Holy Spirit, though co-eternal with the Father and the Son, is called something that exists in time—for instance, when we call Him a gift that has been given. The Spirit is eternally a gift, but becomes a thing that has been given in time. Consider this: since a lord is only called such when he has a slave, that title is also relational and applies to God in time, because the creature over which He is Lord does not exist from all eternity. How then can we maintain that relational terms themselves are not accidental, since nothing happens accidentally to God in time because He cannot change, as we argued at the beginning of this discussion? Consider this: being Lord is not eternal to God. Otherwise we would have to say that the creature is also eternal, since He could not be Lord from all eternity unless the creature was also a servant from all eternity. Just as no one can be a slave without a lord, no one can be a lord without a slave. Someone might say that God alone is eternal, and that times are not eternal because of their variety and changeableness, but that nevertheless times did not begin in time (since there was no time before times began, and therefore it did not happen to God in time that He should be Lord, since He was Lord of times themselves, which certainly did not begin in time). But what will this person say about man, who was made in time, and of whom God certainly was not Lord before that man existed? Clearly, being Lord of man happened to God in time. To remove all dispute: certainly being your Lord or mine—we who have only recently come into existence—happened to God in time. Even if this seems uncertain because of the difficult question about the soul, what should we say about His being Lord of the people of Israel? Although the nature of the soul that people possessed already existed (a matter we need not investigate now), that people did not yet exist, and the time when they began to exist is clear. Finally, His being Lord of this or that tree, or of this or that grain crop that only recently came into being, happened in time. Although the matter itself already existed, being Lord of matter is one thing, and being Lord of an already created nature is another. A man is lord of wood at one time, and at another time lord of a chest made from that same wood—which he certainly was not when he was already lord of the wood. How then can we maintain that nothing is said of God according to accident, except that nothing happens to His nature by which He could be changed? Those things are relative accidents that happen in connection with some change of the things about which they are spoken. A friend is called such relationally, and does not become one unless he begins to love; therefore some change of will occurs so that he may be called a friend. When money is called a price, it is spoken of relationally, yet the money itself was not changed when it began to be a price; likewise when it is called a pledge or anything else of this kind. If money can be spoken of relationally so often with no change to itself—so that neither when it begins nor when it ceases to be so spoken of does any change occur in its nature or form as money—how much more readily should we admit concerning God's unchangeable substance that something may be predicated relationally with respect to the creature, so that although it begins to be predicated in time, nothing is understood to have happened to God's substance itself, but only to the creature in respect to which it is predicated? Scripture says, "Lord, You have been made our refuge." God is therefore called our refuge relationally, for He is referred to us, and He becomes our refuge when we flee to Him. Does anything then happen to His nature that was not there before we fled to Him? A change takes place in us, for we were worse before we fled to Him and become better by fleeing to Him, but there is no change in Him. Similarly, He begins to be our Father when we are regenerated through His grace, since He gave us power to become God's children. Our substance is therefore changed for the better when we become His children, and He simultaneously begins to be our Father, but without any change to His own substance. Therefore what begins to be said of God in time, which was not said of Him before, is clearly said of Him relationally, yet not according to any accident of God that would mean something happened to Him, but clearly according to some accident of that in respect to which God begins to be called something relationally. When a righteous man begins to be a friend of God, the man himself is changed; but we must never say that God loves someone in time with a supposedly new love that was not in Him before, since with Him things past have not passed away and things future have already been accomplished. Therefore He loved all His saints before the foundation of the world, as He predestinated them; but when they are converted and find Him, they are said to begin to be loved by Him, so that what is said may be said in a way that can be grasped by human feelings. Likewise, when He is said to be angry with the unrighteous and gentle with the good, they are changed, not He—just as light is troublesome to weak eyes but pleasant to strong ones, namely by their change, not its own.

17. Nor let it trouble us that the Holy Spirit, although He is co-eternal with the Father and the Son, yet is called something which exists in time; as, for instance, this very thing which we have called Him, a thing that has been given. For the Spirit is a gift eternally, but a thing that has been given in time. For if a lord also is not so called unless when he begins to have a slave, that appellation likewise is relative and in time to God; for the creature is not from all eternity, of which He is the Lord. How then shall we make it good that relative terms themselves are not accidental, since nothing happens accidentally to God in time, because He is incapable of change, as we have argued in the beginning of this discussion? Behold! To be the Lord, is not eternal to God; otherwise we should be compelled to say that the creature also is from eternity, since He would not be a lord from all eternity unless the creature also was a servant from all eternity. But as he cannot be a slave who has not a lord, neither can he be a lord who has not a slave. And if there be any one who says that God, indeed, is alone eternal, and that times are not eternal on account of their variety and changeableness, but that times nevertheless did not begin to be in time (for there was no time before times began, and therefore it did not happen to God in time that He should be Lord, since He was Lord of the very times themselves, which assuredly did not begin in time): what will he reply respecting man, who was made in time, and of whom assuredly He was not the Lord before he was of whom He was to be Lord? Certainly to be the Lord of man happened to God in time. And that all dispute may seem to be taken away, certainly to be your Lord, or mine, who have only lately begun to be, happened to God in time. Or if this, too, seems uncertain on account of the obscure question respecting the soul, what is to be said of His being the Lord of the people of Israel? Since, although the nature of the soul already existed, which that people had (a matter into which we do not now inquire), yet that people existed not as yet, and the time is apparent when it began to exist. Lastly, that He should be Lord of this or that tree, or of this or that grain crop, which only lately began to be, happened in time; since, although the matter itself already existed, yet it is one thing to be Lord of the matter ( materiæ), another to be Lord of the already created nature ( naturæ). For man, too, is lord of the wood at one time, and at another he is lord of the chest, although fabricated of that same wood; which he certainly was not at the time when he was already the lord of the wood. How then shall we make it good that nothing is said of God according to accident, except because nothing happens to His nature by which He may be changed, so that those things are relative accidents which happen in connection with some change of the things of which they are spoken. As a friend is so called relatively: for he does not begin to be one, unless when he has begun to love; therefore some change of will takes place, in order that he may be called a friend. And money, when it is called a price, is spoken of relatively, and yet it was not changed when it began to be a price; nor, again, when it is called a pledge, or any other thing of the kind. If, therefore, money can so often be spoken of relatively with no change of itself, so that neither when it begins, nor when it ceases to be so spoken of, does any change take place in that nature or form of it, whereby it is money; how much more easily ought we to admit, concerning that unchangeable substance of God, that something may be so predicated relatively in respect to the creature, that although it begin to be so predicated in time, yet nothing shall be understood to have happened to the substance itself of God, but only to that creature in respect to which it is predicated? Lord, it is said, You have been made our refuge. God, therefore, is said to be our refuge relatively, for He is referred to us, and He then becomes our refuge when we flee to Him; pray does anything come to pass then in His nature, which, before we fled to Him, was not? In us therefore some change does take place; for we were worse before we fled to Him, and we become better by fleeing to Him: but in Him there is no change. So also He begins to be our Father, when we are regenerated through His grace, since He gave us power to become the sons of God. Our substance therefore is changed for the better, when we become His sons; and He at the same time begins to be our Father, but without any change of His own substance. Therefore that which begins to be spoken of God in time, and which was not spoken of Him before, is manifestly spoken of Him relatively; yet not according to any accident of God, so that anything should have happened to Him, but clearly according to some accident of that, in respect to which God begins to be called something relatively. When a righteous man begins to be a friend of God, he himself is changed; but far be it from us to say, that God loves any one in time with as it were a new love, which was not in Him before, with whom things gone by have not passed away and things future have been already done. Therefore He loved all His saints before the foundation of the world, as He predestinated them; but when they are converted and find them; then they are said to begin to be loved by Him, that what is said may be said in that way in which it can be comprehended by human affections. So also, when He is said to be angry with the unrighteous, and gentle with the good, they are changed, not He: just as the light is troublesome to weak eyes, pleasant to those that are strong; namely, by their change, not its own.

People commonly think highly of knowledge about earthly and heavenly things. Yet those who prefer knowing themselves to that knowledge surely judge better. A mind that knows even its own weakness is more praiseworthy than one that searches out and even discovers the workings of the stars, or holds onto such knowledge already gained, while remaining ignorant of the way to enter into its own proper health and strength. But if anyone has already awakened toward God, kindled by the warmth of the Holy Spirit, and in the love of God has become worthless in his own eyes, and through wanting but lacking the strength to come to Him, and through the light He gives, has paid attention to himself, and has discovered himself, and has learned that his own filthiness cannot mix with God's purity, and finds it sweet to weep and to beg Him that again and again He will have compassion until he has cast off all his wretchedness, and to pray confidently as one who has already received as a free gift the pledge of salvation through his only Savior and Enlightener of humanity—such a person, acting and lamenting this way, is not puffed up by knowledge, because charity builds up. For he has preferred one knowledge to another knowledge: he has preferred to know his own weakness rather than to know the walls of the world, the foundations of the earth, and the heights of heaven. And by obtaining this knowledge, he has also obtained sorrow—but sorrow for wandering away from the desire to reach his own proper homeland and the Creator of it, his own blessed God. And if among such people, in the family of Your Christ, O Lord my God, I groan among Your poor, give me from Your bread to answer people who do not hunger and thirst after righteousness, but are satisfied and have plenty. But it is the empty image of those things that has satisfied them, not Your truth, which they have pushed away and shrunk back from, and so they fall into their own emptiness. I certainly know how many fantasies the human heart produces. And what is my own heart but a human heart? But I pray to the God of my heart that I may not vomit forth into these writings any of these fantasies as solid truths, but that only what the breath of His truth has breathed into me may pass into them—cast out though I am from the sight of His eyes, and striving from far away to return by the way which the divinity of His only-begotten Son has made through His humanity. And this truth, changeable though I am, I drink in to the extent that in it I see nothing changeable: not in place and time, as is the case with bodies, nor in time alone and in a certain sense place, as with the thoughts of our own spirits, nor in time alone and not even in any appearance of place, as with some of the reasonings of our own minds. For the ousia of God, by which He is, has absolutely nothing changeable, neither in eternity, nor in truth, nor in will, since there truth is eternal, love eternal, and there love is true, eternity true, and there eternity is loved, and truth is loved.

1. The knowledge of things terrestrial and celestial is commonly thought much of by men. Yet those doubtless judge better who prefer to that knowledge, the knowledge of themselves; and that mind is more praiseworthy which knows even its own weakness, than that which, without regard to this, searches out, and even comes to know, the ways of the stars, or which holds fast such knowledge already acquired, while ignorant of the way by which itself to enter into its own proper health and strength. But if any one has already become awake towards God, kindled by the warmth of the Holy Spirit, and in the love of God has become vile in his own eyes; and through wishing, yet not having strength to come in unto Him, and through the light He gives, has given heed to himself, and has found himself, and has learned that his own filthiness cannot mingle with His purity; and feels it sweet to weep and to entreat Him, that again and again He will have compassion, until he have put off all his wretchedness; and to pray confidently, as having already received of free gift the pledge of salvation through his only Saviour and Enlightener of man:– such an one, so acting, and so lamenting, knowledge does not puff up, because charity edifies; for he has preferred knowledge to knowledge, he has preferred to know his own weakness, rather than to know the walls of the world, the foundations of the earth, and the pinnacles of heaven. And by obtaining this knowledge, he has obtained also sorrow; but sorrow for straying away from the desire of reaching his own proper country, and the Creator of it, his own blessed God. And if among men such as these, in the family of Your Christ, O Lord my God, I groan among Your poor, give me out of Your bread to answer men who do not hunger and thirst after righteousness, but are sated and abound. But it is the vain image of those things that has sated them, not Your truth, which they have repelled and shrunk from, and so fall into their own vanity. I certainly know how many figments the human heart gives birth to. And what is my own heart but a human heart? But I pray the God of my heart, that I may not vomit forth ( eructuem) into these writings any of these figments for solid truths, but that there may pass into them only what the breath of His truth has breathed into me; cast out though I am from the sight of His eyes, and striving from afar to return by the way which the divinity of His only-begotten Son has made by His humanity. And this truth, changeable though I am, I so far drink in, as far as in it I see nothing changeable: neither in place and time, as is the case with bodies; nor in time alone, and in a certain sense place, as with the thoughts of our own spirits; nor in time alone, and not even in any semblance of place, as with some of the reasonings of our own minds. For the essence of God, whereby He is, has altogether nothing changeable, neither in eternity, nor in truth, nor in will; since there truth is eternal, love eternal; and there love is true, eternity true; and there eternity is loved, and truth is loved.

Since we are exiled from unchangeable joy, yet not completely cut off or torn away from it so that we no longer seek eternity, truth, and blessedness even in changeable and temporal things (for we do not wish to die, to be deceived, or to be troubled), visions have been sent to us from heaven suited to our pilgrim state to remind us that what we seek is not here, but that we must return from this pilgrimage to the place from which we came—for unless we originated there, we would not seek these things here. First, we had to be persuaded how much God loved us, so that we would not despair and refuse to look up to Him. We also needed to be shown what kind of people we are whom He loved, so that we would not become proud as if we had our own merits, which would cause us to distance ourselves from Him and fail even more by relying on our own strength. Therefore He dealt with us in such a way that we might instead benefit from His strength, and so in the weakness of humility the virtue of charity might be perfected. This is indicated in the Psalm where it says, "You, O God, sent a spontaneous rain, by which You made Your inheritance perfect when it was weary." By spontaneous rain nothing else is meant than grace, not given in return for merit but given freely, which is why it is called grace—for He gave it not because we were worthy, but because He willed it. Knowing this, we shall not trust in ourselves, and this is to be made weak. But He Himself makes us perfect, He who also says to the Apostle Paul, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my strength is made perfect in weakness." Man, then, had to be persuaded how much God loved us and what kind of people we were whom He loved—the former so we would not despair, the latter so we would not be proud. The apostle explains this most necessary point as follows: "But God commends His love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him. For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by His life." Also in another place he says: "What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us? He that spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how has He not with Him also freely given us all things?" Now what is declared to us as already done was also shown to the ancient righteous as about to be done, so that through the same faith they themselves might also be humbled and so made weak, and being made weak, be made perfect.

2. But since we are exiled from the unchangeable joy, yet neither cut off nor torn away from it so that we should not seek eternity, truth, blessedness, even in those changeable and temporal things (for we wish neither to die, nor to be deceived, nor to be troubled); visions have been sent to us from heaven suitable to our state of pilgrimage, in order to remind us that what we seek is not here, but that from this pilgrimage we must return there, whence unless we originated we should not here seek these things. And first we have had to be persuaded how much God loved us, lest from despair we should not dare to look up to Him. And we needed to be shown also what manner of men we are whom He loved, lest being proud, as if of our own merits, we should recede the more from Him, and fail the more in our own strength. And hence He so dealt with us, that we might the rather profit by His strength, and that so in the weakness of humility the virtue of charity might be perfected. And this is intimated in the Psalm, where it is said, You, O God, sent a spontaneous rain, whereby You made Your inheritance perfect, when it was weary. For by spontaneous rain nothing else is meant than grace, not rendered to merit, but given freely, whence also it is called grace; for He gave it, not because we were worthy, but because He willed. And knowing this, we shall not trust in ourselves; and this is to be made weak. But He Himself makes us perfect, who says also to the Apostle Paul, My grace is sufficient for you, for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Man, then, was to be persuaded how much God loved us, and what manner of men we were whom He loved; the former, lest we should despair; the latter, lest we should be proud. And this most necessary topic the apostle thus explains: But God commends, he says, His love towards us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son; much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. Romans 5:8-10 — Donavit Also in another place: What, he says, shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us? He that spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how has He not with Him also freely given us all things? Now that which is declared to us as already done, was shown also to the ancient righteous as about to be done; that through the same faith they themselves also might be humbled, and so made weak; and might be made weak, and so perfected.

Because the Word of God is One, by which all things were made, which is the unchangeable truth, all things exist in him simultaneously in a potential and unchangeable way. This includes not only the things that are now in this whole creation, but also those that have existed in the past and those that will exist in the future. In him, they neither have existed in the past nor will exist in the future, but simply exist. All things are life, and all things are one—or rather, he is one being and one life. All things were made by him in such a way that whatever was made in creation was not made in him as something created, but was life in him. In the beginning, the Word was not made but was with God, and the Word was God, and all things were made by him. All things could not have been made by him unless he himself had existed before all things and was not made. Even in those things that were made by him—including the body, which is not itself life—nothing would have been made by him unless it had been life in him before it was made. What was made was already life in him, and not just any kind of life. The soul is the life of the body, but the soul too is made, for it is changeable. By what was it made, except by the unchangeable Word of God? All things were made by him, and without him nothing was made that was made. Therefore, what was made was already life in him, and not just any kind of life, but the life that was the light of men—the light of rational minds, by which humans differ from animals and are therefore human. This is not bodily light, which is the light of the flesh, whether it shines from heaven or is kindled by earthly fires. It is not the light only of human flesh, but also of animals, and even down to the smallest worms, for all these see that light. But that life was the light of men. Nor is it far from any of us, for in it we live and move and have our being.

3. Because therefore the Word of God is One, by which all things were made, which is the unchangeable truth, all things are simultaneously therein, potentially and unchangeably; not only those things which are now in this whole creation, but also those which have been and those which shall be. And therein they neither have been, nor shall be, but only are; and all things are life, and all things are one; or rather it is one being and one life. For all things were so made by Him, that whatsoever was made in them was not made in Him, but was life in Him. Since, in the beginning, the Word was not made, but the Word was with God, and the Word was God, and all things were made by Him; neither had all things been made by Him, unless He had Himself been before all things and not made. But in those things which were made by Him, even body, which is not life, would not have been made by Him, except it had been life in Him before it was made. For that which was made was already life in Him; and not life of any kind soever: for the soul also is the life of the body, but this too is made, for it is changeable; and by what was it made, except by the unchangeable Word of God? For all things were made by Him; and without Him was not anything made that was made. What, therefore, was made was already life in Him; and not any kind of life, but the life [which] was the light of men; the light certainly of rational minds, by which men differ from beasts, and therefore are men. Therefore not corporeal light, which is the light of the flesh, whether it shine from heaven, or whether it be lighted by earthly fires; nor that of human flesh only, but also that of beasts, and down even to the minutest of worms. For all these things see that light: but that life was the light of men; nor is it far from any one of us, for in it we live, and move, and have our being.

But the light shines in darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. The darkness is the foolish minds of people, blinded by vicious desires and unbelief. So that the Word, through whom all things were made, might care for these minds and heal them, the Word became flesh and lived among us. Our enlightenment is the partaking of the Word, that is, of that life which is the light of humanity. But we were completely unfit for this partaking and fell short of it because of the uncleanness of sins. Therefore we needed to be cleansed. Further, the one cleansing for the unrighteous and the proud is the blood of the Righteous One and the humbling of God Himself. We are cleansed through Him, who was made what we are by nature and what we are not by sin, so that we might contemplate God, which by nature we are not. For by nature we are not God: by nature we are human beings, by sin we are not righteous. Therefore God, having become a righteous man, interceded with God for sinful humanity. For the sinner does not correspond to the righteous, but human corresponds to human. By joining to us the likeness of His humanity, He took away the unlikeness of our unrighteousness. And by being made a partaker of our mortality, He made us partakers of His divinity. For the death of the sinner, arising from the necessity of condemnation, is rightly abolished by the death of the Righteous One, arising from the free choice of His compassion, while His single death and resurrection answers to our double death and resurrection. For this congruity, or suitableness, or concord, or consonance, or whatever more appropriate word there may be, by which one is united to two, is of great importance in all compacting, or better perhaps, co-adaptation, of the creature. For, as it just occurs to me, what I mean is precisely that co-adaptation which the Greeks call harmonia. However, this is not the place to explain the power of that consonance of single to double which is found especially in us and which is naturally implanted in us (and by whom, except by Him who created us?), so that even the ignorant cannot fail to perceive it, whether when singing themselves or hearing others. For by this consonance, treble and bass voices are in harmony, so that anyone who departs from it in their note offends extremely, not only trained skill, which most people lack, but the very sense of hearing itself. To demonstrate this no doubt requires a long discourse, but anyone who knows it can make it plain to the very ear on a properly tuned monochord.

4. But the light shines in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not. Now the darkness is the foolish minds of men, made blind by vicious desires and unbelief. And that the Word, by whom all things were made, might care for these and heal them, The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us. For our enlightening is the partaking of the Word, namely, of that life which is the light of men. But for this partaking we were utterly unfit, and fell short of it, on account of the uncleanness of sins. Therefore we were to be cleansed. And further, the one cleansing of the unrighteous and of the proud is the blood of the Righteous One, and the humbling of God Himself; that we might be cleansed through Him, made as He was what we are by nature, and what we are not by sin, that we might contemplate God, which by nature we are not. For by nature we are not God: by nature we are men, by sin we are not righteous. Wherefore God, made a righteous man, interceded with God for man the sinner. For the sinner is not congruous to the righteous, but man is congruous to man. By joining therefore to us the likeness of His humanity, He took away the unlikeness of our unrighteousness; and by being made partaker of our mortality, He made us partakers of His divinity. For the death of the sinner springing from the necessity of comdemnation is deservedly abolished by the death of the Righteous One springing from the free choice of His compassion, while His single [death and resurrection] answers to our double [death and resurrection]. For this congruity, or suitableness, or concord, or consonance, or whatever more appropriate word there may be, whereby one is [united] to two, is of great weight in all compacting, or better, perhaps, co-adaptation, of the creature. For (as it just occurs to me) what I mean is precisely that co-adaptation which the Greeks call ἁρμονία. However this is not the place to set forth the power of that consonance of single to double which is found especially in us, and which is naturally so implanted in us (and by whom, except by Him who created us?), that not even the ignorant can fail to perceive it, whether when singing themselves or hearing others. For by this it is that treble and bass voices are in harmony, so that any one who in his note departs from it, offends extremely, not only trained skill, of which the most part of men are devoid, but the very sense of hearing. To demonstrate this, needs no doubt a long discourse; but any one who knows it, may make it plain to the very ear in a rightly ordered monochord.

For our present purpose, we must discuss, as far as God enables us, how the single death of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ corresponds to and harmonizes with our double death for the purpose of salvation. We are certainly dead in both soul and body, as no Christian doubts: in soul, because of sin; in body, because of the punishment of sin, and through this also in body because of sin. Both parts of ourselves—that is, both soul and body—needed both medicine and resurrection, so that what had been changed for the worse might be renewed for the better. Now the death of the soul is ungodliness, and the death of the body is corruptibility, which also brings about the soul's departure from the body. For just as the soul dies when God leaves it, so the body dies when the soul leaves it, whereby the former becomes foolish and the latter lifeless. The soul is raised up again by repentance, and the renewal of life begins in the still-mortal body through faith, by which people believe in Him who justifies the ungodly. This renewal is increased and strengthened by good habits from day to day, as the inner person is renewed more and more. But the body, being the outer person, becomes more corrupted the longer this life lasts, whether by age, disease, or various afflictions, until it reaches that final affliction which everyone calls death. Its resurrection is delayed until the end, when our justification itself will be perfected beyond description. For then we will be like Him, because we will see Him as He is. But now, as long as the corruptible body weighs down the soul and human life on earth is all trial, no living person will be justified in His sight, compared to the righteousness in which we will be made equal to the angels and the glory that will be revealed in us. But why give more proofs about the difference between the death of the soul and the death of the body, when the Lord in one Gospel sentence has made each death easily distinguishable, where He says, "Let the dead bury their dead"? Burial was the proper handling of a dead body. But by those who were to bury it He meant those who were dead in soul through the ungodliness of unbelief—the kind who are awakened when it is said, "Awake, you who sleep, and rise from the dead, and Christ will give you light." And there is a death which the apostle condemns, saying of the widow, "But she who lives in pleasure is dead while she lives." Therefore the soul that was formerly ungodly and is now godly is said to have come alive again from the dead and to live, because of the righteousness of faith. But the body is not only said to be going to die because of that future departure of the soul, but because of the great weakness of flesh and blood it is even said to be dead now, in a certain place in Scripture, namely where the apostle says that the body is dead because of sin, but the spirit is life because of righteousness. Now this life is produced by faith, since the just will live by faith. But what follows? "But if the Spirit of Him who raised up Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised up Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies by His Spirit who dwells in you."

5. But for our present need we must discuss, so far as God gives us power, in what manner the single of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ answers to, and is, so to say, in harmony with our double to the effect of salvation. We certainly, as no Christian doubts, are dead both in soul and body: in soul, because of sin; in body, because of the punishment of sin, and through this also in body because of sin. And to both these parts of ourselves, that is, both to soul and to body, there was need both of a medicine and of resurrection, that what had been changed for the worse might be renewed for the better. Now the death of the soul is ungodliness, and the death of the body is corruptibility, through which comes also a departure of the soul from the body. For as the soul dies when God leaves it, so the body dies when the soul leaves it; whereby the former becomes foolish, the latter lifeless. For the soul is raised up again by repentance, and the renewing of life is begun in the body still mortal by faith, by which men believe in Him who justifies the ungodly; and it is increased and strengthened by good habits from day to day, as the inner man is renewed more and more. But the body, being as it were the outward man, the longer this life lasts is so much the more corrupted, either by age or by disease, or by various afflictions, until it come to that last affliction which all call death. And its resurrection is delayed until the end; when also our justification itself shall be perfected ineffably. For then we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is. But now, so long as the corruptible body presses down the soul, and human life upon earth is all temptation, in His sight shall no man living be justified, in comparison of the righteousness in which we shall be made equal with the angels, and of the glory which shall be revealed in us. But why mention more proofs respecting the difference between the death of the soul and the death of the body, when the Lord in one sentence of the Gospel has made either death easily distinguishable by any one from the other, where He says, Let the dead bury their dead? For burial was the fitting disposal of a dead body. But by those who were to bury it He meant those who were dead in soul by the impiety of unbelief, such, namely, as are awakened when it is said, Awake you that sleep, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give you light. And there is a death which the apostle denounces, saying of the widow, But she that lives in pleasure is dead while she lives. Therefore the soul, which was before ungodly and is now godly, is said to have come alive again from the dead and to live, on account of the righteousness of faith. But the body is not only said to be about to die, on account of that departure of the soul which will be; but on account of the great infirmity of flesh and blood it is even said to be now dead, in a certain place in the Scriptures, namely, where the apostle says, that the body is dead because of sin, but the spirit is life because of righteousness. Now this life is wrought by faith, since the just shall live by faith. But what follows? But if the spirit of Him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, He that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by His Spirit which dwells in you.

Therefore, our Savior bestowed His own single death upon this double death of ours, and to bring about both our resurrections, He appointed beforehand and set forth in mystery and type His own one resurrection. For He was not a sinner or ungodly person who, as though dead in spirit, would need to be renewed in the inner man and recalled as it were to the life of righteousness through repentance. But being clothed in mortal flesh, and dying in that alone, and rising again in that alone, in that alone He answered to both for us, since in it a mystery was worked out regarding the inner man and a type regarding the outer. For it was a mystery concerning our inner man, signifying the death of our soul, that those words were spoken not only in the Psalm but also on the cross: My God, my God, why have You forsaken me? The apostle agrees with these words, saying, Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that from now on we should not serve sin. For by the crucifixion of the inner man are understood the pains of repentance and a certain wholesome agony of self-control, by which death the death of ungodliness is destroyed, and in this death God has forsaken us. And so the body of sin is destroyed through such a cross, so that now we should not yield our members as instruments of unrighteousness to sin. Because even if the inner man is certainly renewed day by day, yet undoubtedly it is old before it is renewed. For that which the same apostle speaks of is done inwardly: Put off the old man and put on the new—which he goes on to explain by saying, Therefore, putting away lying, speak every man truth. But where is lying put away except inwardly, so that he who speaks the truth from his heart may inhabit the holy hill of God? But the resurrection of the body of the Lord is shown to belong to the mystery of our own inner resurrection, where, after He had risen, He says to the woman, Touch me not, for I am not yet ascended to my Father. With this mystery the apostle's words agree where he says, If you then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sits on the right hand of God; set your thoughts on things above. For not to touch Christ unless when He had ascended to the Father means not to think of Christ in a fleshly manner. Again, the death of the flesh of our Lord contains a type of the death of our outer man, since it is by such suffering especially that He exhorts His servants that they should not fear those who kill the body but are not able to kill the soul. Therefore the apostle says, That I may fill up that which is lacking of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh. And the resurrection of the body of the Lord is found to contain a type of the resurrection of our outward man, because He says to His disciples, Handle me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see me have. And one of the disciples also, handling His scars, exclaimed, My Lord and my God! And since the entire integrity of that flesh was evident, this was shown in what He had said when exhorting His disciples: There shall not a hair of your head perish. For how is it that first it is said, Touch me not, for I am not yet ascended to my Father, and how is it that before He ascends to the Father He actually is touched by the disciples—unless because in the former the mystery of the inner man was indicated, and in the latter a type was given of the outer man? Or can anyone possibly be so lacking in understanding and so turned away from the truth as to dare to say that He was touched by men before He ascended but by women when He had ascended? It was on account of this type, which went before in the Lord, of our future resurrection in the body, that the apostle says, Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's. For it was the resurrection of the body to which this passage refers, on account of which he also says, Who has changed our vile body that it may be fashioned like His glorious body. Therefore the one death of our Savior brought salvation to our double death, and His one resurrection accomplished for us two resurrections, since His body in both cases—that is, both in His death and in His resurrection—was ministered to us by a kind of healing appropriateness, both as a mystery of the inner man and as a type of the outer.

6. Therefore on this double death of ours our Saviour bestowed His own single death; and to cause both our resurrections, He appointed beforehand and set forth in mystery and type His own one resurrection. For He was not a sinner or ungodly, that, as though dead in spirit, He should need to be renewed in the inner man, and to be recalled as it were to the life of righteousness by repentance; but being clothed in mortal flesh, and in that alone dying, in that alone rising again, in that alone did He answer to both for us; since in it was wrought a mystery as regards the inner man, and a type as regards the outer. For it was in a mystery as regards our inner man, so as to signify the death of our soul, that those words were uttered, not only in the Psalm, but also on the cross: My God, my God, why have You forsaken me? To which words the apostle agrees, saying, Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin; since by the crucifixion of the inner man are understood the pains of repentance, and a certain wholesome agony of self-control, by which death the death of ungodliness is destroyed, and in which death God has left us. And so the body of sin is destroyed through such a cross, that now we should not yield our members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin. Because, if even the inner man certainly is renewed day by day, yet undoubtedly it is old before it is renewed. For that is done inwardly of which the same apostle speaks: Put off the old man, and put on the new; which he goes on to explain by saying, Wherefore, putting away lying, speak every man truth. But where is lying put away, unless inwardly, that he who speaks the truth from his heart may inhabit the holy hill of God? But the resurrection of the body of the Lord is shown to belong to the mystery of our own inner resurrection, where, after He had risen, He says to the woman, Touch me not, for I am not yet ascended to my Father; with which mystery the apostle's words agree, where he says, If you then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sits on the right hand of God; set your thoughts on things above. For not to touch Christ, unless when He had ascended to the Father, means not to have thoughts of Christ after a fleshly manner. Again, the death of the flesh of our Lord contains a type of the death of our outer man, since it is by such suffering most of all that He exhorts His servants that they should not fear those who kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul. Wherefore the apostle says, That I may fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh. And the resurrection of the body of the Lord is found to contain a type of the resurrection of our outward man, because He says to His disciples, Handle me, and see; for a spirit has not flesh and bones, as you see me have. And one of the disciples also, handling His scars, exclaimed, My Lord and my God! And whereas the entire integrity of that flesh was apparent, this was shown in that which He had said when exhorting His disciples: There shall not a hair of your head perish. For how comes it that first is said, Touch me not, for I am not yet ascended to my Father; and how comes it that before He ascends to the Father, He actually is touched by the disciples: unless because in the former the mystery of the inner man was intimated, in the latter a type was given of the outer man? Or can any one possibly be so without understanding, and so turned away from the truth, as to dare to say that He was touched by men before He ascended, but by women when He had ascended? It was on account of this type, which went before in the Lord, of our future resurrection in the body, that the apostle says, Christ the first-fruits; afterward they that are Christ's. For it was the resurrection of the body to which this place refers, on account of which he also says, Who has changed our vile body, that it may be fashioned like His glorious body. The one death therefore of our Saviour brought salvation to our double death, and His one resurrection wrought for us two resurrections; since His body in both cases, that is, both in His death and in His resurrection, was ministered to us by a kind of healing suitableness, both as a mystery of the inner man, and as a type of the outer.

This ratio of the single to the double certainly arises from the ternary number, since one added to two makes three; but the whole that these make reaches to the senary, for one and two and three make six. This number is called perfect because it is completed in its own parts: it has three parts—a sixth, a third, and a half—and no other part can be found in it that we can call an aliquot part. Its sixth part is one, its third part is two, and its half is three. But one and two and three together complete the same six. Holy Scripture commends to us the perfection of this number, especially in that God finished His works in six days, and on the sixth day man was made in the image of God. The Son of God came and was made the Son of man to re-create us after the image of God in the sixth age of the human race. That is the present age, whether we assign a thousand years to each age, or whether we trace memorable and remarkable epochs or turning points of time in the divine Scriptures. The first age is found from Adam to Noah, the second from there to Abraham, and then, following the division of Matthew the evangelist, from Abraham to David, from David to the carrying away to Babylon, and from there to the labor of the Virgin. These three ages joined to those other two make five. Accordingly, the nativity of the Lord began the sixth age, which is now continuing until the hidden end of time. We also recognize in this senary number a kind of figure of time in that threefold mode of division by which we compute one portion of time before the Law, a second under the Law, and a third under grace. In this last time we have received the sacrament of renewal so that we may be renewed also at the end of time in every part by the resurrection of the flesh, and thus be made whole from our entire infirmity, not only of soul but also of body. From this, that woman is understood to be a type of the church who was made whole and upright by the Lord after being bowed down by infirmity through the binding of Satan. For those words of the Psalm lament such hidden enemies: "They bowed down my soul." This woman had her infirmity eighteen years, which is three times six. The months of eighteen years are found in number to be the cube of six, that is, six times six times six. Also, nearly in the same place in the Gospel is that fig tree which was convicted by the third year of its miserable barrenness. But intercession was made for it so that it might be let alone that year; if it bore fruit, well; if not, it should be cut down. For both three years belong to the same threefold division, and the months of three years make the square of six, which is six times six.

7. Now this ratio of the single to the double arises, no doubt, from the ternary number, since one added to two makes three; but the whole which these make reaches to the senary, for one and two and three make six. And this number is on that account called perfect, because it is completed in its own parts: for it has these three, sixth, third, and half; nor is there any other part found in it, which we can call an aliquot part. The sixth part of it, then, is one; the third part, two; the half, three. But one and two and three complete the same six. And Holy Scripture commends to us the perfection of this number, especially in this, that God finished His works in six days, and on the sixth day man was made in the image of God. And the Son of God came and was made the Son of man, that He might re-create us after the image of God, in the sixth age of the human race. For that is now the present age, whether a thousand years apiece are assigned to each age, or whether we trace out memorable and remarkable epochs or turning-points of time in the divine Scriptures, so that the first age is to be found from Adam until Noah, and the second thence onwards to Abraham, and then next, after the division of Matthew the evangelist, from Abraham to David, from David to the carrying away to Babylon, and from thence to the travail of the Virgin, which three ages joined to those other two make five. Accordingly, the nativity of the Lord began the sixth, which is now going onwards until the hidden end of time. We recognize also in this senary number a kind of figure of time, in that threefold mode of division, by which we compute one portion of time before the Law; a second, under the Law; a third, under grace. In which last time we have received the sacrament of renewal, that we may be renewed also in the end of time, in every part, by the resurrection of the flesh, and so may be made whole from our entire infirmity, not only of soul, but also of body. And thence that woman is understood to be a type of the church, who was made whole and upright by the Lord, after she had been bowed by infirmity through the binding of Satan. For those words of the Psalm lament such hidden enemies: They bowed down my soul. And this woman had her infirmity eighteen years, which is thrice six. And the months of eighteen years are found in number to be the cube of six, viz. six times six times six. Nearly, too, in the same place in the Gospel is that fig tree, which was convicted also by the third year of its miserable barrenness. But intercession was made for it, that it might be let alone that year, that year, that if it bore fruit, well; if otherwise, it should be cut down. For both three years belong to the same threefold division, and the months of three years make the square of six, which is six times six.

A single year, when all twelve months are considered—each made up of thirty days (for the month that has been kept since ancient times is the one determined by the moon's revolution)—abounds in the number six. What six is in the first order of numbers, which consists of units up to ten, sixty is in the second order, which consists of tens up to a hundred. Sixty days, then, are a sixth part of the year. Furthermore, if that which stands as the sixth of the second order is multiplied by the sixth of the first order, we get six times sixty, which equals three hundred and sixty days—the full twelve months. But since the moon's revolution determines the month for people while the year is marked by the sun's revolution, there remain five days and a quarter of a day for the sun to complete its course and finish the year. Four quarters make one day, which must be added in every fourth year (called bissextile or leap year) so that the order of time is not disturbed. If we also consider these five and a quarter days themselves, the number six prevails in them. First, because it is customary to calculate the whole from a part, we should not call it five days but rather six, counting the quarter days as one day. Second, because five days themselves are the sixth part of a month, while the quarter of a day contains six hours. For the entire day, including its night, is twenty-four hours, and the fourth part of this—a quarter of a day—is found to be six hours. This is how much the number six prevails throughout the course of the year.

8. A single year also, if the whole twelve months are taken into account, which are made up of thirty days each (for the month that has been kept from of old is that which the revolution of the moon determines), abounds in the number six. For that which six is, in the first order of numbers, which consists of units up to ten, that sixty is in the second order, which consists of tens up to a hundred. Sixty days, then, are a sixth part of the year. Further, if that which stands as the sixth of the second order is multiplied by the sixth of the first order, then we make six times sixty, i.e. three hundred and sixty days, which are the whole twelve months. But since, as the revolution of the moon determines the month for men, so the year is marked by the revolution of the sun; and five days and a quarter of a day remain, that the sun may fulfill its course and end the year; for four quarters make one day, which must be intercalated in every fourth year, which they call bissextile, that the order of time may not be disturbed: if we consider, also, these five days and a quarter themselves, the number six prevails in them. First, because, as it is usual to compute the whole from a part, we must not call it five days, but rather six, taking the quarter days for one day. Next, because five days themselves are the sixth part of a month; while the quarter of a day contains six hours. For the entire day, i.e. including its night, is twenty-four hours, of which the fourth part, which is a quarter of a day, is found to be six hours. So much in the course of the year does the sixth number prevail.

And it is reasonable that the number six is understood to represent a year in the building up of the body of the Lord, as a figure of which He said that He would raise up in three days the temple destroyed by the Jews. For they said, This temple was forty-six years in building. And six times forty-six makes two hundred and seventy-six. And this number of days completes nine months and six days, which are reckoned as roughly ten months for the labor of women. This is not because all births come to the sixth day after the ninth month, but because the perfection itself of the body of the Lord is found to have been brought to birth in exactly this many days, as the authority of the church maintains based on the tradition of the elders. For He is believed to have been conceived on the twenty-fifth of March, the same day on which He also suffered. So the womb of the Virgin, in which He was conceived, where no mortal was ever begotten, corresponds to the new grave in which He was buried, where no man was ever laid, neither before nor since. But He was born, according to tradition, on December the twenty-fifth. If, then, you count from that day to this, you find two hundred and seventy-six days, which is forty-six times six. And in this number of years the temple was built, because in that number of sixes the body of the Lord was perfected. This body, being destroyed by the suffering of death, He raised again on the third day. For He spoke this of the temple of His body, as is declared by the most clear and solid testimony of the Gospel, where He said, For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly, so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

9. And not without reason is the number six understood to be put for a year in the building up of the body of the Lord, as a figure of which He said that He would raise up in three days the temple destroyed by the Jews. For they said, Forty and six years was this temple in building. And six times forty-six makes two hundred and seventy-six. And this number of days completes nine months and six days, which are reckoned, as it were, ten months for the travail of women; not because all come to the sixth day after the ninth month, but because the perfection itself of the body of the Lord is found to have been brought in so many days to the birth, as the authority of the church maintains upon the tradition of the elders. For He is believed to have been conceived on the 25th of March, upon which day also He suffered; so the womb of the Virgin, in which He was conceived, where no one of mortals was begotten, corresponds to the new grave in which He was buried, wherein was never man laid, neither before nor since. But He was born, according to tradition, upon December the 25th. If, then you reckon from that day to this you find two hundred and seventy-six days which is forty-six times six. And in this number of years the temple was built, because in that number of sixes the body of the Lord was perfected; which being destroyed by the suffering of death, He raised again on the third day. For He spoke this of the temple of His body, as is declared by the most clear and solid testimony of the Gospel; where He said, For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly, so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

Scripture also confirms that the three-day period itself was not complete in its entirety. The first day is counted as a whole based on its final portion, and the third day is likewise counted as a whole based on its first portion. However, the middle day—the second day—was genuinely complete with its full twenty-four hours: twelve hours of daylight and twelve hours of night. Christ was first crucified by the voices of the Jews at the third hour on the sixth day of the week. He was then suspended on the cross at the sixth hour and gave up His spirit at the ninth hour. He was buried when evening had come, as the evangelist states, which means at the end of the day. So regardless of where you begin counting—even if some other explanation can be offered that doesn't contradict the Gospel of John and allows us to understand that He was hung on the cross at the third hour—you still cannot make the first day a complete day. It will be counted as a complete day based on its final portion, just as the third day is counted complete based on its first portion. The night leading up to dawn, when the Lord's resurrection was made known, belongs to the third day. This is because God, who commanded light to shine out of darkness so that through the grace of the New Testament and participation in Christ's resurrection these words could be spoken to us: "For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord," somehow indicates to us that the day begins from night. Just as the first days of creation were counted from light to night because of humanity's future fall, so these days are counted from darkness to light because of humanity's restoration. From the hour of His death to the dawn of the resurrection, then, there are forty hours, including the ninth hour itself. This number also corresponds to His forty days of earthly life after His resurrection. This number appears very frequently in Scripture to express the mystery of perfection in the fourfold world. The number ten has a certain perfection, and when multiplied by four it makes forty. But from the evening of the burial to the dawn of the resurrection there are thirty-six hours, which is six squared. This relates to the ratio of single to double, in which there exists the greatest harmony of proper fitting together. For twelve added to twenty-four follows the ratio of single added to double and makes thirty-six: namely, a complete night with a complete day and a complete night, and this is not without the mystery I mentioned above. It is quite fitting to liken the spirit to day and the body to night. For the body of the Lord in His death and resurrection was a figure of our spirit and a pattern of our body. In this way, then, the ratio of single to double is also evident in the thirty-six hours when twelve is added to twenty-four. As for the reasons why these numbers are placed in Holy Scripture, other people may discover other explanations—either ones that make my explanations preferable by comparison, or ones equally probable as mine, or even more probable than mine. But surely no one is so foolish or absurd as to argue that these numbers are placed in Scripture for no purpose at all and that there are no mystical reasons for their mention. The explanations I have given here I have gathered either from the authority of the church according to the tradition of our ancestors, or from the testimony of divine Scripture, or from the very nature of numbers and symbolic correspondences. No reasonable person will decide against reason, no Christian against the Scriptures, no peaceable person against the church.

10. Scripture again witnesses that the space of those three days themselves was not whole and entire, but the first day is counted as a whole from its last part, and the third day is itself also counted as a whole from its first part; but the intervening day, i.e. the second day, was absolutely a whole with its twenty-four hours, twelve of the day and twelve of the night. For He was crucified first by the voices of the Jews in the third hour, when it was the sixth day of the week. Then He hung on the cross itself at the sixth hour, and yielded up His spirit at the ninth hour. But He was buried, now when the evening had come, as the words of the evangelist express it; which means, at the end of the day. Wheresoever then you begin — even if some other explanation can be given, so as not to contradict the Gospel of John, but to understand that He was suspended on the cross at the third hour — still you cannot make the first day an entire day. It will be reckoned then an entire day from its last part, as the third from its first part. For the night up to the dawn, when the resurrection of the Lord was made known, belongs to the third day; because God (who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, that through the grace of the New Testament and the partaking of the resurrection of Christ the words might be spoken to us For you were sometimes darkness, but now are you light in the Lord) intimates to us in some way that the day takes its beginning from the night. For as the first days of all were reckoned from light to night, on account of the future fall of man; so these on account of the restoration of man, are reckoned from darkness to light. From the hour, then, of His death to the dawn of the resurrection are forty hours, counting in also the ninth hour itself. And with this number agrees also His life upon earth of forty days after His resurrection. And this number is most frequently used in Scripture to express the mystery of perfection in the fourfold world. For the number ten has a certain perfection, and that multiplied by four makes forty. But from the evening of the burial to the dawn of the resurrection are thirty-six hours which is six squared. And this is referred to that ratio of the single to the double wherein there is the greatest consonance of co-adaptation. For twelve added to twenty-four suits the ratio of single added to double and makes thirty-six: namely a whole night with a whole day and a whole night, and this not without the mystery which I have noticed above. For not unfitly do we liken the spirit to the day and the body to the night. For the body of the Lord in His death and resurrection was a figure of our spirit and a type of our body. In this way, then, also that ratio of the single to the double is apparent in the thirty-six hours, when twelve are added to twenty-four. As to the reasons, indeed, why these numbers are so put in the Holy Scriptures, other people may trace out other reasons, either such that those which I have given are to be preferred to them, or such as are equally probable with mine, or even more probable than they are; but there is no one surely so foolish or so absurd as to contend that they are so put in the Scriptures for no purpose at all, and that there are no mystical reasons why those numbers are there mentioned. But those reasons which I have here given, I have either gathered from the authority of the church, according to the tradition of our forefathers, or from the testimony of the divine Scriptures, or from the nature itself of numbers and of similitudes. No sober person will decide against reason, no Christian against the Scriptures, no peaceable person against the church.

This mystery, this sacrifice, this priest, this God—before He was sent and came, being made of a woman—all those things that appeared to our fathers in a sacred and mystical way through angelic miracles, or that were done by the fathers themselves, were images of Him. This was so that every creature through its actions might somehow speak of that One who was to come, in whom there would be salvation in the recovery of all from death. Because through the wickedness of ungodliness we had turned back and fallen away in discord from the one true and supreme God, and had become empty in many things, being scattered among many things and clinging to many things, it was necessary by the decree and command of God in His mercy that these same many things should join together in announcing the One who would come, that this One should come as proclaimed by these many things, and that these many things should join together in testifying that this One had come. And so, freed from the burden of these many things, we should come to that One. Dead as we were in our souls through many sins, and destined to die in the flesh because of sin, we should love that One who, without sin, died in the flesh for us. By believing in Him now raised again, and by rising again with Him in spirit through faith, we should be made righteous by being made one in the one righteous One. We should not despair of our own resurrection in the flesh itself when we consider that the one Head has gone before us, the many members. In Him, now cleansed through faith and later renewed by sight, and through Him as mediator reconciled to God, we are to cling to the One, to feast upon the One, to remain one.

11. This mystery, this sacrifice, this priest, this God, before He was sent and came, being made of a woman — of Him, all those things which appeared to our fathers in a sacred and mystical way by angelical miracles, or which were done by the fathers themselves, were similitudes; in order that every creature by its acts might speak in some way of that One who was to be, in whom there was to be salvation in the recovery of all from death. For because by the wickedness of ungodliness we had recoiled and fallen away in discord from the one true and supreme God, and had in many things become vain, being distracted through many things and cleaving fast to many things; it was needful, by the decree and command of God in His mercy, that those same many things should join in proclaiming the One that should come, and that One should come so proclaimed by these many things, and that these many things should join in witnessing that this One had come; and that so, freed from the burden of these many things, we should come to that One, and dead as we were in our souls by many sins, and destined to die in the flesh on account of sin, that we should love that One who, without sin, died in the flesh for us; and by believing in Him now raised again, and by rising again with Him in the spirit through faith, that we should be justified by being made one in the one righteous One; and that we should not despair of our own resurrection in the flesh itself, when we consider that the one Head had gone before us the many members; in whom, being now cleansed through faith, and then renewed by sight, and through Him as mediator reconciled to God, we are to cleave to the One, to feast upon the One, to continue one.

So the Son of God Himself, the Word of God, Himself also the Mediator between God and men, the Son of man, equal to the Father through the unity of the Godhead, and sharing with us through taking on humanity, interceding for us with the Father in that He was man, yet not hiding that He was God, one with the Father, among other things speaks like this: "I do not pray for these alone," He says, "but also for those who will believe in me through their word, that they all may be one; as You, Father, are in me, and I in You, that they also may be one in us, so that the world may believe that You have sent me. And the glory which You gave me I have given them, that they may be one, even as we are one."

12. So the Son of God Himself, the Word of God, Himself also the Mediator between God and men, the Son of man, equal to the Father through the unity of the Godhead, and partaker with us by the taking upon Him of humanity, interceding for us with the Father in that He was man, yet not concealing that He was God, one with the Father, among other things speaks thus: Neither pray I for these alone, He says, but for them also which shall believe in me through their word; that they all may be one; as You, Father, art in me, and I in You, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that You have sent me. And the glory which You gave me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one.

He did not say, "I and they are one thing." Although, because He is the head of the church which is His body, He might have said "they and I are one person" (not one thing), since the head and the body is one Christ. But to show His own Godhead consubstantial with the Father—which is why He says elsewhere, "I and my Father are one"—He wills His own to be one in His own kind, that is, in the consubstantial equality of the same nature, but in Himself. They could not be one in themselves, since they are separated from one another by various pleasures, desires, and the uncleanness of sin. Therefore they are cleansed through the Mediator so that they may be one in Him, not only through the same nature by which all become equal to the angels from being mortal humans, but also through the same will harmoniously united in the same blessedness and melted together into one spirit, so to speak, by the fire of charity. This is what His words mean: "That they may be one, even as we are one"—namely, that just as the Father and Son are one, not only in equality of substance but also in will, so those for whom God the Son is mediator may also be one, not only by being of the same nature but also through the same bond of love. Then He goes on to reveal the truth itself, that He is the Mediator through whom we are reconciled to God, by saying, "I in them, and You in me, that they may be made perfect in one."

He did not say, I and they are one thing; although, in that He is the head of the church which is His body, He might have said, and they are, not one thing, but one person, because the head and the body is one Christ; but in order to show His own Godhead consubstantial with the Father (for which reason He says in another place, I and my Father are one), in His own kind, that is, in the consubstantial parity of the same nature, He wills His own to be one, but in Himself; since they could not be so in themselves, separated as they are one from another by various pleasures and desires and uncleannesses of sin; whence they are cleansed through the Mediator, that they may be one in Him, not only through the same nature in which all become from mortal men equal to the angels, but also through the same will most harmoniously conspiring to the same blessedness, and fused in some way by the fire of charity into one spirit. For to this His words come, That they may be one, even as we are one; namely, that as the Father and Son are one, not only in equality of substance, but also in will, so those also may be one, between whom and God the Son is mediator, not only in that they are of the same nature, but also through the same union of love. And then He goes on thus to intimate the truth itself, that He is the Mediator, through whom we are reconciled to God, by saying, I in them, and You in me, that they may be made perfect in one.

Our true peace and firm bond of union with our Creator comes from being purified and reconciled through the Mediator of life, just as we were polluted and alienated, departing from Him, through the mediator of death. For just as the devil through pride led man through pride to death, so Christ through lowliness led man back through obedience to life. Since the one fell through being lifted up and also cast down man who consented to him, the other was raised up through being brought low and also lifted up man who believed in Him. Because the devil had not himself gone to the place where he led the way (since he indeed bore the death of the spirit in his ungodliness, but had not experienced the death of the flesh, because he had not taken on bodily covering), he appeared to man to be a mighty leader among the legions of devils, through whom he exercises his reign of deception. So he puffs up man all the more—man who is more eager for power than for righteousness—through the pride of self-exaltation, or through false philosophy, or else entangles him through sacrilegious rituals. In these rituals, while casting down headlong through deceit and illusion the minds of the more curious and proud, he also holds them captive to magical trickery, promising the cleansing of the soul through those initiations they call teletai (ritual initiations) by transforming himself into an angel of light through various schemes involving false signs and wonders.

13. Therein is our true peace and firm bond of union with our Creator, that we should be purified and reconciled through the Mediator of life, as we had been polluted and alienated, and so had departed from Him, through the mediator of death. For as the devil through pride led man through pride to death; so Christ through lowliness led back man through obedience to life. Since, as the one fell through being lifted up, and cast down [man] also who consented to him; so the other was raised up through being abased, and lifted up [man] also who believed in Him. For because the devil had not himself come there whither he had led the way (inasmuch as he bare indeed in his ungodliness the death of the spirit, but had not undergone the death of the flesh, because he had not assumed the covering of the flesh), he appeared to man to be a mighty chief among the legions of devils, through whom he exercises his reign of deceits; so puffing up man the more, who is eager for power more than righteousness, through the pride of elation, or through false philosophy; or else entangling him through sacrilegious rites, in which, while casting down headlong by deceit and illusion the minds of the more curious and prouder sort, he holds him captive also to magical trickery; promising too the cleansing of the soul, through those initiations which they call τελεταί, by transforming himself into an angel of light, through various machinations in signs and prodigies of lying.

Even the most worthless spirits can easily do many things through their aerial bodies that cause wonder in souls weighed down by earthly bodies, even if those souls are better disposed. If earthly bodies themselves, when trained by certain skill and practice, display such great marvels to people in theatrical performances that those who never saw such things scarcely believe them when told about them, why would it be difficult for the devil and his angels to create things out of bodily elements through their own aerial bodies that make the flesh marvel? Or they can even produce deceptive visions through hidden influences to mislead people's senses, deceiving them whether awake or asleep, or driving them into madness. But just as someone who is better in life and character than worthless men might watch them walking on a rope or performing many hard-to-believe feats through various bodily movements, yet not desire to do such things himself or think those men are superior to him on that account, so the faithful and devout soul—not only if it sees the miracles of demons, but even if it shudders at them because of bodily weakness—will not regret its own lack of power to do such things or judge the demons to be better than itself because of this. This is especially true since the soul is in the company of the holy ones, who, whether they are human beings or good angels, accomplish through the power of God, to whom all things are subject, wonders that are far greater and completely free from deception.

14. For it is easy for the most worthless spirits to do many things by means of aerial bodies, such as to cause wonder to souls which are weighed down by earthly bodies, even though they be of the better inclined. For if earthly bodies themselves, when trained by a certain skill and practice, exhibit to men so great marvels in theatrical spectacles, that they who never saw such things scarcely believe them when told; why should it be hard for the devil and his angels to make out of corporeal elements, through their own aerial bodies, things at which the flesh marvels; or even by hidden inspirations to contrive fantastic appearances to the deluding of men's senses, whereby to deceive them, whether awake or asleep, or to drive them into frenzy? But just as it may happen that one who is better than they in life and character may gaze at the most worthless of men, either walking on a rope, or doing by various motions of the body many things difficult of belief, and yet he may not at all desire to do such things, nor think those men on that account to be preferred to himself; so the faithful and pious soul, not only if it sees, but even if on account of the frailty of the flesh it shudders at, the miracles of demons; yet will not for that either deplore its own want of power to do such things, or judge them on this account to be better than itself; especially since it is in the company of the holy, who, whether they are men or good angels, accomplish, through the power of God, to whom all things are subject, wonders which are far greater and the very reverse of deceptive.

In no way, therefore, are souls cleansed and reconciled to God by sacrilegious imitations, or curious arts that are impious, or magical incantations. The false mediator does not lift souls to higher things but instead blocks and cuts off the way there through the passions he inspires in those who belong to him—passions that are malignant in proportion to their pride. These passions cannot nourish the wings of virtues so they may fly upward, but rather pile up the weight of vices so they press downward. The soul will fall more heavily the more it imagines it has been carried upward. Therefore, just as the Magi, when warned by God after the star led them to worship the humble Lord, returned to their country by a different route than the one by which they came, so we also ought to return to our country not by the way we came but by another way that the lowly King has taught and which the proud king, the adversary of that lowly King, cannot block. For to us too, so that we may worship the lowly Christ, the heavens have declared the glory of God when their sound went into all the earth and their words to the ends of the world. A way to death was made for us through sin in Adam. For by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned. Of this way the devil was the mediator, the one who persuaded us to sin and cast us down into death. For he too applied his one death to bring about our double death. Since he died in spirit through ungodliness but certainly did not die in the flesh, yet he persuaded us to ungodliness and thereby brought it about that we deserved to come into the death of the flesh. We chose the one through wicked persuasion, and the other followed us by just condemnation. Therefore it is written, God made not death, since He was not Himself the cause of death. Yet death was inflicted on the sinner through His most just retribution, just as the judge inflicts punishment on the guilty; yet it is not the justice of the judge but the desert of the crime that is the cause of the punishment. To that place where the mediator of death caused us to pass but did not come himself—that is, to the death of the flesh—our Lord God introduced for us the medicine of correction, which He did not deserve, by a hidden and deeply mysterious decree of divine and profound justice. Therefore, just as by one man came death, so by one man might also come the resurrection of the dead. Because people strove more to avoid what they could not avoid, namely the death of the flesh, than the death of the spirit—that is, punishment more than the desert of punishment (for people are either not concerned or too little concerned about not sinning, but eagerly seek after not dying, although that is beyond their reach)—the Mediator of life, making it plain that death is not to be feared, which by the human condition cannot now be escaped, but rather ungodliness, which can be guarded against through faith, meets us at the end to which we have come, but not by the way by which we came. For we came to death through sin; He through righteousness. Therefore, just as our death is the punishment of sin, so His death was made a sacrifice for sin.

15. In no wise therefore are souls cleansed and reconciled to God by sacrilegious imitations, or curious arts that are impious, or magical incantations; since the false mediator does not translate them to higher things, but rather blocks and cuts off the way there through the affections, malignant in proportion as they are proud, which he inspires into those of his own company; which are not able to nourish the wings of virtues so as to fly upwards, but rather to heap up the weight of vices so as to press downwards; since the soul will fall down the more heavily, the more it seems to itself to have been carried upwards. Accordingly, as the Magi did when warned of God, whom the star led to adore the low estate of the Lord; so we also ought to return to our country, not by the way by which we came, but by another way which the lowly King has taught, and which the proud king, the adversary of that lowly King, cannot block up. For to us, too, that we may adore the lowly Christ, the heavens have declared the glory of God, when their sound went into all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world. A way was made for us to death through sin in Adam. For, By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned. Of this way the devil was the mediator, the persuader to sin, and the caster down into death. For he, too, applied his one death to work out our double death. Since he indeed died in the spirit through ungodliness, but certainly did not die in the flesh: yet both persuaded us to ungodliness, and thereby brought it to pass that we deserved to come into the death of the flesh. We desired therefore the one through wicked persuasion, the other followed us by a just condemnation; and therefore it is written, God made not death, since He was not Himself the cause of death; but yet death was inflicted on the sinner, through His most just retribution. Just as the judge inflicts punishment on the guilty; yet it is not the justice of the judge, but the desert of the crime, which is the cause of the punishment. Whither, then, the mediator of death caused us to pass, yet did not come himself, that is, to the death of the flesh, there our Lord God introduced for us the medicine of correction, which He deserved not, by a hidden and exceeding mysterious decree of divine and profound justice. In order, therefore, that as by one man came death, so by one man might come also the resurrection of the dead; because men strove more to shun that which they could not shun, viz. the death of the flesh, than the death of the spirit, i.e. punishment more than the desert of punishment (for not to sin is a thing about which either men are not solicitous or are too little solicitous; but not to die, although it be not within reach of attainment, is yet eagerly sought after); the Mediator of life, making it plain that death is not to be feared, which by the condition of humanity cannot now be escaped, but rather ungodliness, which can be guarded against through faith, meets us at the end to which we have come, but not by the way by which we came. For we, indeed, came to death through sin; He through righteousness: and, therefore, as our death is the punishment of sin, so His death was made a sacrifice for sin.

Since the spirit is to be preferred to the body, and the death of the spirit means that God has left it, while the death of the body means that the spirit has left it, the punishment in bodily death lies in this: the spirit leaves the body against its will because it left God willingly. So while the spirit left God by its own choice, it leaves the body unwillingly and does not leave when it wishes unless it does violence to itself, resulting in the body's death. The spirit of the Mediator demonstrated that He came to the death of the flesh not through any punishment for sin, because He did not leave it unwillingly but because He willed it, when He willed it, and as He willed it. For because He is so united with the flesh by the Word of God as to be one, He says: I have power to lay down my life, and I have power to take it again. No man takes it from me, but I lay down my life that I might take it again. And as the Gospel tells us, those who were present were greatly astonished that after that final word, in which He represented our sin, He immediately gave up His spirit. For those who are hung on crosses usually suffer a prolonged death. This is why the legs of the thieves were broken, so that they might die quickly and be taken down from the cross before the Sabbath. That He was already found dead caused wonder. And this was also what amazed Pilate, as we read, when the Lord's body was requested from him for burial.

16. Wherefore, since the spirit is to be preferred to the body, and the death of the spirit means that God has left it, but the death of the body that the spirit has left it; and since herein lies the punishment in the death of the body, that the spirit leaves the body against its will, because it left God willingly; so that, whereas the spirit left God because it would, it leaves the body although it would not; nor leaves it when it would, unless it has offered violence to itself, whereby the body itself is slain: the spirit of the Mediator showed how it was through no punishment of sin that He came to the death of the flesh, because He did not leave it against His will, but because He willed, when He willed, as He willed. For because He is so commingled [with the flesh] by the Word of God as to be one, He says: I have power to lay down my life, and I have power to take it again. No man takes it from me, but I lay down my life that I might take it again. And, as the Gospel tells us, they who were present were most astonished at this, that after that [last] word, in which He set forth the figure of our sin, He immediately gave up His spirit. For they who are hung on the cross are commonly tortured by a prolonged death. Whence it was that the legs of the thieves were broken, in order that they might die directly, and be taken down from the cross before the Sabbath. And that He was found to be dead already, caused wonder. And it was this also, at which, as we read, Pilate marvelled, when the body of the Lord was asked of him for burial.

Because that deceiver—who acted as a mediator to death for humanity and falsely presented himself as a mediator to life through the name of cleansing by means of sacrilegious rites and sacrifices that lead the proud astray—can neither share in our death nor rise again from his own. He has indeed been able to apply his single death to our double one, but he certainly has not been able to apply a single resurrection that would serve both as a mystery of our renewal and as a pattern of the final awakening. Therefore, He who being alive in the spirit raised His own dead flesh—the true Mediator of life—has cast out the one who is dead in the spirit and the mediator of death from the spirits of those who believe in Him, so that the devil cannot reign within but can only assault from outside, and even then without prevailing. Christ also offered Himself to be tempted, so that He might be a mediator to overcome the devil's temptations not only by providing help but also by setting an example. But when the devil, from the very beginning, tried through every opening to creep into Christ's inward being and was thrust out—having finished all his tempting allurements in the wilderness after the baptism—because being dead in the spirit he could force no entrance into Him who was alive in the spirit, the devil turned his eagerness for human death in any form toward accomplishing the only death he could. He was permitted to carry it out upon that mortal element which the living Mediator had received from us. And where the devil could do anything, there he was completely conquered in every respect. And in the very act of receiving outward power to kill the Lord in the flesh, his inward power by which he held us was slain. For it came about that the bonds of many sins in many deaths were loosed through the one death of One whom no sin had preceded. This death, though not owed, the Lord rendered for us so that the death we owed might not harm us. For He was not stripped of the flesh by obligation to any authority, but He stripped Himself. Surely He who could have avoided death if He had chosen instead died because He chose to, and so He made a show of principalities and powers, openly triumphing over them in Himself. For by His death the one and most real sacrifice was offered up for us, and whatever fault existed by which principalities and powers held us fast as if by right to pay its penalty, He cleansed, abolished, and extinguished. And by His own resurrection He also called us whom He predestined to a new life, and whom He called, He justified, and whom He justified, He glorified. And so the devil, in that very death of the flesh, lost the human being he had been possessing as if by absolute right—seduced by his own consent—and over whom he ruled, himself unhindered by any corruption of flesh and blood, through that frailty of our mortal body which made us both poor and weak. He was proud in proportion to being, as it were, both richer and stronger, ruling over one who was, as it were, both clothed in rags and full of troubles. For where he drove the sinner to fall without following himself, there by following he compelled the Redeemer to descend. And so the Son of God chose to become our friend in the fellowship of death—and because the enemy did not come to that death, he thought himself better and greater than us. For our Redeemer says, "Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." Therefore the devil also thought himself superior to the Lord Himself, since the Lord in His sufferings yielded to him. For that passage in the Psalm is understood of Him too: "For You have made Him a little lower than the angels." The result was that He, being Himself put to death though innocent by the unjust one acting against us as if by just right, might by a most just right overcome him, and so might lead captive the captivity brought about through sin, and free us from a captivity that was just on account of sin, by blotting out the handwriting and redeeming us who were to be justified though sinners, through His own righteous blood unrighteously poured out.

17. Because that deceiver then — who was a mediator to death for man, and feignedly puts himself forward as to life, under the name of cleansing by sacrilegious rites and sacrifices, by which the proud are led away — can neither share in our death, nor rise again from his own: he has indeed been able to apply his single death to our double one; but he certainly has not been able to apply a single resurrection, which should be at once a mystery of our renewal, and a type of that waking up which is to be in the end. He then who being alive in the spirit raised again His own flesh that was dead, the true Mediator of life, has cast out him, who is dead in the spirit and the mediator of death, from the spirits of those who believe in Himself, so that he should not reign within, but should assault from without, and yet not prevail. And to him, too, He offered Himself to be tempted, in order that He might be also a mediator to overcome his temptations, not only by succor, but also by example. But when the devil, from the first, although striving through every entrance to creep into His inward parts, was thrust out, having finished all his alluring temptation in the wilderness after the baptism; because, being dead in the spirit, he forced no entrance into Him who was alive in the spirit, he betook himself, through eagerness for the death of man in any way whatsoever, to effecting that death which he could, and was permitted to effect it upon that mortal element which the living Mediator had received from us. And where he could do anything, there in every respect he was conquered; and wherein he received outwardly the power of slaying the Lord in the flesh, therein his inward power, by which he held ourselves, was slain. For it was brought to pass that the bonds of many sins in many deaths were loosed, through the one death of One which no sin had preceded. Which death, though not due, the Lord therefore rendered for us, that the death which was due might work us no hurt. For He was not stripped of the flesh by obligation of any authority, but He stripped Himself. For doubtless He who was able not to die, if He would not, did die because He would: and so He made a show of principalities and powers, openly triumphing over them in Himself. For whereas by His death the one and most real sacrifice was offered up for us, whatever fault there was, whence principalities and powers held us fast as of right to pay its penalty, He cleansed, abolished, extinguished; and by His own resurrection He also called us whom He predestinated to a new life; and whom He called, them He justified; and whom He justified, them He glorified. And so the devil, in that very death of the flesh, lost man, whom he was possessing as by an absolute right, seduced as he was by his own consent, and over whom he ruled, himself impeded by no corruption of flesh and blood, through that frailty of man's mortal body, whence he was both too poor and too weak; he who was proud in proportion as he was, as it were, both richer and stronger, ruling over him who was, as it were, both clothed in rags and full of troubles. For whither he drove the sinner to fall, himself not following, there by following he compelled the Redeemer to descend. And so the Son of God deigned to become our friend in the fellowship of death, to which because he came not, the enemy thought himself to be better and greater than ourselves. For our Redeemer says, Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. Wherefore also the devil thought himself superior to the Lord Himself, inasmuch as the Lord in His sufferings yielded to him; for of Him, too, is understood what is read in the Psalm, For You have made Him a little lower than the angels: so that He, being Himself put to death, although innocent, by the unjust one acting against us as it were by just right, might by a most just right overcome him, and so might lead captive the captivity wrought through sin, and free us from a captivity that was just on account of sin, by blotting out the handwriting, and redeeming us who were to be justified although sinners, through His own righteous blood unrighteously poured out.

So even today the devil mocks those who belong to him. He presents himself to them as a false mediator, claiming they will be cleansed by his rituals when in fact they are being entangled and drowned by them. He easily persuades the proud to ridicule and despise the death of Christ, because the more removed he himself is from that death, the more they believe him to be holier and more divine. Yet very few have remained with him, since the nations now acknowledge the price paid for them, drink it in with devout humility, abandon their enemy in trust upon it, and gather together to their Redeemer. The devil does not understand how God's supreme wisdom uses both his traps and his rage to accomplish the salvation of God's faithful ones, extending from the first end, which is the beginning of the spiritual creature, all the way to the final end, which is the death of the body, and so reaching from one end to the other, ordering all things mightily and sweetly. For wisdom passes through and moves through all things because of her purity, and nothing defiled can enter into her. And since the devil has nothing to do with the death of the flesh, which is the source of his great pride, a different kind of death is prepared in the eternal fire of hell, by which not only spirits that have earthly bodies, but also those who have aerial bodies, can be tormented. But proud people, who despise Christ because He died—the very means by which He purchased us at such a great price—bring back the earlier death and also bring humanity back to that miserable condition of nature which comes from the first sin, and they will be cast down into the final death along with the devil. They prefer the devil to Christ because the devil cast them into that first death, which he himself did not fall into due to the difference in his nature, and which Christ descended into out of His great mercy for their sake. Yet they do not hesitate to believe themselves better than the devils, and they never stop attacking and condemning them with every kind of curse, even while knowing that the devils at least have nothing to do with suffering this kind of death, which is the very reason they despise Christ. They refuse to consider that it might be possible for the Word of God, while remaining in Himself and unchangeable in Himself in every way, to be able through taking on a lower nature to suffer something of a lower kind, which the unclean spirit cannot suffer because he does not have an earthly body. Thus, although they themselves are better than the devils, yet because they have a body of flesh, they can die in a way that the devils certainly cannot die, since the devils do not have such a body. They place great confidence in the deaths of their own sacrifices, not realizing that they are sacrificing to deceitful and proud spirits. Or if they have come to realize it, they think the friendship of these spirits—treacherous and envious as they are—is somehow good for them, even though their only purpose is to prevent our return.

18. Hence also the devil mocks those who are his own until this very day, to whom he presents himself as a false mediator, as though they would be cleansed or rather entangled and drowned by his rites, in that he very easily persuades the proud to ridicule and despise the death of Christ, from which the more he himself is estranged, the more is he believed by them to be the holier and more divine. Yet those who have remained with him are very few, since the nations acknowledge and with pious humility imbibe the price paid for themselves, and in trust upon it abandon their enemy, and gather together to their Redeemer. For the devil does not know how the most excellent wisdom of God makes use of both his snares and his fury to bring about the salvation of His own faithful ones, beginning from the former end, which is the beginning of the spiritual creature, even to the latter end, which is the death of the body, and so reaching from the one end to the other, mightily and sweetly ordering all things. For wisdom passes and goes through all things by reason of her pureness, and no defiled thing can fall into her. And since the devil has nothing to do with the death of the flesh, whence comes his exceeding pride, a death of another kind is prepared in the eternal fire of hell, by which not only the spirits that have earthly, but also those who have aerial bodies, can be tormented. But proud men, by whom Christ is despised, because He died, wherein He bought us with so great a price, both bring back the former death, and also men, to that miserable condition of nature, which is derived from the first sin, and will be cast down into the latter death with the devil. And they on this account preferred the devil to Christ, because the former cast them into that former death, whither he himself fell not through the difference of his nature, and whither on account of them Christ descended through His great mercy: and yet they do not hesitate to believe themselves better than the devils, and do not cease to assail and denounce them with every sort of malediction, while they know them at any rate to have nothing to do with the suffering of this kind of death, on account of which they despise Christ. Neither will they take into account that the case may possibly be, that the Word of God, remaining in Himself, and in Himself in no way changeable, may yet, through the taking upon Him of a lower nature, be able to suffer somewhat of a lower kind, which the unclean spirit cannot suffer, because he has not an earthly body. And so, whereas they themselves are better than the devils, yet, because they bear a body of flesh, they can so die, as the devils certainly cannot die, who do not bear such a body. They presume much on the deaths of their own sacrifices, which they do not perceive that they sacrifice to deceitful and proud spirits; or if they have come to perceive it, think their friendship to be of some good to themselves, treacherous and envious although they are, whose purpose is bent upon nothing else except to hinder our return.

They do not understand that not even the most arrogant spirits themselves could take pleasure in the honor of sacrifices unless a true sacrifice was owed to the one true God, in whose place they wish to be worshipped. This sacrifice cannot be properly offered except by a holy and righteous priest, and unless what is offered comes from those for whom it is being offered, and unless it is without fault so that it can be offered to cleanse those who are faulty. At least everyone who wants a sacrifice offered for themselves to God desires these things. Who, then, is such a righteous and holy priest as the only Son of God, who had no need to cleanse his own sins through sacrifice—neither original sins nor those acquired through human life? And what could men more appropriately choose to offer for themselves than human flesh? And what is more suitable for this sacrificial killing than mortal flesh? And what is so pure for cleansing the sins of mortal people as the flesh born from the womb of a virgin, without any taint of fleshly desire? And what could be more acceptably offered and received than the flesh of our sacrifice, which is the body of our priest? In this way, since four things must be considered in every sacrifice—to whom it is offered, by whom it is offered, what is offered, and for whom it is offered—this same one true Mediator himself, reconciling us to God through the sacrifice of peace, remains one with the one to whom he offered it, makes those for whom he offered it one in himself, and is himself in one person both the one who offers and the offering.

19. They do not understand, that not even the proudest of spirits themselves could rejoice in the honor of sacrifices, unless a true sacrifice was due to the one true God, in whose stead they desire to be worshipped: and that this cannot be rightly offered except by a holy and righteous priest; nor unless that which is offered be received from those for whom it is offered; and unless also it be without fault, so that it may be offered for cleansing the faulty. This at least all desire who wish sacrifice to be offered for themselves to God. Who then is so righteous and holy a priest as the only Son of God, who had no need to purge His own sins by sacrifice, neither original sins, nor those which are added by human life? And what could be so fitly chosen by men to be offered for them as human flesh? And what so fit for this immolation as mortal flesh? And what so clean for cleansing the faults of mortal men as the flesh born in and from the womb of a virgin, without any infection of carnal concupiscence? And what could be so acceptably offered and taken, as the flesh of our sacrifice, made the body of our priest? In such wise that, whereas four things are to be considered in every sacrifice — to whom it is offered, by whom it is offered, what is offered, for whom it is offered, — the same One and true Mediator Himself, reconciling us to God by the sacrifice of peace, might remain one with Him to whom He offered, might make those one in Himself for whom He offered, Himself might be in one both the offerer and the offering.

There are, however, some who think they are capable of being cleansed by their own righteousness so that they can contemplate God and dwell in God. Their very pride stains them more than anything else. There is no sin that the divine law opposes more strongly, and over which that most prideful of spirits—who acts as a mediator to lower things but as a barrier against higher things—receives a greater right of dominion. This is true unless either his hidden snares are avoided by taking another path, or if he rages openly through a sinful people (which is what Amalek means when interpreted), and forbids passage to the promised land by fighting, then he is overcome by the cross of the Lord, which is prefigured by the holding out of Moses' hands. These people promise themselves cleansing by their own righteousness because some of them have been able to penetrate beyond the whole creation with the eye of the mind and to touch, even if only in a very small way, the light of unchangeable truth. This is something they mock many Christians for not yet being able to do, who in the meantime live by faith alone. But what use is it for the proud person, who for this reason is ashamed to board the ship of wood, to see from a distance his homeland beyond the sea? Or how can it harm the humble person not to see it from such a great distance when he is actually coming to it on that wood which the other person disdains to be carried upon?

20. There are, however, some who think themselves capable of being cleansed by their own righteousness, so as to contemplate God, and to dwell in God; whom their very pride itself stains above all others. For there is no sin to which the divine law is more opposed, and over which that proudest of spirits, who is a mediator to things below, but a barrier against things above, receives a greater right of mastery: unless either his secret snares be avoided by going another way, or if he rage openly by means of a sinful people (which Amalek, being interpreted, means), and forbid by fighting the passage to the land of promise, he be overcome by the cross of the Lord, which is prefigured by the holding out of the hands of Moses. For these persons promise themselves cleansing by their own righteousness for this reason, because some of them have been able to penetrate with the eye of the mind beyond the whole creature, and to touch, though it be in ever so small a part, the light of the unchangeable truth; a thing which they deride many Christians for being not yet able to do, who, in the meantime, live by faith alone. But of what use is it for the proud man, who on that account is ashamed to embark upon the ship of wood, to behold from afar his country beyond the sea? Or how can it hurt the humble man not to behold it from so great a distance, when he is actually coming to it by that wood upon which the other disdains to be borne?

These people also criticize us for believing in the resurrection of the flesh, and would rather have us believe them about these matters. As though, simply because they have been able to understand the high and unchangeable substance through the things that are made, this gives them the right to be consulted about the cycles of changeable things or about the connected order of the ages. For consider this: even though they argue most truly and persuade us with most certain proofs that all temporal things are made according to an eternal science, does this mean they can see clearly within this science itself, or gather from it, how many kinds of animals there are, what the seeds of each are at their beginnings, what their measure is as they grow, what numbers govern their conceptions, births, ages, and deaths, and what movements they make in seeking things suited to their nature and avoiding the opposite? Haven't they discovered all these things not through that unchangeable wisdom, but through the actual record of places and times, or by trusting the written experiences of others? Therefore it is even less surprising that they have completely failed in investigating the sequence of longer ages and in finding any end point to that course along which, as though down a river, the human race is traveling, and the transition from there of each person to their own appropriate end. For these are subjects that historians could not describe, since they are far in the future and have been experienced and recorded by no one. Nor have those philosophers who have advanced further than others in that high and eternal science been able to grasp such subjects with their understanding; otherwise they would not be investigating past things of this kind as best they could, such as fall within the province of historians, but would instead also foreknow future things; and those who can do this are called soothsayers by them, but prophets by us.

21. These people also blame us for believing the resurrection of the flesh, and rather wish us to believe themselves concerning these things. As though, because they have been able to understand the high and unchangeable substance by the things which are made, for this reason they had a claim to be consulted concerning the revolutions of mutable things, or concerning the connected order of the ages. For pray, because they dispute most truly, and persuade us by most certain proofs, that all things temporal are made after a science that is eternal, are they therefore able to see clearly in the matter of this science itself, or to collect from it, how many kinds of animals there are, what are the seeds of each in their beginnings, what measure in their increase, what numbers run through their conceptions, births, ages, settings; what motions in desiring things according to their nature, and in avoiding the contrary? Have they not sought out all these things, not through that unchangeable wisdom, but through the actual history of places and times, or have trusted the written experience of others? Wherefore it is the less to be wondered at, that they have utterly failed in searching out the succession of more lengthened ages, and in finding any goal of that course, down which, as though down a river, the human race is sailing, and the transition thence of each to its own appropriate end. For these are subjects which historians could not describe, inasmuch as they are far in the future, and have been experienced and related by no one. Nor have those philosophers, who have profiled better than others in that high and eternal science, been able to grasp such subjects with the understanding; otherwise they would not be inquiring as they could into past things of the kind, such as are in the province of historians, but rather would foreknow also things future; and those who are able to do this are called by them soothsayers, but by us prophets:

Although the name of prophets is not entirely foreign to their writings, there is a very great difference in how future things are known. Future events may be guessed through experience of past events (just as doctors have written down many predictions based on their own experience, or as farmers and sailors also predict many things; when such predictions are made long in advance, they are considered divinations). Or future things may have already begun their journey toward us, and being seen from far away, are announced according to how sharp the senses are of those who see them—by doing this, the aerial powers are thought to divine (just as if someone from the top of a mountain saw someone coming from far away and announced it beforehand to those living nearby in the plain). Or future events are either announced beforehand to certain people, or are heard by them and passed on to others, through holy angels, to whom God shows these things by His Word and His Wisdom, in which both future and past things exist. Or the minds of certain people themselves are lifted up so far by the Holy Spirit that they behold, not through angels but by themselves, the unchangeable causes of future things in that very highest summit of the universe itself. For the aerial powers also hear these things, either by message through angels or through people, and hear only as much as He judges fitting, to whom all things are subject. Many things are also predicted by a kind of instinct and inner impulse by those who do not understand them, just as Caiaphas did not know what he said, but being the high priest, he prophesied.

22.– although the name of prophets, too, is not altogether foreign to their writings. But it makes the greatest possible difference, whether things future are conjectured by experience of things past (as physicians also have committed many things to writing in the way of foresight, which they themselves have noted by experience; or as again husbandmen, or sailors, too, foretell many things; for if such predictions are made a long while before, they are thought to be divinations), or whether such things have already started on their road to come to us, and being seen coming far off, are announced in proportion to the acuteness of the sense of those who see them, by doing which the aerial powers are thought to divine (just as if a person from the top of a mountain were to see far off some one coming, and were to announce it beforehand to those who dwelt close by in the plain); or whether they are either fore-announced to certain men, or are heard by them and again transmitted to other men, by means of holy angels, to whom God shows those things by His Word and His Wisdom, wherein both things future and things past consist: or whether the minds of certain men themselves are so far borne upwards by theHoly Spirit, as to behold, not through the angels, but of themselves, the immoveable causes of things future, in that very highest pinnacle of the universe itself. [And I say, behold,] for the aerial powers, too, hear these things, either by message through angels, or through men; and hear only so much as He judges to be fitting, to whom all things are subject. Many things, too, are foretold by a kind of instinct and inward impulse of such as know them not: as Caiaphas did not know what he said, but being the high priest, he prophesied.

We should not consult those philosophers about the succession of ages or the resurrection of the dead, even though they have understood as much as they could about the eternity of the Creator, in whom we live and move and have our being. While they knew God through the things He made, they did not glorify Him as God or give thanks. Instead, claiming to be wise, they became fools. They were not able to focus the mind's eye firmly enough on the eternity of the spiritual and unchangeable nature to see, in the very wisdom of the Creator and Governor of the universe, those cycles of the ages which already existed and always existed in that wisdom, but which here were still to come and did not yet exist. Nor were they able to see in that wisdom the changes for the better, not only of human souls but also of human bodies, leading to the perfection of their full measure. Since they were completely unable to see these things there, they were not even considered worthy of receiving any announcement of them through the holy angels, whether externally through the bodily senses or through interior revelations shown in the spirit. These things were actually revealed to our fathers who possessed true piety, and who, by foretelling them and gaining trust either through present signs or through nearby events that happened as they predicted, earned the right to be believed about things in the distant future, even to the end of the world. But the proud and deceitful powers of the air, even when they are found to have spoken through their fortune-tellers about the fellowship and citizenship of the saints and the true Mediator—things they heard from the holy prophets or angels—did so with the intention of deceiving even God's faithful ones, if possible, by using these borrowed truths to lead them away to their own falsehoods. But God caused those who did not know what they were saying to speak these things, so that the truth might be proclaimed from every direction, to help the faithful and to witness against the ungodly.

23. Therefore, neither concerning the successions of ages, nor concerning the resurrection of the dead, ought we to consult those philosophers, who have understood as much as they could the eternity of the Creator, in whom we live, and move, and have our being. Since, knowing God through those things which are made, they have not glorified Him as God, neither were thankful but professing themselves wise, they became fools. And whereas they were not fit to fix the eye of the mind so firmly upon the eternity of the spiritual and unchangeable nature, as to be able to see, in the wisdom itself of the Creator and Governor of the universe, those revolutions of the ages, which in that wisdom were already and were always, but here were about to be so that as yet they were not; or, again, to see therein those changes for the better, not of the souls only, but also of the bodies of men, even to the perfection of their proper measure; whereas then, I say, they were in no way fit to see these things therein, they were not even judged worthy of receiving any announcement of them by the holy angels; whether externally through the senses of the body, or by interior revelations exhibited in the spirit; as these things actually were manifested to our fathers, who were gifted with true piety, and who by foretelling them, obtaining credence either by present signs, or by events close at hand, which turned out as they had foretold, earned authority to be believed respecting things remotely future, even to the end of the world. But the proud and deceitful powers of the air, even if they are found to have said through their soothsayers some things of the fellowship and citizenship of the saints, and of the true Mediator, which they heard from the holy prophets or the angels, did so with the purpose of seducing even the faithful ones of God, if they could, by these alien truths, to revolt to their own proper falsehoods. But God did this by those who knew not what they said, in order that the truth might sound abroad from all sides, to aid the faithful, to be a witness against the ungodly.

Since we were unable to grasp eternal things, and since the filth of our sins weighed us down—sins we had acquired through our love of temporal things and which had become implanted in us almost naturally from the root of our mortality—it was necessary for us to be cleansed. But we could not be cleansed in such a way as to be united with eternal things except through temporal things, with which we were already united and held fast. For health is the opposite of disease, but the intermediate process of healing does not lead us to perfect health unless it has some connection with the disease. Useless temporal things merely deceive the sick, while useful temporal things take up those who need healing and, once they are healed, pass them on to eternal things. The rational mind, just as it owes contemplation to eternal things when cleansed, likewise owes faith to temporal things when it needs cleansing. Even one of those who were formerly considered wise among the Greeks said that truth relates to faith in the same way eternity relates to that which has a beginning. He is undoubtedly correct in saying this. For what we call temporal, he describes as having had a beginning. We ourselves also fall under this category, not only with respect to the body but also with respect to the changeableness of the soul. For nothing that undergoes any degree of change can properly be called eternal. Therefore, insofar as we are changeable, we are separated from eternity. But eternal life is promised to us through the truth, and our faith stands as far apart from clear knowledge of that truth as mortality does from eternity. We now place faith in things done in time for our sake, and through that very faith we are cleansed, so that when we come to sight—just as truth follows faith—eternity may follow mortality. Therefore, since our faith will become truth when we attain what is promised to us who believe, and what is promised to us is eternal life, and the Truth has said (not the truth that will come to be according to what our faith shall be, but the Truth which always is, because in it is eternity), "And this is life eternal, that they might know You the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom You have sent"—when our faith through seeing becomes truth, then eternity will possess our now-changed mortality. Until this happens, and in order that it may happen—because we direct the faith of belief toward things which have a beginning, just as in eternal things we hope for the truth of contemplation, lest the faith of mortal life be at odds with the truth of eternal life—the Truth itself, co-eternal with the Father, took a beginning from earth when the Son of God came in such a way as to become the Son of man and to take our faith to Himself, so that He might thereby lead us to His own truth. He took on our mortality without losing His own eternity. For truth relates to faith in the way eternity relates to that which has a beginning. Therefore, we must be cleansed in such a way that we may come to have the kind of beginning that remains eternal, so that we do not have one beginning in faith and another in truth. We could not pass from the condition of having a beginning to eternal things unless we were transferred to His own eternity by the union of the eternal to ourselves through our own beginning. Therefore our faith has now, in some measure, followed to where He in whom we have believed has ascended: born, dead, risen again, taken up. Of these four things, we already knew the first two in ourselves, for we know that people both have a beginning and die. But the remaining two—to be raised and to be taken up—we rightly hope will happen in us because we have believed them accomplished in Him. Since, therefore, in Him that which had a beginning has passed over to eternity, it will likewise pass over in us when faith arrives at truth. For to those who believe in this way, so that they might remain in the word of faith and from there be led on to truth, and through that to eternity, and be freed from death, He speaks thus: "If you continue in my word, then are you my disciples indeed." And as though they would ask, "With what result?" He continues, "And you shall know the truth." And again, as though they would say, "Of what benefit is truth to mortal people?" He says, "And the truth shall make you free." Free from what, except from death, from corruption, from changeableness? Since truth remains immortal, incorrupt, unchangeable. But true immortality, true incorruptibility, true unchangeableness, is eternity itself.

24. Since, then, we were not fit to take hold of things eternal, and since the foulness of sins weighed us down, which we had contracted by the love of temporal things, and which were implanted in us as it were naturally, from the root of mortality, it was needful that we should be cleansed. But cleansed we could not be, so as to be tempered together with things eternal, except it were through things temporal, wherewith we were already tempered together and held fast. For health is at the opposite extreme from disease; but the intermediate process of healing does not lead us to perfect health, unless it has some congruity with the disease. Things temporal that are useless merely deceive the sick; things temporal that are useful take up those that need healing, and pass them on healed, to things eternal. And the rational mind, as when cleansed it owes contemplation to things eternal; so, when needing cleansing, owes faith to things temporal. One even of those who were formerly esteemed wise men among the Greeks has said, The truth stands to faith in the same relation in which eternity stands to that which has a beginning. And he is no doubt right in saying so. For what we call temporal, he describes as having had a beginning. And we also ourselves come under this kind, not only in respect to the body, but also in respect to the changeableness of the soul. For that is not properly called eternal which undergoes any degree of change. Therefore, in so far as we are changeable, in so far we stand apart from eternity. But life eternal is promised to us through the truth, from the clear knowledge of which, again, our faith stands as far apart as mortality does from eternity. We then now put faith in things done in time on our account, and by that faith itself we are cleansed; in order that when we have come to sight, as truth follows faith, so eternity may follow upon mortality. And therefore, since our faith will become truth, when we have attained to that which is promised to us who believe: and that which is promised us is eternal life; and the Truth (not that which shall come to be according as our faith shall be, but that truth which is always, because in it is eternity — the Truth then) has said, And this is life eternal, that they might know You the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom You have sent: when our faith by seeing shall come to be truth, then eternity shall possess our now changed mortality. And until this shall take place, and in order that it may take place — because we adapt the faith of belief to things which have a beginning, as in things eternal we hope for the truth of contemplation, lest the faith of mortal life should be at discord with the truth of eternal life — the Truth itself, co-eternal with the Father, took a beginning from earth, when the Son of God so came as to become the Son of man, and to take to Himself our faith, that He might thereby lead us on to His own truth, who so undertook our mortality, as not to lose His own eternity. For truth stands to faith in the relation in which eternity stands to that which has a beginning. Therefore, we must needs so be cleansed, that we may come to have such a beginning as remains eternal, that we may not have one beginning in faith, and another in truth. Neither could we pass to things eternal from the condition of having a beginning, unless we were transferred, by union of the eternal to ourselves through our own beginning, to His own eternity. Therefore our faith has, in some measure, now followed there, whither He in whom we have believed has ascended; born, dead, risen again, taken up. Of these four things, we knew the first two in ourselves. For we know that men both have a beginning and die. But the remaining two, that is, to be raised, and to be taken up, we rightly hope will be in us, because we have believed them done in Him. Since, therefore, in Him that, too, which had a beginning has passed over to eternity, in ourselves also it will so pass over, when faith shall have arrived at truth. For to those who thus believe, in order that they might remain in the word of faith, and being thence led on to the truth, and through that to eternity, might be freed from death, He speaks thus: If you continue in my word, then are you my disciples indeed. And as though they would ask, With what fruit? He proceeds to say, And you shall know the truth. And again, as though they would say, Of what good is truth to mortal men? And the truth, He says, shall make you free. From what, except from death, from corruptions, from changeableness? Since truth remains immortal, incorrupt, unchangeable. But true immortality, true incorruptibility, true unchangeableness, is eternity itself.

Here is what it means for the Son of God to be sent—indeed, what the sending of the Son of God actually is. All the things that were done in time to produce faith, so we could be cleansed and able to see truth, had their beginning in what was set forth from eternity and will return to eternity. These things were either testimonies to this mission, or they were the mission of the Son of God itself. Some of these testimonies announced beforehand that He would come, while others testified that He had already come. Since He who created all things was Himself made a creature, the whole creation must necessarily bear witness to this. For unless the one being sent were proclaimed by many witnesses, the one would not be connected to the sending away of many. And unless there were testimonies that would seem great to lowly people, they would not believe that He who is great could make people great by coming as lowly to the lowly. For the heavens and the earth and everything in them are incomparably greater works of the Son of God—since all things were made by Him—than the signs and wonders that appeared as testimony to Him. Yet people, being lowly, needed to tremble at those lowly things as though they were great, so they could believe that these great things had been accomplished by Him.

25. Behold, then, why the Son of God was sent; nay, rather behold what it is for the Son of God to be sent. Whatever things they were which were wrought in time, with a view to produce faith, whereby we might be cleansed so as to contemplate truth, in things that have a beginning, which have been put forth from eternity, and are referred back to eternity: these were either testimonies of this mission, or they were the mission itself of the Son of God. But some of these testimonies announced Him beforehand as to come, some testified that He had come already. For that He was made a creature by whom the whole creation was made, must needs find a witness in the whole creation. For except one were preached by the sending of many [witnesses] one would not be bound to, the sending away of many. And unless there were such testimonies as should seem to be great to those who are lowly, it would not be believed, that He being great should make men great, who as lowly was sent to the lowly. For the heaven and the earth and all things in them are incomparably greater works of the Son of God, since all things were made by Him, than the signs and the portents which broke forth in testimony of Him. But yet men, in order that, being lowly, they might believe these great things to have been wrought by Him, trembled at those lowly things, as if they had been great.

When the fullness of time had come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the Law. He was lowly to such a degree that He was made, and therefore sent in that He was made. So if the greater sends the less, we too acknowledge that He was made less—less in so far as He was made, and made in so far as He was sent. For He sent forth His Son made of a woman. And yet, because all things were made by Him, not only before He was made and sent, but before all things existed at all, we confess that the same one whom we call less because He was sent is equal to the sender. How then could He be seen by the fathers when certain angelic visions were shown to them before that fullness of time when it was fitting He should be sent—that is, before He was sent, when He who was not yet sent was seen as He is equal with the Father? For how does He say to Philip, by whom He was certainly seen as by all the rest, and even by those who crucified Him in the flesh, "Have I been so long time with you, and yet have you not known me, Philip? He that has seen me has seen the Father also"—unless because He was both seen and yet not seen? He was seen as He had been made in being sent; He was not seen as the one by whom all things were made. Or how does He also say this: "He that has my commandments and keeps them, he it is that loves me; and he that loves me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him," at a time when He was already manifest before the eyes of men—unless because He was offering that flesh, which the Word was made in the fullness of time, to be accepted by our faith, but was keeping back the Word itself, by whom all things were made, to be contemplated in eternity by the mind when cleansed by faith?

26. When, therefore, the fullness of time had come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the Law; to such a degree lowly, that He was made; in this way therefore sent, in that He was made. If, therefore, the greater sends the less, we too, acknowledge Him to have been made less; and in so far less, in so far as made; and in so far made, in so far as sent. For He sent forth His Son made of a woman. And yet, because all things were made by Him, not only before He was made and sent, but before all things were at all, we confess the same to be equal to the sender, whom we call less, as having been sent. In what way, then, could He be seen by the fathers, when certain angelical visions were shown to them, before that fullness of time at which it was fitting He should be sent, and so before He was sent, at a time when not yet sent He was seen as He is equal with the Father? For how does He say to Philip, by whom He was certainly seen as by all the rest, and even by those by whom He was crucified in the flesh, Have I been so long time with you, and yet have you not known me, Philip? He that has seen me, has seen the Father also; unless because He was both seen and yet not seen? He was seen, as He had been made in being sent; He was not seen, as by Him all things were made. Or how does He say this too, He that has my commandments and keeps them, he it is that loves me; and he that loves me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him, at a time when He was manifest before the eyes of men; unless because He was offering that flesh, which the Word was made in the fullness of time, to be accepted by our faith; but was keeping back the Word itself, by whom all things were made, to be contemplated in eternity by the mind when cleansed by faith?

If the Son is said to be sent by the Father because one is the Father and the other is the Son, this does not prevent us from believing the Son to be equal, consubstantial, and co-eternal with the Father, and yet to have been sent as Son by the Father. This is not because one is greater and the other less, but because one is Father and the other Son; one is the begetter and the other the begotten; one is He from whom the one who is sent comes, and the other is He who comes from the one who sends. For the Son is from the Father, not the Father from the Son. Following this understanding, we can now see that the Son is not only said to have been sent because the Word became flesh, but was sent so that the Word might become flesh and perform through his bodily presence those things that were written. That is, he is understood to have been sent not only as man, which the Word became, but the Word itself was sent so that it might become man. He was not sent because of any inequality of power, substance, or anything in him that was not equal to the Father, but because the Son is from the Father, not the Father from the Son. The Son is the Word of the Father, which is also called his wisdom. What is surprising, then, if he is sent, not because he is unequal with the Father, but because he is a pure emanation (manatio) flowing from the glory of the Almighty God? For there, what flows out and that from which it flows are of one and the same substance. It does not flow out as water flows from an opening in earth or stone, but as light flows from light. For the words "she is the brightness of the everlasting light"—what else do they mean than "she is light of everlasting light"? For what is the brightness of light, except light itself? And so it is co-eternal with the light from which the light comes. But it is better to say "the brightness of light" rather than "the light of light," so that what flows out should not be thought to be darker than what it flows from. When one hears of the brightness of light as being light itself, it is easier to believe that the former shines by means of the latter than that the latter shines less. But because there was no need to warn people not to think that the light which begot the other was less (for no heretic ever dared say this, nor is it believable that anyone will dare to do so), Scripture addresses that other thought, by which the light that flows out might seem darker than that from which it flows. It has removed this assumption by saying it is the brightness of that light, namely, of eternal light, and so shows it to be equal. For if it were less, it would be its darkness, not its brightness; but if it were greater, it could not flow from it, for it could not surpass that from which it comes. Therefore, because it flows from it, it is not greater than it is; and because it is not its darkness but its brightness, it is not less than it is; therefore it is equal. Nor should it trouble us that it is called a pure emanation flowing from the glory of the Almighty God, as if it were not itself omnipotent but an emanation from the Omnipotent. For soon after it is said of it, "And being but one, she can do all things." But who is omnipotent unless he who can do all things? It is sent, therefore, by him from whom it flows, for so she is sought after by him who loved and desired her. "Send her," he says, "out of your holy heavens, and from the throne of your glory, that, being present, she may labor with me"—that is, may teach me to labor willingly so that I may not labor painfully. For her labors are virtues. But she is sent in one way so that she may be with man; she has been sent in another way so that she herself may be man. For, entering into holy souls, she makes them friends of God and prophets; so she also fills the holy angels and works all things fitting for such ministries through them. But when the fullness of time had come, she was sent, not to fill angels or to be an angel (except insofar as she announced the counsel of the Father, which was also her own), nor again to be with men or in men, for this too took place before, both in the fathers and in the prophets. But she was sent so that the Word itself should become flesh, that is, should become man. In this future mystery, when revealed, was to be the salvation of those wise and holy men also who, before he was born of the Virgin, were born of women. And in this mystery, when accomplished and made known, is the salvation of all who believe, hope, and love. For this is the great mystery of godliness, which was revealed in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen by angels, preached to the Gentiles, believed on in the world, and received up into glory.

27. But if the Son is said to be sent by the Father on this account, that the one is the Father, and the other the Son, this does not in any manner hinder us from believing the Son to be equal, and consubstantial, and co-eternal with the Father, and yet to have been sent as Son by the Father. Not because the one is greater, the other less; but because the one is Father, the other Son; the one begetter, the other begotten; the one, He from whom He is who is sent; the other, He who is from Him who sends. For the Son is from the Father, not the Father from the Son. And according to this manner we can now understand that the Son is not only said to have been sent because the Word was made flesh, but therefore sent that the Word might be made flesh, and that He might perform through His bodily presence those things which were written; that is, that not only is He understood to have been sent as man, which the Word was made but the Word, too, was sent that it might be made man; because He was not sent in respect to any inequality of power, or substance, or anything that in Him was not equal to the Father; but in respect to this, that the Son is from the Father, not the Father from the Son; for the Son is the Word of the Father, which is also called His wisdom. What wonder, therefore, if He is sent, not because He is unequal with the Father, but because He is a pure emanation ( manatio) issuing from the glory of the Almighty God? For there, that which issues, and that from which it issues, is of one and the same substance. For it does not issue as water issues from an aperture of earth or of stone, but as light issues from light. For the words, For she is the brightness of the everlasting light, what else are they than, she is light of everlasting light? For what is the brightness of light, except light itself? And so co-eternal, with the light, from which the light is. But it is preferable to say, the brightness of light, rather than the light of light; lest that which issues should be thought to be darker than that from which it issues. For when one hears of the brightness of light as being light itself, it is more easy to believe that the former shines by means of the latter, than that the latter shines less. But because there was no need of warning men not to think that light to be less, which begot the other (for no heretic ever dared say this, neither is it to be believed that any one will dare to do so), Scripture meets that other thought, whereby that light which issues might seem darker than that from which it issues; and it has removed this surmise by saying, It is the brightness of that light, namely, of eternal light, and so shows it to be equal. For if it were less, then it would be its darkness, not its brightness; but if it were greater, then it could not issue from it, for it could not surpass that from which it is educed. Therefore, because it issues from it, it is not greater than it is; and because it is not its darkness, but its brightness, it is not less than it is: therefore it is equal. Nor ought this to trouble us, that it is called a pure emanation issuing from the glory of the Almighty God, as if itself were not omnipotent, but an emanation from the Omnipotent; for soon after it is said of it, And being but one, she can do all things. But who is omnipotent, unless He who can do all things? It is sent, therefore, by Him from whom it issues; for so she is sought after by him who loved and desired her. Send her, he says, out of Your holy heavens, and from the throne of Your glory, that, being present, she may labor with me; that is, may teach me to labor [heartily] in order that I may not labor [irksomely]. For her labors are virtues. But she is sent in one way that she may be with man; she has been sent in another way that she herself may be man. For, entering into holy souls, she makes them friends of God and prophets; so she also fills the holy angels, and works all things fitting for such ministries by them. But when the fullness of time had come, she was sent, not to fill angels, nor to be an angel, except in so far as she announced the counsel of the Father, which was her own also; nor, again, to be with men or in men, for this too took place before, both in the fathers and in the prophets; but that the Word itself should be made flesh, that is, should be made man. In which future mystery, when revealed, was to be the salvation of those wise and holy men also, who, before He was born of the Virgin, were born of women; and in which, when done and made known, is the salvation of all who believe, and hope, and love. For this is the great mystery of godliness, which was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Therefore the Word of God is sent by the one whose Word He is. He is sent by the one who begot Him. The one who begot sends, and what is begotten is sent. And He is sent to each person when that person apprehends and perceives Him, to the extent that He can be apprehended and perceived, according to the capacity of the rational soul either advancing toward God or already perfected in God. The Son, therefore, is not properly said to have been sent simply because He is begotten of the Father. Rather, He is sent either when the Word made flesh appeared to the world, which is why He says, "I came forth from the Father, and have come into the world," or when from time to time He is perceived by each person's mind, as in the saying, "Send her, that, being present with me, she may labor with me." What is born from eternity is eternal, for it is the brightness of the everlasting light. But what is sent from time to time is what is apprehended by each person. When the Son of God was made manifest in the flesh, He was sent into this world in the fullness of time, made of a woman. For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God (because the light shines in darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it), it pleased God through the foolishness of preaching to save those who believe, and for the Word to be made flesh and dwell among us. But when from time to time He comes forth and is perceived by each person's mind, He is indeed said to be sent, but not into this world, because He does not appear sensibly—that is, He does not present Himself to the bodily senses. For we ourselves are not in this world when we grasp with our minds, as far as we can, what is eternal. And the spirits of all the righteous are not in this world, even those still living in the flesh, insofar as they have discernment in divine things. But the Father is not said to be sent when from time to time He is apprehended by anyone, because He has no one from whom to be or from whom to proceed. For Wisdom says, "I came out of the mouth of the Most High," and it is said of the Holy Spirit, "He proceeds from the Father," but the Father is from no one.

28. Therefore the Word of God is sent by Him, of whom He is the Word; He is sent by Him, from whom He was begotten ( genitum); He sends who begot, That is sent which is begotten. And He is then sent to each one, when He is apprehended and perceived by each, in so far as He can be apprehended and perceived, in proportion to the comprehension of the rational soul, either advancing towards God, or already perfect in God. The Son, therefore, is not properly said to have been sent in that He is begotten of the Father; but either in that the Word made flesh appeared to the world, whence He says, I came forth from the Father, and have come into the world; or in that from time to time, He is perceived by the mind of each, according to the saying, Send her, that, being present with me, she may labor with me. What then is born ( natum) from eternity is eternal, for it is the brightness of the everlasting light; but what is sent from time to time, is that which is apprehended by each. But when the Son of God was made manifest in the flesh, He was sent into this world in the fullness of time, made of a woman. For after that, in the wisdom of God, the world by wisdom knew not God (since the light shines in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not), it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe, and that the Word should be made flesh, and dwell among us. But when from time to time He comes forth and is perceived by the mind of each, He is said indeed to be sent, but not into this world; for He does not appear sensibly, that is, He does not present Himself to the corporeal senses. For we ourselves, too, are not in this world, in respect to our grasping with the mind as far as we can that which is eternal; and the spirits of all the righteous are not in this world, even of those who are still living in the flesh, in so far as they have discernment in things divine. But the Father is not said to be sent, when from time to time He is apprehended by any one, for He has no one of whom to be, or from whom to proceed; since Wisdom says, I came out of the mouth of the Most High, and it is said of the Holy Spirit, He proceeds from the Father, but the Father is from no one.

Just as the Father begets and the Son is begotten, so the Father sends and the Son is sent. And just as the one who begets and the one who is begotten are one, so both the one who sends and the one who is sent are one, since the Father and the Son are one. The Holy Spirit is likewise one with them, since these three are one. For just as being born, in relation to the Son, means to be from the Father, so being sent, in relation to the Son, means to be known to be from the Father. And just as being the gift of God, in relation to the Holy Spirit, means to proceed from the Father, so being sent means to be known to proceed from the Father. We cannot say that the Holy Spirit does not also proceed from the Son, for the same Spirit is reasonably called the Spirit of both the Father and the Son. I see no other meaning in what Jesus intended when he breathed on the faces of the disciples and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit." That physical breath, coming from his body with the sensation of physical touch, was not the substance of the Holy Spirit, but a declaration through an appropriate sign that the Holy Spirit proceeds not only from the Father but also from the Son. Only the greatest of fools would claim that the Spirit he gave when he breathed on them was different from the one he sent after his ascension. For there is one Spirit of God, the Spirit of the Father and of the Son, the Holy Spirit, who works all things in all. The fact that he was given twice certainly had significant meaning, which we will discuss in its proper place, as the Lord allows. When the Lord says, "Whom I will send to you from the Father," this shows the Spirit to be of both the Father and the Son, because when he had said, "Whom the Father will send," he also added, "in my name." Yet he did not say, "Whom the Father will send from me," as he said, "Whom I will send to you from the Father," showing that the Father is the principium of the whole Godhead, or if it is better expressed, deity. Therefore, the one who proceeds from the Father and from the Son is traced back to him from whom the Son was born. As for what the evangelist says, "For the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified," how should we understand this except that the special giving or sending of the Holy Spirit after Christ's glorification would be such as had never existed before? It was not that the Spirit did not exist previously, but that he had not been given in this particular way before. For if the Holy Spirit was not given before, what filled the prophets who spoke? Scripture clearly says and shows in many places that they spoke by the Holy Spirit. John the Baptist was told, "He will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb." His father Zechariah was found to have been filled with the Holy Spirit, enabling him to say such things about John. Mary too was filled with the Holy Spirit, enabling her to foretell such things about the Lord she was carrying in her womb. Simeon and Anna were filled with the Holy Spirit, enabling them to recognize the greatness of the infant Christ. How then was the Spirit not yet given, since Jesus was not yet glorified, unless that particular giving, granting, or mission of the Holy Spirit was to have a certain unique quality in its very coming, such as never existed before? We read nowhere that people spoke in languages they did not know through the Holy Spirit coming upon them, as happened then, when it was necessary that his coming be made clear through visible signs, in order to show that the whole world and all nations with their different languages should believe in Christ through the gift of the Holy Spirit, fulfilling what is sung in the Psalm: "There is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard; their sound has gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world."

29. As, therefore, the Father begot, the Son is begotten; so the Father sent, the Son was sent. But in like manner as He who begot and He who was begotten, so both He who sent and He who was sent, are one, since the Father and the Son are one. So also the Holy Spirit is one with them, since these three are one. For as to be born, in respect to the Son, means to be from the Father; so to be sent, in respect to the Son, means to be known to be from the Father. And as to be the gift of God in respect to the Holy Spirit, means to proceed from the Father; so to be sent, is to be known to proceed from the Father. Neither can we say that the Holy Spirit does not also proceed from the Son, for the same Spirit is not without reason said to be the Spirit both of the Father and of the Son. Nor do I see what else He intended to signify, when He breathed on the face of the disciples, and said, Receive the Holy Ghost. For that bodily breathing, proceeding from the body with the feeling of bodily touching, was not the substance of the Holy Spirit, but a declaration by a fitting sign, that the Holy Spirit proceeds not only from the Father, but also from the Son. For the veriest of madmen would not say, that it was one Spirit which He gave when He breathed on them, and another which He sent after His ascension. For the Spirit of God is one, the Spirit of the Father and of the Son, the Holy Spirit, who works all in all. But that He was given twice was certainly a significant economy, which we will discuss in its place, as far as the Lord may grant. That then which the Lord says — Whom I will send unto you from the Father, — shows the Spirit to be both of the Father and of the Son; because, also, when He had said, Whom the Father will send, He added also, in my name. Yet He did not say, Whom the Father will send from me, as He said, Whom I will send unto you from the Father, — showing, namely, that the Father is the beginning ( principium) of the whole divinity, or if it is better so expressed, deity. He, therefore, who proceeds from the Father and from the Son, is referred back to Him from whom the Son was born ( natus). And that which the evangelist says, For the Holy Ghost was not yet given, because that Jesus was not yet glorified; how is this to be understood, unless because the special giving or sending of the Holy Spirit after the glorification of Christ was to be such as it had never been before? For it was not previously none at all, but it had not been such as this. For if the Holy Spirit was not given before, wherewith were the prophets who spoke filled? Whereas the Scripture plainly says, and shows in many places, that they spoke by the Holy Spirit. Whereas, also, it is said of John the Baptist, And he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb. And his father Zacharias is found to have been filled with the Holy Ghost, so as to say such things of him. And Mary, too, was filled with the Holy Ghost, so as to foretell such things of the Lord, whom she was bearing in her womb. And Simeon and Anna were filled with the Holy Spirit, so as to acknowledge the greatness of the little child Christ. How, then, was the Spirit not yet given, since Jesus was not yet glorified, unless because that giving, or granting, or mission of the Holy Spirit was to have a certain speciality of its own in its very advent, such as never was before? For we read nowhere that men spoke in tongues which they did not know, through the Holy Spirit coming upon them; as happened then, when it was needful that His coming should be made plain by visible signs, in order to show that the whole world, and all nations constituted with different tongues, should believe in Christ through the gift of the Holy Spirit, to fulfill that which is sung in the Psalm, There is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard; their sound is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world.

Therefore, a human being was united and in a certain way joined together with the Word of God to form One Person. This happened when the fullness of time came and the Son of God, born of a woman, was sent into this world so that He might also be the Son of man for the sake of the sons of men. Angelic nature could prefigure this person beforehand in order to announce it in advance, but could not take it on so as to actually be that person itself.

30. Therefore man was united, and in some sense commingled, with the Word of God, so as to be One Person, when the fullness of time had come, and the Son of God, made of a woman, was sent into this world, that He might be also the Son of man for the sake of the sons of men. And this person angelic nature could prefigure beforehand, so as to pre-announce, but could not appropriate, so as to be that person itself.

Regarding the visible manifestation of the Holy Spirit, whether in the form of a dove or tongues of fire—when the subordinate and obedient creature through temporal movements and forms revealed His substance that is coeternal with the Father and the Son, and equally unchangeable with them, though it was not united to become one person with Him as the flesh was that the Word became—I do not venture to say that nothing similar happened in earlier times. However, I would confidently say that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, of one and the same substance, God the Creator, the Omnipotent Trinity, work indivisibly. But this cannot be shown indivisibly through the creature, which is far inferior, and especially not through the bodily creature. This is just as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit cannot be named by our words, which are certainly bodily sounds, except in their own distinct time intervals, divided by clear separation, intervals that the individual syllables of each word occupy. For in their own substance, wherein they exist, the three are one—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—the very same, without any temporal movement, above all creation, without any interval of time and place, and eternally one and the same from eternity to eternity, as if they were eternity itself, which exists with truth and charity. But in my words, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are separated and cannot be named simultaneously, and they occupy their own distinct places in separate visible letters. And just as when I name my memory, intellect, and will, each name refers to each one individually, yet each name is spoken by all three together—for there is not one of these three names that is not spoken by my memory, intellect, and will together as a whole soul—so the Trinity together produced both the voice of the Father, the flesh of the Son, and the dove of the Holy Spirit, while each of these things is referred individually to each person. Through this analogy it becomes somewhat clear that the Trinity, which is inseparable in itself, is manifested separately through the visible appearance of the creature, and that the operation of the Trinity is also inseparable in each individual instance of those things said to pertain specifically to the manifestation of either the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit.

But with respect to the sensible showing of the Holy Spirit, whether by the shape of a dove, or by fiery tongues, when the subjected and subservient creature by temporal motions and forms manifested His substance co-eternal with the Father and the Son, and alike with them unchangeable, while it was not united so as to be one person with Him, as the flesh was which the Word was made; I do not dare to say that nothing of the kind was done aforetime. But I would boldly say, that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, of one and the same substance, God the Creator, the Omnipotent Trinity, work indivisibly; but that this cannot be indivisibly manifested by the creature, which is far inferior, and least of all by the bodily creature: just as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit cannot be named by our words, which certainly are bodily sounds, except in their own proper intervals of time, divided by a distinct separation, which intervals the proper syllables of each word occupy. Since in their proper substance wherein they are, the three are one, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, the very same, by no temporal motion, above the whole creature, without any interval of time and place, and at once one and the same from eternity to eternity, as it were eternity itself, which is not without truth and charity. But, in my words, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are separated, and cannot be named at once, and occupy their own proper places separately invisible letters. And as, when I name my memory, and intellect, and will, each name refers to each severally, but yet each is uttered by all three; for there is no one of these three names that is not uttered by both my memory and my intellect and my will together [by the soul as a whole]; so the Trinity together wrought both the voice of the Father, and the flesh of the Son, and the dove of the Holy Spirit, while each of these things is referred severally to each person. And by this similitude it is in some degree discernible, that the Trinity, which is inseparable in itself, is manifested separably by the appearance of the visible creature; and that the operation of the Trinity is also inseparable in each severally of those things which are said to pertain properly to the manifesting of either the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit.

If I am asked in what way words or sensible forms and appearances were produced before the incarnation of the Word of God to prefigure his coming, I answer that God brought these things about through angels. I think I have also shown this sufficiently through testimonies from the Holy Scriptures. If I am asked how the incarnation itself came to pass, I answer that the Word of God himself was made flesh—that is, was made man—yet he was not turned or changed into what was made. Rather, he was made in such a way that there should be present not only the Word of God and the flesh of man, but also the rational soul of man, and this whole should be called both God on account of God and man on account of man. If this is understood with difficulty, the mind must be cleansed by faith, by increasingly abstaining from sins and doing good works, and by praying with the groaning of holy desires, so that by making progress through divine help, it may both understand and love. If I am asked how, after the incarnation of the Word, either a voice of the Father was produced or a bodily appearance by which the Holy Spirit was shown, I do not doubt that this was done through a created thing. But whether it was only through a bodily and sensible creature, or whether it also involved a rational or intellectual spirit (for this is the term some prefer to use for what the Greeks call noeron), certainly not in such a way as to form one person (for who could possibly say that whatever creature it was through which the Father's voice sounded is God the Father in that sense, or that whatever creature it was through which the Holy Spirit was shown in the form of a dove or in fiery tongues is the Holy Spirit in that sense, as the Son of God is that man who was made from a virgin?), but only for the service of bringing about such signs as God judged necessary—or whether something else should be understood—is difficult to discover and not wise to affirm rashly. Yet I do not see how those things could have been brought about without a rational or intellectual creature. But this is not yet the proper place to explain, as the Lord may give me strength, why I think this. For the arguments of heretics must first be discussed and refuted—arguments they produce not from the divine books but from their own reasoning, by which they think they forcibly compel us to understand the testimonies of Scripture that deal with the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit in the way they themselves want.

31. If then I am asked, in what manner either words or sensible forms and appearances were wrought before the incarnation of the Word of God, which should prefigure it as about to come, I reply that God wrought those things by the angels; and this I have also shown sufficiently, as I think, by testimonies of the Holy Scriptures. And if I am asked how the incarnation itself was brought to pass, I reply that the Word of God itself was made flesh, that is, was made man, yet not turned and changed into that which was made; but so made, that there should be there not only the Word of God and the flesh of man, but also the rational soul of man, and that this whole should both be called God on account of God, and man on account of man. And if this is understood with difficulty, the mind must be purged by faith, by more and more abstaining from sins, and by doing good works, and by praying with the groaning of holy desires; that by profiting through the divine help, it may both understand and love. And if I am asked, how, after the incarnation of the Word, either a voice of the Father was produced, or a corporeal appearance by which the Holy Spirit was manifested: I do not doubt indeed that this was done through the creature; but whether only corporeal and sensible, or whether by the employment also of the spirit rational or intellectual (for this is the term by which some choose to call what the Greeks name νοερόν), not certainly so as to form one person (for who could possibly say that whatever creature it was by which the voice of the Father sounded, is in such sense God the Father; or whatever creature it was by which the Holy Spirit was manifested in the form of a dove, or in fiery tongues, is in such sense the Holy Spirit, as the Son of God is that man who was made of a virgin?), but only to the ministry of bringing about such intimations as God judged needful; or whether anything else is to be understood: is difficult to discover, and not expedient rashly to affirm. Yet I see not how those things could have been brought to pass without the rational or intellectual creature. But it is not yet the proper place to explain, as the Lord may give me strength, why I so think; for the arguments of heretics must first be discussed and refuted, which they do not produce from the divine books, but from their own reasons, and by which, as they think, they forcibly compel us so to understand the testimonies of the Scriptures which treat of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, as they themselves will.

I believe I have now sufficiently shown that the Son is not inferior simply because He is sent by the Father, nor is the Holy Spirit inferior because He was sent by both the Father and the Son. These things are presented in the Scriptures either because of the visible creature, or rather to help us understand the emanation within the Godhead—but not because of any inequality, disparity, or difference of ousia. Even if God the Father had chosen to appear visibly through a created being, it would be completely absurd to say that He was sent either by the Son, whom He begot, or by the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from Him. Let this be the end of the present book. From here on, in the remaining books, we will examine, with the Lord's help, the nature of the heretics' deceptive arguments and how they can be refuted.

32. But now, as I think, it has been sufficiently shown, that the Son is not therefore less because He is sent by the Father, nor the Holy Spirit less because both the Father sent Him and the Son. For these things are perceived to be laid down in the Scriptures, either on account of the visible creature; or rather on account of commending to our thoughts the emanation [within the Godhead]; but not on account of inequality, or imparity, or unlikeness of substance; since, even if God the Father had willed to appear visibly through the subject creature, yet it would be most absurd to say that He was sent either by the Son, whom He begot, or by the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from Him. Let this, therefore, be the limit of the present book. Henceforth in the rest we shall see, the Lord helping, of what sort are those crafty arguments of the heretics, and in what manner they may be confuted.

I would prefer to spend my time reading rather than writing for others to read, and those who are willing should believe this. But for those who won't believe it yet are able and willing to put me to the test, let them first grant me whatever answers can be gathered from reading—whether for my own questions or for questions others ask me, which I must endure because of my position serving Christ and because of my passionate concern that our faith be strengthened against the errors of fleshly and worldly-minded people. Then let them see how gladly I would avoid this work and how joyfully I would set aside my pen. However, if what we have read on these subjects is either insufficiently explained, or cannot be found at all, or at least cannot easily be found by us in Latin, while we are not familiar enough with Greek to be competent to read and understand books on such topics in that language (though from the little that has been translated for us, I have no doubt that everything we could profitably seek is contained in those Greek writings), and yet I cannot refuse my brothers and sisters when they require of me, by that law which has made me their servant, that I minister above all to their worthy studies in Christ through my speaking and writing—these two being yoked together in me with Love as the driver—and while I myself confess that through writing I have learned many things I did not know: if all this is so, then this labor of mine should not seem pointless to any idle reader or to any very learned reader, since it is greatly needed by many who are busy and by many who are not learned, and among the latter, by myself. Therefore, greatly supported and helped by the writings of others I have already read on this subject, I have undertaken to inquire into and discuss whatever seems to my judgment can be reverently inquired into and discussed concerning the Trinity, the one supreme and supremely good God—with him urging me to this inquiry and helping me in the discussion of it—so that, if there are no other writings of this kind, there may be something for those willing and able to have and read; but if any already exist, then it may be all the easier to find such writings, the more of this kind there are in existence.

1. I Would have them believe, who are willing to do so, that I had rather bestow labor in reading, than in dictating what others may read. But let those who will not believe this, but are both able and willing to make the trial, grant me whatever answers may be gathered from reading, either to my own inquiries, or to those interrogations of others, which for the character I bear in the service of Christ, and for the zeal with which I burn that our faith may be fortified against the error of carnal and natural men, I must needs bear with; and then let them see how easily I would refrain from this labor, and with how much even of joy I would give my pen a holiday. But if what we have read upon these subjects is either not sufficiently set forth, or is not to be found at all, or at any rate cannot easily be found by us, in the Latin tongue, while we are not so familiar with the Greek tongue as to be found in any way competent to read and understand therein the books that treat of such topics, in which class of writings, to judge by the little which has been translated for us, I do not doubt that everything is contained that we can profitably seek; while yet I cannot resist my brethren when they exact of me, by that law by which I am made their servant, that I should minister above all to their praiseworthy studies in Christ by my tongue and by my pen, of which two yoked together in me, Love is the charioteer; and while I myself confess that I have by writing learned many things which I did not know: if this be so, then this my labor ought not to seem superfluous to any idle, or to any very learned reader; while it is needful in no small part, to many who are busy, and to many who are unlearned,and among these last to myself. Supported, then, very greatly, and aided by the writings we have already read of others on this subject, I have undertaken to inquire into and to discuss, whatever it seems to my judgment can be reverently inquired into and discussed, concerning the Trinity, the one supreme and supremely good God; He himself exhorting me to the inquiry, and helping me in the discussion of it; in order that, if there are no other writings of the kind, there may be something for those to have and read who are willing and capable; but if any exist already, then it may be so much the easier to find some such writings, the more there are of the kind in existence.

Certainly, just as in all my writings I want not only a devout reader but also someone free to correct me, I especially want this in the present investigation, which is so important that I wish there were as many inquirers as there are critics. But just as I don't want my reader to be bound to me, so I don't want my corrector to be bound to himself. The reader should not love me more than the catholic faith, and the corrector should not love himself more than the catholic truth. To the reader I say: Don't be willing to accept my writings as you would the canonical Scriptures. In Scripture, when you discover something you didn't previously believe, believe it without hesitation. But in my writings, unless you have understood with certainty what you didn't previously hold as certain, don't hold it fast. To the corrector I say: Don't be willing to correct my writings by your own opinion or argument, but from the divine text or by irrefutable reasoning. If you recognize anything true in them, its presence there doesn't make it mine, but by understanding and loving it, let it belong to both you and me. But if you prove anything false, even though it was once mine because I was guilty of the error, let us both now avoid it so that it belongs to neither you nor me.

2. Assuredly, as in all my writings I desire not only a pious reader, but also a free corrector, so I especially desire this in the present inquiry, which is so important that I would there were as many inquirers as there are objectors. But as I do not wish my reader to be bound down to me, so I do not wish my corrector to be bound down to himself. Let not the former love me more than the catholic faith, let not the latter love himself more than the catholic verity. As I say to the former, Do not be willing to yield to my writings as to the canonical Scriptures; but in these, when you have discovered even what you did not previously believe, believe it unhesitatingly; while in those, unless you have understood with certainty what you did not before hold as certain, be unwilling to hold it fast: so I say to the latter, Do not be willing to amend my writings by your own opinion or disputation, but from the divine text, or by unanswerable reason. If you apprehend anything of truth in them, its being there does not make it mine, but by understanding and loving it, let it be both yours and mine; but if you convict anything of falsehood, though it have once been mine, in that I was guilty of the error, yet now by avoiding it let it be neither yours nor mine.

Let this third book begin where the second one ended. After we reached the point where we wanted to show that the Son was not less than the Father simply because the Father sent and the Son was sent, and that the Holy Spirit was not less than both simply because we read in the Gospel that He was sent by both of them, we then undertook to inquire into the following: Since the Son was sent to where He already was—for He came into the world and was in the world—and since the Holy Spirit was also sent to where He already was—for the Spirit of the Lord fills the world, and that which contains all things has knowledge of the voice—was the Lord therefore sent because He was born in the flesh so as to be no longer hidden, and, as it were, came forth from the bosom of the Father and appeared to the eyes of men in the form of a servant? And was the Holy Spirit also therefore sent because He too was seen as a dove in bodily form and in divided tongues like fire? In other words, does "to be sent," when spoken of them, mean to go forth to the sight of mortals in some bodily form from a spiritual hiding place? And because the Father did not do this, is He said only to have sent but not to be sent? Our next inquiry was: Why is the Father also not sometimes said to be sent, if He Himself was manifested through those bodily forms which appeared to the eyes of the ancients? But if the Son was manifested at those times, why should He be said to be sent only much later, when the fullness of time had come for Him to be born of a woman, since indeed He was sent before as well—namely, when He appeared bodily in those forms? Or if He could not rightly be said to be sent except when the Word was made flesh, why should the Holy Spirit be read of as sent, when such an incarnation never took place for Him? But if neither the Father nor the Son but the Holy Spirit was manifested through these ancient appearances, why should He too be said to be sent now when He was also sent before in these various ways? Next we divided the subject to handle it most carefully, and we made the question threefold, of which one part was explained in the second book, and two remain, which I shall now proceed to discuss. For we have already inquired and determined that not only the Father, nor only the Son, nor only the Holy Spirit appeared in those ancient bodily forms and visions, but either the Lord God without distinction, who is understood to be the Trinity itself, or some one person of the Trinity, whichever the text of the narrative might indicate through clues supplied by the context.

3. Let this third book, then, take its beginning at the point to which the second had reached. For after we had arrived at this, that we desired to show that the Son was not therefore less than the Father, because the Father sent and the Son was sent; nor the Holy Spirit therefore less than both, because we read in the Gospel that He was sent both by the one and by the other; we undertook then to inquire, since the Son was sent there, where He already was, for He came into the world, and was in the world; since also the Holy Spirit was sent there, where He already was, for the Spirit of the Lord fills the world, and that which contains all things has knowledge of the voice; whether the Lord was therefore sent because He was born in the flesh so as to be no longer hidden, and, as it were, came forth from the bosom of the Father, and appeared to the eyes of men in the form of a servant; and the Holy Spirit also was therefore sent, because He too was seen as a dove in a corporeal form, and in cloven tongues, like as of fire; so that, to be sent, when spoken of them, means to go forth to the sight of mortals in some corporeal form from a spiritual hiding-place; which, because the Father did not, He is said only to have sent, not also to be sent. Our next inquiry was, Why the Father also is not sometimes said to be sent, if He Himself was manifested through those corporeal forms which appeared to the eyes of the ancients. But if the Son was manifested at these times, why should He be said to be sent so long after, when the fullness of time had come that He should be born of a woman; since, indeed, He was sent before also, viz., when He appeared corporeally in those forms? Or if He were not rightly said to be sent, except when the Word was made flesh; why should the Holy Spirit be read of as sent, of whom such an incarnation never took place? But if neither the Father, nor the Son, but the Holy Spirit was manifested through these ancient appearances; why should He too be said to be sent now, when He was also sent before in these various manners? Next we subdivided the subject, that it might be handled most carefully, and we made the question threefold, of which one part was explained in the second book, and two remain, which I shall next proceed to discuss. For we have already inquired and determined, that not only the Father, nor only the Son, nor only the Holy Spirit appeared in those ancient corporeal forms and visions, but either indifferently the Lord God, who is understood to be the Trinity itself, or some one person of the Trinity, whichever the text of the narrative might signify, through intimations supplied by the context.

Let us continue our inquiry in order. Under the second part of that division, the question arose whether the creature was formed only for that work in which God, in whatever way He then judged fitting, might be manifested to human sight; or whether angels who already existed were sent in such a way as to speak in the person of God, taking on a bodily appearance from the bodily creature for the purpose of their ministry; or else changing and transforming their own body itself—which is not over them but is governed by them as subject to themselves—into whatever forms they wished that were appropriate and suitable for their actions, according to the power given to them by the Creator. When this part of the question has been investigated as far as God permits, then finally we must examine the question with which we started: whether the Son and the Holy Spirit were also sent before; and if so, what difference exists between that sending and the one we read about in the Gospel; or whether neither of them was sent except when either the Son was made of the Virgin Mary, or when the Holy Spirit appeared in a visible form, whether as a dove or in tongues of fire.

4. Let us, then, continue our inquiry now in order. For under the second head in that division the question occurred, whether the creature was formed for that work only, wherein God, in such way as He then judged it to be fitting, might be manifested to human sight; or whether angels, who already existed, were so sent as to speak in the person of God, assuming a corporeal appearance from the corporeal creature for the purpose of their ministry; or else changing and turning their own body itself, to which they are not subject, but govern it as subject to themselves, into whatever forms they would, that were appropriate and fit for their actions, according to the power given to them by the Creator. And when this part of the question shall have been investigated, so far as God permit, then, lastly, we shall have to see to that question with which we started, viz., whether the Son and the Holy Spirit were also sent before; and if it be so, then what difference there is between that sending and the one of which we read in the Gospel; or whether neither of them were sent, except when either the Son was made of the Virgin Mary, or when the Holy Spirit appeared in a visible form, whether as a dove or in tongues of fire.

I confess, however, that it goes beyond what I can achieve to investigate whether angels, while secretly working through the spiritual quality of their body that remains in them, take something from the lower and more bodily elements, which they fit to themselves and can change and turn like a garment into whatever bodily appearances they wish—and those appearances themselves are also real, just as real water was changed by our Lord into real wine—or whether they transform their own bodies themselves into what they desire, suitable to the particular action. But it makes no difference to the present question which of these it is. And although I am not able to understand these things through actual experience, since I am a man, in the way the angels do who perform these things and know them better than I know them—namely, how far my body can be changed by the working of my will, whether through my own experience of myself or through what I have learned from others—still, it is not necessary here to say which of these alternatives I should believe based on the authority of the divine Scriptures, or else I would be forced to prove it, and my discussion would become too lengthy on a subject that does not relate to the present question.

5. I confess, however, that it reaches further than my purpose can carry me to inquire whether the angels, secretly working by the spiritual quality of their body abiding still in them, assume somewhat from the inferior and more bodily elements, which, being fitted to themselves, they may change and turn like a garment into any corporeal appearances they will, and those appearances themselves also real, as real water was changed by our Lord into real wine; or whether they transform their own bodies themselves into that which they would, suitably to the particular act. But it does not signify to the present question which of these it is. And although I be not able to understand these things by actual experience, seeing that I am a man, as the angels do who do these things, and know them better than I know them, viz., how far my body is changeable by the operation of my will; whether it be by my own experience of myself, or by that which I have gathered from others; yet it is not necessary here to say which of these alternatives I am to believe upon the authority of the divine Scriptures, lest I be compelled to prove it, and so my discourse become too long upon a subject which does not concern the present question.

Our present inquiry, then, is whether the angels were the agents both in showing those bodily appearances to the eyes of men and in sounding those words in their ears when the sensible creature itself, serving the Creator at His command, was transformed for the time into whatever was needed. As it is written in the book of Wisdom: "For the creature serves You, who are the Maker, increases his strength against the unrighteous for their punishment, and abates his strength for the benefit of such as put their trust in You. Therefore, even then was it altered into all fashions, and was obedient to Your grace, that nourishes all things according to the desire of them that longed for You." For the power of God's will reaches through the spiritual creature even to the visible and sensible effects of the corporeal creature. For where does the wisdom of the omnipotent God not work what He wills, which reaches from one end to another mightily, and sweetly orders all things?

6. Our present inquiry then is, whether the angels were then the agents both in showing those bodily appearances to the eyes of men and in sounding those words in their ears when the sensible creature itself, serving the Creator at His beck, was turned for the time into whatever was needful; as it is written in the book of Wisdom, For the creature serves You, who art the Maker, increases his strength against the unrighteous for their punishment, and abates his strength for the benefit of such as put their trust in You. Therefore, even then was it altered into all fashions, and was obedient to Your grace, that nourishes all things according to the desire of them that longed for You. For the power of the will of God reaches through the spiritual creature even to visible and sensible effects of the corporeal creature. For where does not the wisdom of the omnipotent God work that which He wills, which reaches from one end to another mightily, and sweetly does order all things?

But there is one kind of natural order in the transformation and changeability of physical bodies. Although this order also serves God's command, people have stopped being amazed by it because it happens continuously and without interruption. This includes things that change either very quickly or at least within not-too-long periods of time in heaven, on earth, or in the sea—whether they rise, set, or change in appearance from time to time. Then there are other things that also arise from this same natural order but are less familiar because they happen at longer intervals. Even though ordinary people foolishly marvel at these things, they are understood by those who study this present world, and as generations pass they become less and less wonderful the more often they occur and the more people know about them. Examples include eclipses of the sun and moon, certain stars appearing rarely, earthquakes, abnormal births of living creatures, and other similar things. Not one of these takes place without the will of God, yet this fact is not obvious to most people. Therefore, the vanity of philosophers has found room to attribute these things to other causes—perhaps true causes, but only immediate ones—while they are completely unable to see the cause that is higher than all others, namely, the will of God. Or they attribute them to false causes that are not even proposed through any careful investigation of physical things and motions, but merely from their own guesswork and error.

7. But there is one kind of natural order in the conversion and changeableness of bodies, which, although itself also serves the bidding of God, yet by reason of its unbroken continuity has ceased to cause wonder; as is the case, for instance, with those things which are changed either in very short, or at any rate not long, intervals of time, in heaven, or earth, or sea; whether it be in rising, or in setting, or in change of appearance from time to time; while there are other things, which, although arising from that same order, yet are less familiar on account of longer intervals of time. And these things, although the many stupidly wonder at them, yet are understood by those who inquire into this present world, and in the progress of generations become so much the less wonderful, as they are the more often repeated and known by more people. Such are the eclipses of the sun and moon, and some kinds of stars, appearing seldom, and earthquakes, and unnatural births of living creatures, and other similar things; of which not one takes place without the will of God; yet, that it is so, is to most people not apparent. And so the vanity of philosophers has found license to assign these things also to other causes, true causes perhaps, but proximate ones, while they are not able to see at all the cause that is higher than all others, that is, the will of God; or again to false causes, and to such as are not even put forward out of any diligent investigation of corporeal things and motions, but from their own guess and error.

I will bring forward an example, if I can, to make this clearer. There is, we know, in the human body a certain bulk of flesh and an outward form, an arrangement and distribution of limbs, and a temperament of health. A soul breathed into it governs this body, and that soul is a rational one. This soul, therefore, although changeable, can nevertheless partake of that unchangeable wisdom, so that it may share in that which is in and of itself, as it is written in the Psalm concerning all the saints. From these saints, as from living stones, is built that Jerusalem which is the mother of us all, eternal in the heavens. For so it is sung: "Jerusalem is built as a city, that is partaker of that which is in and of itself." For "in and of itself," in that passage, is understood to refer to that supreme and unchangeable good, which is God, and to His own wisdom and will. To Him is sung in another place: "You shall change them, and they shall be changed; but You are the same."

8. I will bring forward an example, if I can, that this may be plainer. There is, we know, in the human body, a certain bulk of flesh and an outward form, and an arrangement and distraction of limbs, and a temperament of health; and a soul breathed into it governs this body, and that soul a rational one; which, therefore, although changeable, yet can be partaker of that unchangeable wisdom, so that it may partake of that which is in and of itself; as it is written in the Psalm concerning all saints, of whom as of living stones is built that Jerusalem which is the mother of us all, eternal in the heavens. For so it is sung, Jerusalem is built as a city, that is partaker of that which is in and of itself. For in and of itself, in that place, is understood of that chiefest and unchangeable good, which is God, and of His own wisdom and will. To whom is sung in another place, You shall change them, and they shall be changed; but You are the same.

Let us consider the case of a wise man whose rational soul already shares in unchangeable and eternal truth. He consults this truth about all his actions and does nothing at all without knowing through it that the action ought to be done, so that by submitting to it and obeying it he may act rightly. Now suppose this man, after consulting with the highest reason of divine righteousness—which he hears with the ear of his heart in secret—and following its command, wears out his body through labor in some work of mercy and becomes ill. When he consults doctors, one tells him the cause of his disease is too much dryness in the body, while another says it is too much moisture. One of them would certainly identify the true cause and the other would be wrong, but both would speak only of immediate causes—that is, bodily ones. But if we inquire into the cause of that dryness and find it was the self-imposed labor, then we would arrive at a higher cause, one that proceeds from the soul so as to affect the body that the soul governs. Yet this still would not be the first cause, for that was certainly a still higher cause, located in unchangeable wisdom itself. By serving this wisdom in love and obeying its unutterable commands, the soul of the wise man had undertaken that self-imposed labor. Thus nothing other than the will of God would truly be found to be the first cause of that illness. But suppose that in carrying out this work of pious labor, this wise man had employed the help of others to cooperate in the good work—people who did not serve God with the same will as he did, but either desired to gain rewards for their own fleshly desires or simply wished to avoid physical discomforts. Suppose too he had used pack animals, if completing the work required such resources. These pack animals would certainly be irrational creatures and would not therefore move their limbs under their burdens because they had any thought of that good work, but from the natural appetite of their own preference and to avoid discomfort. Finally, suppose he had used material things themselves that lack all sensation but were necessary for the work—for example, grain, wine, oils, clothes, money, a book, or anything of that kind. Certainly, in all these material things employed in this work, whether living or non-living, whatever movement, wear and tear, repair, destruction, renewal, or change of any kind took place as places and times affected them—could there be, I ask, any other cause of all these visible and changeable facts except the invisible and unchangeable will of God? This will uses all these things—both wicked and irrational souls, and finally bodies, whether those animated and given life by those souls or those lacking all sensation—by means of that upright soul as the seat of His wisdom, since primarily that good and holy soul itself employed them, having been subjected to His wisdom in pious and religious obedience.

Let us take, then, the case of a wise man, such that his rational soul is already partaker of the unchangeable and eternal truth, so that he consults it about all his actions, nor does anything at all, which he does not by it know ought to be done, in order that by being subject to it and obeying it he may do rightly. Suppose now that this man, upon counsel with the highest reason of the divine righteousness, which he hears with the ear of his heart in secret, and by its bidding, should weary his body by toil in some office of mercy, and should contract an illness; and upon consulting the physicians, were to be told by one that the cause of the disease was overmuch dryness of the body, but by another that it was overmuch moisture; one of the two no doubt would allege the true cause and the other would err, but both would pronounce concerning proximate causes only, that is, corporeal ones. But if the cause of that dryness were to be inquired into, and found to be the self-imposed toil, then we should have come to a yet higher cause, which proceeds from the soul so as to affect the body which the soul governs. Yet neither would this be the first cause, for that doubtless was a higher cause still, and lay in the unchangeable wisdom itself, by serving which in love, and by obeying its ineffable commands, the soul of the wise man had undertaken that self-imposed toil; and so nothing else but the will of God would be found most truly to be the first cause of that illness. But suppose now in that office of pious toil this wise man had employed the help of others to co-operate in the good work, who did not serve God with the same will as himself, but either desired to attain the reward of their own carnal desires, or shunned merely carnal unpleasantnesses;– suppose, too, he had employed beasts of burden, if the completion of the work required such a provision, which beasts of burden would be certainly irrational animals, and would not therefore move their limbs under their burdens because they at all thought of that good work, but from the natural appetite of their own liking, and for the avoiding of annoyance — suppose, lastly, he had employed bodily things themselves that lack all sense, but were necessary for that work, as e.g. grain, and wine, and oils, clothes, or money, or a book, or anything of the kind — certainly, in all these bodily things thus employed in this work, whether animate or inanimate, whatever took place of movement, of wear and tear, of reparation, of destruction, of renewal or of change in one way or another, as places and times affected them; pray, could there be, I say, any other cause of all these visible and changeable facts, except the invisible and unchangeable will of God, using all these, both bad and irrational souls, and lastly bodies, whether such as were inspired and animated by those souls, or such as lacked all sense, by means of that upright soul as the seat of His wisdom, since primarily that good and holy soul itself employed them, which His wisdom had subjected to itself in a pious and religious obedience?

What we have illustrated with the example of a single wise person—even though he still carries a mortal body and still sees only in part—can also be rightly applied to a household where such people live together, or to a city, or even to the entire world, if the highest rule and government of human affairs were in the hands of the wise and those who are piously and perfectly subject to God. But because this is not yet the case (for we must first be trained in this pilgrimage while still mortal, and taught through discipline by the power of gentleness and patience), let us turn our thoughts to that country above, the heavenly one from which we are now pilgrims. For there the will of God, who makes His angels spirits and His ministers a flaming fire, rules over spirits joined in perfect peace and friendship, united in one will by a kind of spiritual fire of love, as though in an exalted, holy, and hidden throne, as in His own house and His own temple. From there His will flows through all things by means of perfectly ordered movements in creation—first through spiritual creation, then through corporeal. He uses all things according to the unchanging purpose of His own will, whether they are incorporeal or corporeal, whether rational or irrational spirits, whether good by His grace or evil through their own will. Just as the denser and lower bodies are governed in proper order by the more refined and powerful ones, so all bodies are governed by living spirit. The living spirit that lacks reason is governed by the rational living spirit. The rational living spirit that falls short and sins is governed by the living and rational spirit that is devout and just. And that spirit is governed by God Himself, and so the entire created order is governed by its Creator, from whom and through whom and in whom it is also created and established. Thus it happens that the will of God is the first and highest cause of all visible forms and motions. For nothing happens visibly or perceptibly except by command or permission from the interior palace, invisible and intelligible, of the supreme Governor, according to the unspeakable justice of rewards and punishments, favor and retribution, in that vast and limitless commonwealth of all creation.

9. What, then, we have alleged by way of example of a single wise man, although of one still bearing a mortal body and still seeing only in part, may be allowably extended also to a family, where there is a society of such men, or to a city, or even to the whole world, if the chief rule and government of human affairs were in the hands of the wise, and of those who were piously and perfectly subject to God; but because this is not the case as yet (for it behooves us first to be exercised in this our pilgrimage after mortal fashion, and to be taught with stripes by force of gentleness and patience), let us turn our thoughts to that country itself that is above and heavenly, from which we here are pilgrims. For there the will of God, who makes His angels spirits, and His ministers a flaming fire, presiding among spirits which are joined in perfect peace and friendship, and combined in one will by a kind of spiritual fire of charity, as it were in an elevated and holy and secret seat, as in its own house and in its own temple, thence diffuses itself through all things by certain most perfectly ordered movements of the creature; first spiritual, then corporeal; and uses all according to the unchangeable pleasure of its own purpose, whether incorporeal things or things corporeal, whether rational or irrational spirits, whether good by His grace or evil through their own will. But as the more gross and inferior bodies are governed in due order by the more subtle and powerful ones, so all bodies are governed by the living spirit; and the living spirit devoid of reason, by the reasonable living spirit; and the reasonable living spirit that makes default and sins, by the living and reasonable spirit that is pious and just; and that by God Himself, and so the universal creature by its Creator, from whom and through whom and in whom it is also created and established. And so it comes to pass that the will of God is the first and the highest cause of all corporeal appearances and motions. For nothing is done visibly or sensibly, unless either by command or permission from the interior palace, invisible and intelligible, of the supreme Governor, according to the unspeakable justice of rewards and punishments, of favor and retribution, in that far-reaching and boundless commonwealth of the whole creature.

If, therefore, the Apostle Paul, although he still carried the burden of the body which is subject to corruption and weighs down the soul, and although he still saw only in part and as in a riddle, desiring to depart and be with Christ, and groaning within himself while waiting for his adoption—that is, the redemption of his body—was nevertheless able to preach the Lord Jesus Christ meaningfully in various ways: by his spoken words, by letter, and by the sacrament of His body and blood (since we certainly do not call the apostle's tongue, or the parchments, or the ink, or the meaningful sounds his tongue made, or the alphabetical marks written on skins, the body and blood of Christ; but only that which we take from the fruits of the earth and consecrate through mystical prayer, and then receive properly for our spiritual health in remembrance of our Lord's suffering for us—and this, although it is brought by human hands to that visible form, is not made holy to become so great a sacrament except by the Spirit of God working invisibly, since God accomplishes everything that happens in that work through bodily movements by first setting in motion the invisible realities of His servants, whether the souls of people or the service of hidden spirits subject to Him): what wonder is it if God also works the perceptible and visible things He desires in the created realm of heaven and earth, sea and air, in order to signify and reveal Himself through them, as He Himself knows is fitting, without any appearance of His very substance itself—that by which He exists, which is completely unchangeable and more inwardly and secretly exalted than all the spirits He has created?

10. If, therefore, the Apostle Paul, although he still bare the burden of the body, which is subject to corruption and presses down the soul, and although he still saw only in part and in an enigma, wishing to depart and be with Christ, and groaning within himself, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of his body, yet was able to preach the Lord Jesus Christ significantly, in one way by his tongue, in another by epistle, in another by the sacrament of His body and blood (since, certainly, we do not call either the tongue of the apostle, or the parchments, or the ink, or the significant sounds which his tongue uttered, or the alphabetical signs written on skins, the body and blood of Christ; but that only which we take of the fruits of the earth and consecrate by mystic prayer, and then receive duly to our spiritual health in memory of the passion of our Lord for us: and this, although it is brought by the hands of men to that visible form, yet is not sanctified to become so great a sacrament, except by the spirit of God working invisibly; since God works everything that is done in that work through corporeal movements, by setting in motion primarily the invisible things of His servants, whether the souls of men, or the services of hidden spirits subject to Himself): what wonder if also in the creature of heaven and earth, of sea and air, God works the sensible and visible things which He wills, in order to signify and manifest Himself in them, as He Himself knows it to be fitting, without any appearing of His very substance itself, whereby He is, which is altogether unchangeable, and more inwardly and secretly exalted than all spirits whom He has created?

For since the divine power administers the whole spiritual and corporeal creature, the waters of the sea are summoned and poured out upon the face of the earth on certain days of every year. But when this was done at the prayer of the holy Elijah, because such a continued and long course of fair weather had gone before that people were starving, and because at that very hour in which the servant of God prayed the air itself had not, by any moist appearance, shown signs of the coming rain, the divine power was apparent in the great and rapid showers that followed, and through which that miracle was granted and dispensed. In the same way, God ordinarily works through thunders and lightnings, but because these were produced in an unusual manner on Mount Sinai, and those sounds were not uttered with a confused noise but in such a way that it appeared by the most certain proofs that definite communications were being given through them, they were miracles. Who draws up the sap through the root of the vine to the bunch of grapes and makes the wine, except God, who, while man plants and waters, Himself gives the increase? But when, at the command of the Lord, the water was turned into wine with extraordinary quickness, the divine power was made manifest, by the confession even of the foolish. Who ordinarily clothes the trees with leaves and flowers except God? Yet when the rod of Aaron the priest blossomed, the Godhead in some way conversed with doubting humanity. Again, earthy matter certainly serves in common to the production and formation both of all kinds of wood and of the flesh of all animals, and who makes these things but He who said, Let the earth bring them forth, and who governs and guides by the same word of His those things which He has created? Yet when He changed the same matter out of the rod of Moses into the flesh of a serpent, immediately and quickly, that change, which was unusual, although of a thing which was changeable, was a miracle. But who is it that gives life to every living thing at its birth, unless He who gave life to that serpent also for the moment, as there was need?

11. For since the divine power administers the whole spiritual and corporeal creature, the waters of the sea are summoned and poured out upon the face of the earth on certain days of every year. But when this was done at the prayer of the holy Elijah; because so continued and long a course of fair weather had gone before, that men were famished; and because at that very hour, in which the servant of God prayed, the air itself had not, by any moist aspect, put forth signs of the coming rain; the divine power was apparent in the great and rapid showers that followed, and by which that miracle was granted and dispensed. In like manner, God works ordinarily through thunders and lightnings: but because these were wrought in an unusual manner on Mount Sinai, and those sounds were not uttered with a confused noise, but so that it appeared by most sure proofs that certain intimations were given by them, they were miracles. Who draws up the sap through the root of the vine to the bunch of grapes, and makes the wine, except God; who, while man plants and waters, Himself gives the increase? But when, at the command of the Lord, the water was turned into wine with an extraordinary quickness, the divine power was made manifest, by the confession even of the foolish. Who ordinarily clothes the trees with leaves and flowers except God? Yet, when the rod of Aaron the priest blossomed, the Godhead in some way conversed with doubting humanity. Again, the earthy matter certainly serves in common to the production and formation both of all kinds of wood and of the flesh of all animals: and who makes these things, but He who said, Let the earth bring them forth; and who governs and guides by the same word of His, those things which He has created? Yet, when He changed the same matter out of the rod of Moses into the flesh of a serpent, immediately and quickly, that change, which was unusual, although of a thing which was changeable, was a miracle. But who is it that gives life to every living thing at its birth, unless He who gave life to that serpent also for the moment, as there was need.

Who restored to the dead bodies their proper souls when the dead rose again, if not the same one who gives life to the flesh in the mother's womb so that those who will eventually die may come into being? But when such things happen in a continuous stream of constantly flowing succession, passing from the hidden to the visible and from the visible to the hidden along a regular and well-worn path, they are called natural. When they are introduced with unusual variation in order to warn people, they are called miracles.

And who is it that restored to the corpses their proper souls when the dead rose again, unless He who gives life to the flesh in the mother's womb, in order that they may come into being who yet are to die? But when such things happen in a continuous kind of river of ever-flowing succession, passing from the hidden to the visible, and from the visible to the hidden, by a regular and beaten track, then they are called natural; when, for the admonition of men, they are thrust in by an unusual changeableness, then they are called miracles.

I see here what might occur to a weak judgment, namely, why such miracles are also performed through magic arts; for Pharaoh's wise men likewise made serpents and did other similar things. Yet it is even more remarkable how the power of those magicians, which was able to make serpents, completely failed when it came to very small flies. For the lice, by which the proud people of Egypt were struck as a third plague, are very short-lived little flies; yet there the magicians certainly failed, saying, This is the finger of God. And from this we are given to understand that not even those angels and powers of the air who transgressed—who have been cast down into that lowest darkness as into a kind of prison, from their dwelling in that lofty ethereal purity—through whom magic arts have whatever power they have, can do anything except by power given from above. Now that power is given either to deceive the deceitful, as it was given against the Egyptians and also against the magicians themselves, so that through the seduction of those spirits they might appear admirable by whom these things were performed, but be condemned by the truth of God; or for the warning of the faithful, so they should not desire to do such things as though they were great, for which reason they have been handed down to us also by the authority of Scripture; or lastly, for exercising, proving, and manifesting the patience of the righteous. For it was not by any small power of visible miracles that Job lost all that he had, including both his children and his bodily health itself.

12. I see here what may occur to a weak judgment, namely, why such miracles are wrought also by magic arts; for the wise men of Pharaoh likewise made serpents, and did other like things. Yet it is still more a matter of wonder, how it was that the power of those magicians, which was able to make serpents, when it came to very small flies, failed altogether. For the lice, by which third plague the proud people of Egypt were smitten, are very short-lived little flies; yet there certainly the magicians failed, saying, This is the finger of God. And hence it is given us to understand that not even those angels and powers of the air that transgressed, who have been thrust down into that lowest darkness, as into a peculiar prison, from their habitation in that lofty ethereal purity, through whom magic arts have whatever power they have, can do anything except by power given from above. Now that power is given either to deceive the deceitful, as it was given against the Egyptians, and against the magicians also themselves, in order that in the seducing of those spirits they might seem admirable by whom they were wrought, but to be condemned by the truth of God; or for the admonishing of the faithful, lest they should desire to do anything of the kind as though it were a great thing, for which reason they have been handed down to us also by the authority of Scripture; or lastly, for the exercising, proving, and manifesting of the patience of the righteous. For it was not by any small power of visible miracles that Job lost all that he had, and both his children and his bodily health itself.

Yet we should not think that the matter of visible things obeys the commands of those wicked angels, but rather obeys God, who gives this power only to the extent that He, who is unchangeable, decides to give it from His lofty and spiritual dwelling place. For water and fire and earth obey even wicked men who are condemned to the mines, so that they may do with these elements what they want, but only as far as is permitted. Nor should those evil angels be called creators because magicians, opposing God's servant, made frogs and serpents through their means. They did not create them. In truth, hidden seeds of all things that are born in bodily and visible form are concealed in the bodily elements of this world. Those seeds that are now visible to our eyes from fruits and living things are quite different from the hidden seeds of those original seeds, from which, at the Creator's command, the water produced the first swimming creatures and birds, and the earth produced the first plants according to their kind and the first living creatures according to their kind. At that time, those seeds were not brought forth into their various kinds in such a way that their productive power was exhausted in those products. Rather, suitable conditions are often lacking that would enable them to burst forth and complete their species. Consider that even the smallest shoot is a seed, for if properly planted in the earth, it produces a tree. But this shoot has an even more subtle seed in some grain of the same species, which is visible even to us. But this grain also has yet another seed which, although we cannot see it with our eyes, we can infer must exist through reason. For unless there were some such power in those elements, things would not so often spring up from the earth that had not been planted there, nor would so many animals appear without any prior mating of male and female, whether on land or in water, which nevertheless grow and produce others by mating, though they themselves arose without any union of parents. And certainly bees do not conceive the seeds of their offspring through mating, but gather them with their mouths as they lie scattered over the earth. For the Creator of these invisible seeds is the Creator of all things Himself. Whatever comes forth to our sight by being born receives the first beginnings of its development from hidden seeds and takes the successive stages of its proper size and distinctive forms from these original patterns, as it were. Therefore, just as we do not call parents the creators of human beings, nor farmers the creators of grain—even though it is through the outward application of their actions that God's power works within to create these things—so it is not right to consider not only the bad but even the good angels to be creators, if through the subtlety of their perception and body they know seeds of things that are more hidden to us, and scatter them secretly through suitable arrangements of the elements, and thus provide opportunities for producing things and accelerating their growth. But the good angels do not do these things except as far as God commands, nor do the evil ones do them wrongfully except as far as He righteously permits. For the malice of the wicked one makes his own will wrongful, but the power to do so he receives righteously, whether for his own punishment, or in the case of others, for the punishment of the wicked or for the praise of the good.

13. Yet it is not on this account to be thought that the matter of visible things is subservient to the bidding of those wicked angels; but rather to that of God, by whom this power is given, just so far as He, who is unchangeable, determines in His lofty and spiritual abode to give it. For water and fire and earth are subservient even to wicked men, who are condemned to the mines, in order that they may do therewith what they will, but only so far as is permitted. Nor, in truth, are those evil angels to be called creators, because by their means the magicians, withstanding the servant of God, made frogs and serpents; for it was not they who created them. But, in truth, some hidden seeds of all things that are born corporeally and visibly, are concealed in the corporeal elements of this world. For those seeds that are visible now to our eyes from fruits and living things, are quite distinct from the hidden seeds of those former seeds; from which, at the bidding of the Creator, the water produced the first swimming creatures and fowl, and the earth the first buds after their kind, and the first living creatures after their kind. For neither at that time were those seeds so drawn forth into products of their several kinds, as that the power of production was exhausted in those products; but oftentimes, suitable combinations of circumstances are wanting, whereby they may be enabled to burst forth and complete their species. For, consider, the very least shoot is a seed; for, if fitly consigned to the earth, it produces a tree. But of this shoot there is a yet more subtle seed in some grain of the same species, and this is visible even to us. But of this grain also there is further still a seed, which, although we are unable to see it with our eyes, yet we can conjecture its existence from our reason; because, except there were some such power in those elements, there would not so frequently be produced from the earth things which had not been sown there; nor yet so many animals, without any previous commixture of male and female; whether on the land, or in the water, which yet grow, and by commingling bring forth others, while themselves sprang up without any union of parents. And certainly bees do not conceive the seeds of their young by commixture, but gather them as they lie scattered over the earth with their mouth. For the Creator of these invisible seeds is the Creator of all things Himself; since whatever comes forth to our sight by being born, receives the first beginnings of its course from hidden seeds, and takes the successive increments of its proper size and its distinctive forms from these as it were original rules. As therefore we do not call parents the creators of men, nor farmers the creators of grain — although it is by the outward application of their actions that the power of God operates within for the creating these things — so it is not right to think not only the bad but even the good angels to be creators, if, through the subtlety of their perception and body, they know the seeds of things which to us are more hidden, and scatter them secretly through fit temperings of the elements, and so furnish opportunities of producing things, and of accelerating their increase. But neither do the good angels do these things, except as far as God commands, nor do the evil ones do them wrongfully, except as far as He righteously permits. For the malignity of the wicked one makes his own will wrongful; but the power to do so, he receives rightfully, whether for his own punishment, or, in the case of others, for the punishment of the wicked, or for the praise of the good.

Therefore, the Apostle Paul distinguishes between God's creating and forming from within and the operations of creatures that are applied from outside. Drawing a comparison from farming, he says, "I planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase." Just as in the case of spiritual life itself, no one except God can produce righteousness in our minds—yet people are still able to preach the gospel as an outward means, whether good people doing so sincerely or evil people doing so pretentiously—so also in the creation of visible things, it is God who works from within. However, the outward operations, whether performed by good or bad angels, by human beings, or even by any kind of animal, are applied by Him to that nature of things in which He creates all things, according to His own absolute power, the distribution of abilities, and the various desires for pleasant things that He Himself has given—just as agriculture is applied to the soil. Therefore, I can no more call the evil angels, summoned by magic arts, the creators of the frogs and serpents than I can say that evil people were creators of the grain crop that I see has sprung up through their labor.

14. Accordingly, the Apostle Paul, distinguishing God's creating and forming within, from the operations of the creature which are applied from without, and drawing a similitude from agriculture, says, I planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. As, therefore, in the case of spiritual life itself, no one except God can work righteousness in our minds, yet men also are able to preach the gospel as an outward means, not only the good in sincerity, but also the evil in pretence; so in the creation of visible things it is God that works from within; but the exterior operations, whether of good or bad, of angels or men, or even of any kind of animal, according to His own absolute power, and to the distribution of faculties, and the several appetites for things pleasant, which He Himself has imparted, are applied by Him to that nature of things wherein He creates all things, in like manner as agriculture is to the soil. Wherefore I can no more call the bad angels, evoked by magic arts, the creators of the frogs and serpents, than I can say that bad men were creators of the grain crop, which I see to have sprung up through their labor.

Just as Jacob was not the creator of the colors in the flocks when he placed the multicolored rods for the various mothers to look at while drinking and conceiving. Nor were the cattle themselves creators of the variety of their own offspring, even though the variegated image, impressed through their eyes by the sight of the varied rods, attached to their soul and could only affect the body animated by that soul through a kind of sympathetic connection with this mingling, to the extent that it stained with color the tender beginnings of their offspring. The fact that they are affected from within themselves—whether the soul affects the body or the body affects the soul—arises in truth from fitting principles that exist unchangeably in the highest wisdom of God himself, which no physical space contains. This wisdom, while itself unchangeable, does not abandon even one of those things which are changeable, because there is not one of them that was not created by it. For it was the unchangeable and invisible principle of God's wisdom, by which all things are created, that caused cattle to be born from cattle, not rods. But the fact that the color of the conceived cattle was influenced to some degree by the variety of the rods happened because the soul of the pregnant cattle was affected through their eyes from outside, and thus according to its own capacity drew inward the pattern of formation, which it received from the innermost power of its own Creator. How great the soul's power might be in affecting and changing bodily substance—although it certainly cannot be called the creator of the body, because every cause of changeable and sensible substance, and all its measure, number, and weight by which its existence and its specific nature come about, arise from the intelligible and unchangeable life that is above all things and reaches even to the most distant and earthly things—is a very extensive topic and not necessary now. But I thought Jacob's act concerning the cattle should be noted for this reason: so that it might be understood that if the man who placed those rods cannot be called the creator of the colors in the lambs and kids, and if even the souls of the mothers themselves, which colored the seeds conceived in the flesh by the image of variegated color received through the eyes of the body insofar as nature permitted, cannot be called creators, then much less can the bad angels through whom Pharaoh's magicians made frogs and serpents be said to have been the creators of those frogs and serpents.

15. Just as Jacob, again, was not the creator of the colors in the flocks, because he placed the various colored rods for the several mothers, as they drank, to look at in conceiving. Yet neither were the cattle themselves creators of the variety of their own offspring, because the variegated image, impressed through their eyes by the sight of the varied rods, clave to their soul, but could affect the body that was animated by the spirit thus affected only through sympathy with this commingling, so far as to stain with color the tender beginnings of their offspring. For that they are so affected from themselves, whether the soul from the body, or the body from the soul, arises in truth from suitable reasons, which immutably exist in that highest wisdom of God Himself, which no extent of place contains; and which, while it is itself unchangeable, yet quits not one even of those things which are changeable, because there is not one of them that is not created by itself. For it was the unchangeable and invisible reason of the wisdom of God, by which all things are created, which caused not rods, but cattle, to be born from cattle; but that the color of the cattle conceived should be in any degree influenced by the variety of the rods, came to pass through the soul of the pregnant cattle being affected through their eyes from without, and so according to its own measure drawing inwardly within itself the rule of formation, which it received from the innermost power of its own Creator. How great, however, may be the power of the soul in affecting and changing corporeal substance (although certainly it cannot be called the creator of the body, because every cause of changeable and sensible substance, and all its measure and number and weight, by which are brought to pass both its being at all and its being of such and such a nature, arise from the intelligible and unchangeable life, which is above all things, and which reaches even to the most distant and earthly things), is a very copious subject, and one not now necessary. But I thought the act of Jacob about the cattle should be noticed, for this reason, viz. in order that it might be perceived that, if the man who thus placed those rods cannot be called the creator of the colors in the lambs and kids; nor yet even the souls themselves of the mothers, which colored the seeds conceived in the flesh by the image of variegated color, conceived through the eyes of the body, so far as nature permitted it; much less can it be said that the creators of the frogs and serpents were the bad angels, through whom the magicians of Pharaoh then made them.

For it is one thing to make and govern creation from the innermost and highest point of causation, which God the Creator alone does; but it is quite another thing to apply some external operation according to the powers and capacities He has assigned to each thing, so that what is created may come into existence at one time or another, and in one way or another. For all these things have already been created in their original and beginning state within a kind of weaving together of the elements, but they emerge into being when they receive the opportunity. Just as mothers are pregnant with their young, so the world itself is pregnant with the causes of the things that are born; these causes are not created in the world except from that highest essence, where nothing springs up or dies, neither begins to exist nor ceases to exist. But the applying of external causes from outside—which, though they are not natural in themselves, must still be applied according to nature—so that those things contained and hidden in the secret depths of nature may break forth and be brought into outward existence through the unfolding of the proper measures, numbers, and weights they have received in secret from Him who has ordered all things in measure, number, and weight: this power belongs not only to evil angels but also to evil men, as I have demonstrated above by the example of agriculture.

16. For it is one thing to make and administer the creature from the innermost and highest turning-point of causation, which He alone does who is God the Creator; but quite another thing to apply some operation from without in proportion to the strength and faculties assigned to each by Him, so that what is created may come forth into being at this time or at that, and in this or that way. For all these things in the way of original and beginning have already been created in a kind of texture of the elements, but they come forth when they get the opportunity. For as mothers are pregnant with young, so the world itself is pregnant with the causes of things that are born; which are not created in it, except from that highest essence, where nothing either springs up or dies, either begins to be or ceases. But the applying from without of adventitious causes, which, although they are not natural, yet are to be applied according to nature, in order that those things which are contained and hidden in the secret bosom of nature may break forth and be outwardly created in some way by the unfolding of the proper measures and numbers and weights which they have received in secret from Him who has ordered all things in measure and number and weight: this is not only in the power of bad angels, but also of bad men, as I have shown above by the example of agriculture.

However, some might be troubled by the somewhat different nature of animals, since they have the breath of life along with the ability to desire what is natural to them and avoid what is contrary to their nature. We must also consider how many people know from what herbs or meat, or from what juices or liquids of whatever kind—whether positioned in a certain way, buried in a certain way, crushed in a certain way, or mixed in a certain way—this or that animal is commonly produced. Yet who could be so foolish as to dare call himself the creator of these animals? Therefore, should we be surprised if, just as the most worthless person can know where such and such worms and flies come from, so evil angels, in proportion to the sharpness of their perception, discern in the more hidden seeds of the elements where frogs and serpents come from? And through certain known and opportune combinations, they apply these seeds through secret movements and cause them to be created—but they do not actually create them. People simply do not marvel at things that are commonly done by people. But if anyone happens to wonder at how quickly these organisms grow—at how quickly these living beings were made—let him consider how even this can be accomplished by people according to the measure of human capability. For why is it that the same bodies generate worms more quickly in summer than in winter, or in hotter places than in colder ones? The only reason these things are more difficult for people to accomplish is that their earthly and sluggish bodies lack sharpness of perception and quickness of bodily movement. And from this it follows that with any kind of angels, the easier it is for them to draw out the immediate causes from the elements, the more marvelous is their speed in works of this kind.

17. But lest the somewhat different condition of animals should trouble any one, in that they have the breath of life with the sense of desiring those things that are according to nature, and of avoiding those things that are contrary to it; we must consider also, how many men there are who know from what herbs or flesh, or from what juices or liquids you please, of whatever sort, whether so placed or so buried, or so bruised or so mixed, this or that animal is commonly born; yet who can be so foolish as to dare to call himself the creator of these animals? Is it, therefore, to be wondered at, if just as any, the most worthless of men, can know whence such or such worms and flies are produced; so the evil angels in proportion to the subtlety of their perceptions discern in the more hidden seeds of the elements whence frogs and serpents are produced, and so through certain and known opportune combinations applying these seeds by secret movements, cause them to be created, but do not create them? Only men do not marvel at those things that are usually done by men. But if any one chance to wonder at the quickness of those growths, in that those living beings were so quickly made, let him consider how even this may be brought about by men in proportion to the measure of human capability. For whence is it that the same bodies generate worms more quickly in summer than in winter, or in hotter than in colder places? Only these things are applied by men with so much the more difficulty, in proportion as their earthly and sluggish members are wanting in subtlety of perception, and in rapidity of bodily motion. And hence it arises that in the case of any kind of angels, in proportion as it is easier for them to draw out the proximate causes from the elements, so much the more marvellous is their rapidity in works of this kind.

But the only true creator is the one who is the chief maker of these things. No one can be this creator unless he holds the primary authority over the measure, number, and weight of all existing things. He is God, the one Creator, and by his unspeakable power it happens that what these angels would be able to do if they were permitted, they are therefore unable to do because they are not permitted. There is no other reason why those who made frogs and serpents were unable to make the tiniest flies, except that the greater power of God was present prohibiting them through the Holy Spirit. Even the magicians themselves confessed this, saying, "This is the finger of God." But what they are able to do by nature yet cannot do because they are prohibited, and what the very condition of their nature itself does not allow them to do—this is difficult, indeed impossible, for humans to investigate, except through that gift of God which the apostle mentions when he says, "To another the discerning of spirits." For we know that a man can walk, yet cannot do so if he is not permitted. But he cannot fly even if he is permitted. So these angels too are able to do certain things if they are permitted by more powerful angels, according to the supreme command of God. But they cannot do certain other things, not even if they are permitted by them, because he does not permit it—he from whom they have received such and such a measure of natural powers. Even through his angels, he does not usually permit what he has given them the power to be able to do.

18. But He only is the creator who is the chief former of these things. Neither can any one be this, unless He with whom primarily rests the measure, number, and weight of all things existing; and He is God the one Creator, by whose unspeakable power it comes to pass, also, that what these angels were able to do if they were permitted, they are therefore not able to do because they are not permitted. For there is no other reason why they who made frogs and serpents were not able to make the most minute flies, unless because the greater power of God was present prohibiting them, through the Holy Spirit; which even the magicians themselves confessed, saying, This is the finger of God. But what they are able to do by nature, yet cannot do, because they are prohibited; and what the very condition of their nature itself does not suffer them to do; it is difficult, nay, impossible, for man to search out, unless through that gift of God which the apostle mentions when he says, To another the discerning of spirits. For we know that a man can walk, yet that he cannot do so if he is not permitted; but that he cannot fly, even if he be permitted. So those angels, also, are able to do certain things if they are permitted by more powerful angels, according to the supreme commandment of God; but cannot do certain other things, not even if they are permitted by them; because He does not permit from whom they have received such and such a measure of natural powers: who, even by His angels, does not usually permit what He has given them power to be able to do.

Leaving aside, then, those bodily events that happen in the regular, ordinary sequence of nature—such as the rising and setting of the stars, the births and deaths of animals, the countless varieties of seeds and shoots, the mists and clouds, the snow and rain, the lightning and thunder, the thunderbolts and hail, the winds and fire, cold and heat, and all similar things—and leaving aside also those things that happen rarely within that same natural order, such as eclipses, unusual appearances of stars, monstrous births, earthquakes, and the like—all these things, I say, must be set apart, because their first and primary cause is the will of God alone. This is why in the Psalm, after mentioning some things of this kind—fire and hail, snow and vapor, stormy wind—lest anyone should think these events come about either by chance or only through bodily causes, or even through spiritual causes that exist apart from God's will, it immediately adds, fulfilling His word.

19. Excepting, therefore, those corporeal things which are done in the order of nature in a perfectly usual series of times, as e.g., the rising and setting of the stars, the generations and deaths of animals, the innumerable diversities of seeds and buds, the vapors and the clouds, the snow and the rain, the lightnings and the thunder, the thunderbolts and the hail, the winds and the fire, cold and heat, and all like things; excepting also those which in the same order of nature occur rarely, such as eclipses, unusual appearances of stars, and monsters, and earthquakes, and such like — all these, I say, are to be excepted, of which indeed the first and chief cause is only the will of God; whence also in the Psalm, when some things of this kind had been mentioned, Fire and hail, snow and vapor, stormy wind, lest any one should think those to be brought about either by chance or only from corporeal causes, or even from such as are spiritual, but exist apart from the will of God, it is added immediately, fulfilling His word.

Excluding all these things, as I just said, there are also some of another kind. Although they come from the same bodily substance, they are brought within reach of our senses to announce something from God, and these are properly called miracles and signs. Yet the person of God Himself is not assumed in all things that are announced to us by the Lord God. However, when that person is assumed, it is sometimes made manifest as an angel. Sometimes it appears in a form that is not an angel in his own proper being, although it is ordered and ministered by an angel. Again, when it is assumed in a form that is not an angel in his own proper being, sometimes in this case it is an already existing body, assumed after some kind of change, in order to make that message manifest. Sometimes it is a body that comes into being for the purpose, and once that is accomplished, is discarded. Just as when human beings are the messengers, sometimes they speak the words of God in their own person, as when it is stated beforehand, "The Lord said," or "Thus says the Lord," or any other such phrase. But sometimes, without any such introduction, they take upon themselves the very person of God, as for example: "I will instruct you and teach you in the way wherein you shall go." So, not only in word but also in action, the signifying of the person of God is imposed upon the prophet, so that he may bear that person in the ministering of the prophecy—just as the one who divided his garment into twelve parts and gave ten of them to the servant of King Solomon, to the future king of Israel, bore that person. Sometimes, also, a thing that was not a prophet in his own proper self, and which already existed among earthly things, was assumed to signify this, as Jacob did with the stone that had been under his head when he was asleep, after waking up from the dream. Sometimes a thing is made in the same way for the mere purpose: either to continue existing for a little while, as the bronze serpent that was lifted up in the wilderness was able to do, and as written records are likewise able to do; or to pass away after having accomplished its ministry, as the bread made for the purpose is consumed in the receiving of the sacrament.

Excepting, therefore, all these things as I just now said, there are some also of another kind; which, although from the same corporeal substance, are yet brought within reach of our senses in order to announce something from God, and these are properly called miracles and signs; yet is not the person of God Himself assumed in all things which are announced to us by the Lord God. When, however, that person is assumed, it is sometimes made manifest as an angel; sometimes in that form which is not an angel in his own proper being, although it is ordered and ministered by an angel. Again, when it is assumed in that form which is not an angel in his own proper being; sometimes in this case it is a body itself already existing, assumed after some kind of change, in order to make that message manifest; sometimes it is one that comes into being for the purpose, and that being accomplished, is discarded. Just as, also, when men are the messengers, sometimes they speak the words of God in their own person, as when it is premised, The Lord said, or, Thus says the Lord, or any other such phrase, but sometimes without any such prefix, they take upon themselves the very person of God, as e.g.: I will instruct you, and teach you in the way wherein you shall go: so, not only in word, but also in act, the signifying of the person of God is imposed upon the prophet, in order that he may bear that person in the ministering of the prophecy; just as he, for instance, bore that person who divided his garment into twelve parts, and gave ten of them to the servant of King Solomon, to the future king of Israel. Sometimes, also, a thing which was not a prophet in his own proper self, and which existed already among earthly things, was assumed in order to signify this; as Jacob, when he had seen the dream, upon waking up did with the stone, which when asleep he had under his head. Sometimes a thing is made in the same kind, for the mere purpose; so as either to continue a little while in existence, as that brazen serpent was able to do which was lifted up in the wilderness, and as written records are able to do likewise; or so as to pass away after having accomplished its ministry, as the bread made for the purpose is consumed in the receiving of the sacrament.

Because these actions are familiar to people since people perform them, they deserve respect as holy things, but they cannot inspire amazement as miracles do. For this reason, the things angels do are more amazing to us because they are more difficult and more extraordinary, though they are familiar and easy to angels since these are their own works. An angel speaks to a person in the person of God, saying, "I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob," though Scripture had just said beforehand, "The angel of the Lord appeared to him." And a human being also speaks in the person of God, saying, "Hear, O my people, and I will testify unto you, O Israel: I am the Lord your God." A rod was used as a sign and was changed into a serpent by angelic power. Though human beings lack that power, a stone was also used by a man for a similar sign. There is a vast difference between what the angel did and what the man did. The angel's deed is both to be wondered at and to be understood, while the man's deed is only to be understood. What is understood from both may be one and the same thing, but the means by which it is understood are different. It is like writing the name of God in both gold and ink: the gold would be more valuable, the ink more ordinary, yet what is signified in both is one and the same. Although the serpent that came from Moses' rod signified the same thing as Jacob's stone, Jacob's stone signified something better than the serpents of the magicians did. For just as the anointing of the stone signified Christ in the flesh, in which He was anointed with the oil of gladness above His companions, so Moses' rod turned into a serpent signified Christ Himself made obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. This is why it says, "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life," just as by looking at that serpent lifted up in the wilderness, they did not perish from the bites of the serpents. For our old man is crucified with Him, so that the body of sin might be destroyed. Death is understood by the serpent, because death was brought about by the serpent in paradise—the figure of speech expressing the effect through the cause. Therefore the rod became the serpent, and Christ became death; then the serpent became the rod again, just as the whole Christ with His body passes into the resurrection. That body is the Church, and this will happen at the end of time, signified by the tail, which Moses grasped so that it might return to being a rod. But the magicians' serpents, like those who are dead in the world, will not be able to rise again in Him unless by believing in Christ they are swallowed up by and enter into His body. Jacob's stone, therefore, as I said, signified something better than the magicians' serpents did, yet the magicians' deed was far more amazing. But these differences do not hinder understanding the matter, just as it would not matter if a human name were written in gold and God's name in ink.

20. But because these things are known to men, in that they are done by men, they may well meet with reverence as being holy things, but they cannot cause wonder as being miracles. And therefore those things which are done by angels are the more wonderful to us, in that they are more difficult and more known; but they are known and easy to them as being their own actions. An angel speaks in the person of God to man, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; the Scripture having said just before, The angel of the Lord appeared to him. And a man also speaks in the person of God, saying, Hear, O my people, and I will testify unto you, O Israel: I am the Lord your God. A rod was taken to serve as a sign, and was changed into a serpent by angelical power; but although that power is wanting to man, yet a stone was taken also by man for a similar sign. There is a wide difference between the deed of the angel and the deed of the man. The former is both to be wondered at and to be understood, the latter only to be understood. That which is understood from both, is perhaps one and the same; but those things from which it is understood, are different. Just as if the name of God were written both in gold and in ink; the former would be the more precious, the latter the more worthless; yet that which is signified in both is one and the same. And although the serpent that came from Moses' rod signified the same thing as Jacob's stone, yet Jacob's stone signified something better than did the serpents of the magicians. For as the anointing of the stone signified Christ in the flesh, in which He was anointed with the oil of gladness above His fellows; so the rod of Moses, turned into a serpent, signified Christ Himself made obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Whence it is said, And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life; just as by gazing on that serpent which was lifted up in the wilderness, they did not perish by the bites of the serpents. For our old man is crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be destroyed. For by the serpent death is understood, which was wrought by the serpent in paradise, the mode of speech expressing the effect by the efficient. Therefore the rod passed into the serpent, Christ into death; and the serpent again into the rod, whole Christ with His body into the resurrection; which body is the Church; and this shall be in the end of time, signified by the tail, which Moses held, in order that it might return into a rod. But the serpents of the magicians, like those who are dead in the world, unless by believing in Christ they shall have been as it were swallowed up by, and have entered into, His body, will not be able to rise again in Him. Jacob's stone, therefore, as I said, signified something better than did the serpents of the magicians; yet the deed of the magicians was much more wonderful. But these things in this way are no hindrance to the understanding of the matter; just as if the name of a man were written in gold, and that of God in ink.

No one knows how the angels created or assumed those clouds and fires to communicate the message they were carrying, even if we suppose that the Lord or the Holy Spirit appeared in those bodily forms. Just as infants do not know about what is placed on the altar and consumed after the holy celebration is performed—where it comes from, how it is made, or where it is obtained for religious use. And if they were never to learn from their own experience or from others, and never saw that kind of thing except during the celebration of the sacrament when it is being offered and given, and if the most reliable authority told them whose body and blood it is, they would believe nothing else except that the Lord actually appeared in this form to human eyes, and that the liquid truly flowed from the piercing of a side that looked like this. But it is certainly a useful warning to myself that I should remember my own limitations, and remind my brothers that they also remember theirs, so that human weakness does not go beyond what is safe. For how the angels do these things, or rather, how God does these things through His angels, and how far He allows them to be done even by the evil angels—whether by permitting, commanding, or compelling them from the hidden throne of His own supreme power—this I cannot perceive with my eyes, make clear through rational certainty, or grasp with my intellect well enough to speak about all questions that might be asked concerning these matters as confidently as if I were an angel, prophet, or apostle. For the thoughts of mortal people are miserable, and our plans are uncertain. The corruptible body weighs down the soul, and the earthly dwelling burdens the mind that thinks about many things. We barely guess correctly about things on earth, and we discover with difficulty the things right in front of us; but who has searched out the things that are in heaven? But because it goes on to say, "And who has known Your counsel, unless You give wisdom and send Your Holy Spirit from above?"—therefore we refrain from searching out the things that are in heaven, under which category are included both angelic bodies according to their proper dignity and any bodily action of those bodies. Yet, according to the Spirit of God sent to us from above and His grace given to our minds, I dare to say confidently that neither God the Father, nor His Word, nor His Spirit—who is the one God—is in any way changeable in regard to what He is and by which He is what He is, and much less is He visible in this regard. For there are certainly some things that are changeable yet not visible, such as our thoughts, memories, and wills, and the whole incorporeal creation; but there is nothing that is visible that is not also changeable.

21. What man, again, knows how the angels made or took those clouds and fires in order to signify the message they were bearing, even if we supposed that the Lord or the Holy Spirit was manifested in those corporeal forms? Just as infants do not know of that which is placed upon the altar and consumed after the performance of the holy celebration, whence or in what manner it is made, or whence it is taken for religious use. And if they were never to learn from their own experience or that of others, and never to see that species of thing except during the celebration of the sacrament, when it is being offered and given; and if it were told them by the most weighty authority whose body and blood it is; they will believe nothing else, except that the Lord absolutely appeared in this form to the eyes of mortals, and that that liquid actually flowed from the piercing of a side which resembled this. But it is certainly a useful caution to myself, that I should remember what my own powers are, and admonish my brethren that they also remember what theirs are, lest human infirmity pass on beyond what is safe. For how the angels do these things, or rather, how God does these things by His angels, and how far He wills them to be done even by the bad angels, whether by permitting, or commanding, or compelling, from the hidden seat of His own supreme power; this I can neither penetrate by the sight of the eyes, nor make clear by assurance of reason, nor be carried on to comprehend it by reach of intellect, so as to speak thereupon to all questions that may be asked respecting these matters, as certainly as if I were an angel, or a prophet, or an apostle. For the thoughts of mortal men are miserable, and our devices are but uncertain. For the corruptible body presses down the soul, and the earthly tabernacle weighs down the mind, that muses upon many things. And hardly do we guess aright at things that are upon earth, and with labor do we find the things that are before us; but the things that are in heaven, who has searched out? But because it goes on to say, And Your counsel who has known, except Thou give wisdom, and send Your Holy Spirit from above; therefore we refrain indeed from searching out the things which are in heaven, under which kind are contained both angelical bodies according to their proper dignity, and any corporeal action of those bodies; yet, according to the Spirit of God sent to us from above, and to His grace imparted to our minds, I dare to say confidently, that neither God the Father, nor His Word, nor His Spirit, which is the one God, is in any way changeable in regard to that which He is, and whereby He is that which He is; and much less is in this regard visible. Since there are no doubt some things changeable, yet not visible, as are our thoughts, and memories, and wills, and the whole incorporeal creature; but there is nothing that is visible that is not also changeable.

Therefore the substance, or if it is better to say it this way, the ousia of God—in which we understand, according to our limited capacity and to whatever small degree, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—since it is in no way changeable, can in no way be visible in its proper self.

Wherefore the substance, or, if it is better so to say, the essence of God, wherein we understand, in proportion to our measure, in however small a degree, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, since it is in no way changeable, can in no way in its proper self be visible.

It is clear, then, that all those appearances to the fathers, when God presented Himself to them according to His own dispensation suited to the times, were accomplished through the created order. And even if we cannot determine exactly how He accomplished them through the ministry of angels, we still say they were accomplished by angels. But we say this not from our own power of discernment, lest anyone think we are wise beyond our proper measure, whereas we are wise so as to think soberly, as God has dealt to each of us the measure of faith; and we believe, and therefore we speak. For the authority of the divine Scriptures is present, from which our reasoning ought not to turn aside; nor should we leave the solid support of the divine utterance and fall headlong over the cliff of our own guesses in matters where neither bodily perception rules nor the clear reasoning of truth shines forth. Now certainly it is written very clearly in the Epistle to the Hebrews, when the dispensation of the New Testament was to be distinguished from the dispensation of the Old according to the appropriate ages and times, that not only those visible things but also the word itself was accomplished by angels. For it says: But to which of the angels did He ever say, Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool? Are they not all ministering spirits sent out to serve for the sake of those who will inherit salvation? From this it appears that all those things were not only accomplished by angels but were also accomplished for our sake, that is, for the sake of the people of God, to whom the inheritance of eternal life is promised. As it is also written to the Corinthians, Now all these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our instruction, on whom the end of the ages has come. And then, demonstrating by clear reasoning that just as the word was spoken at that time by angels, so now it is spoken by the Son, he says: Therefore we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, lest we drift away from it. For if the word spoken by angels was binding, and every transgression and disobedience received a just penalty, how shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation? And then, as if you were asking, What salvation?—in order to show that he is now speaking of the New Testament, that is, of the word that was spoken not by angels but by the Lord, he says: which was first declared by the Lord, and it was confirmed to us by those who heard Him, while God also bore witness by signs and wonders and various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to His will.

22. It is manifest, accordingly, that all those appearances to the fathers, when God was presented to them according to His own dispensation, suitable to the times, were wrought through the creature. And if we cannot discern in what manner He wrought them by ministry of angels, yet we say that they were wrought by angels; but not from our own power of discernment, lest we should seem to any one to be wise beyond our measure, whereas we are wise so as to think soberly, as God has dealt to us the measure of faith; and we believe, and therefore speak. For the authority is extant of the divine Scriptures, from which our reason ought not to turn aside; nor by leaving the solid support of the divine utterance, to fall headlong over the precipice of its own surmisings, in matters wherein neither the perceptions of the body rule, nor the clear reason of the truth shines forth. Now, certainly, it is written most clearly in the Epistle to the Hebrews, when the dispensation of the New Testament was to be distinguished from the dispensation of the Old, according to the fitness of ages and of times, that not only those visible things, but also the word itself, was wrought by angels. For it is said thus: But to which of the angels said He at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool? Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation? Whence it appears that all those things were not only wrought by angels, but wrought also on our account, that is, on account of the people of God, to whom is promised the inheritance of eternal life. As it is written also to the Corinthians, Now all these things happened unto them in a figure: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world have come. And then, demonstrating by plain consequence that as at that time the word was spoken by the angels, so now by the Son; Therefore, he says, we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we should let them slip. For if the word spoken by angels was steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense of reward; how shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation? And then, as though you asked, What salvation?– in order to show that he is now speaking of the New Testament, that is, of the word which was spoken not by angels, but by the Lord, he says, Which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard Him; God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to His own will.

Because when a herald proclaims the words of a judge, it is not usually written in the official record "so-and-so the herald said," but rather "so-and-so the judge said." In the same way, when the holy prophet speaks, although we say "the prophet said," we mean nothing else to be understood than that the Lord said. And if we were to say "the Lord said," we would not be setting the prophet aside, but only indicating who spoke through him. Indeed, these Scriptures often reveal the angel to be the Lord, whose speaking is repeatedly described as "the Lord said," as we have already shown. But because of those who, since the Scripture in that place mentions an angel, want to understand the Son of God Himself and in Himself, because He is called an angel by the prophet as one announcing the will of His Father and of Himself—for this reason I have thought it fitting to produce a clearer testimony from this epistle, where it is said not by an angel, but by angels.

23. But some one may say, Why then is it written, The Lord said to Moses; and not, rather, The angel said to Moses? Because, when the crier proclaims the words of the judge, it is not usually written in the record, so and so the crier said, but so and so the judge. In like manner also, when the holy prophet speaks, although we say, The prophet said, we mean nothing else to be understood than that the Lord said; and if we were to say, The Lord said, we should not put the prophet aside, but only intimate who spoke by him. And, indeed, these Scriptures often reveal the angel to be the Lord, of whose speaking it is from time to time said, the Lord said, as we have shown already. But on account of those who, since the Scripture in that place specifies an angel, will have the Son of God Himself and in Himself to be understood, because He is called an angel by the prophet, as announcing the will of His Father and of Himself; I have therefore thought fit to produce a plainer testimony from this epistle, where it is not said by an angel, but by angels.

Stephen, too, in the Acts of the Apostles, retells these events in the same way they are written in the Old Testament. He says, "Men, brothers, and fathers, listen: The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia." But to prevent anyone from thinking that the God of glory appeared at that time to the eyes of any mortal person in what He is in Himself, Stephen goes on to say that an angel appeared to Moses. He says, "Then Moses fled at that saying and was a stranger in the land of Midian, where he had two sons. And when forty years had passed, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in the wilderness of Mount Sinai in a flame of fire in a bush. When Moses saw it, he was amazed at the sight, and as he came near to look at it, the voice of the Lord came to him, saying, 'I am the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.' Then Moses trembled and did not dare to look. Then the Lord said to him, 'Take off your shoes from your feet,'" and so on. Here, clearly, he speaks of both an angel and the Lord, and refers to the same one as the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, just as it is written in Genesis.

24. For Stephen, too, in the Acts of the Apostles, relates these things in that manner in which they are also written in the Old Testament: Men, brethren, and fathers, hearken, he says; The God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia. But lest any one should think that the God of glory appeared then to the eyes of any mortal in that which He is in Himself, he goes on to say that an angel appeared to Moses. Then fled Moses, he says, at that saying, and was a stranger in the land of Midian, where he begot two sons. And when forty years were expired, there appeared to him in the wilderness of mount Sinai an angel of the Lord in a flame of fire in a bush. When Moses saw it, he wondered at the sight: and as he drew near to behold it, the voice of the Lord came unto him, saying, I am the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. Then Moses trembled, and dared not behold. Then said the Lord to him, Put off your shoes from your feet, etc. Here, certainly, he speaks both of angel and of Lord; and of the same as the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; as is written in Genesis.

Is anyone going to claim that the Lord appeared to Moses through an angel but appeared to Abraham directly? Let's not answer this from Stephen's account, but from the book itself where Stephen got his narrative. Just because it says "And the Lord God said to Abraham" and shortly after "And the Lord God appeared unto Abraham," does this mean these things were not done through angels? Yet it says similarly in another place, "And the Lord appeared to him in the plains of Mamre, as he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day," and yet it immediately adds, "And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him"—we have already discussed this. For how will these people, who either refuse to rise from the words to their meaning or carelessly fall from the meaning back to the words—how, I ask, will they be able to explain that God was seen in three men, unless they admit these were angels, as what follows also demonstrates? Just because it doesn't say "an angel spoke or appeared to him," will they dare to claim that the vision and voice given to Moses were accomplished through an angel because it is written that way, but that God appeared and spoke to Abraham in His own substance because no angel is mentioned? What about the fact that even regarding Abraham, an angel is mentioned? For when his son was ordered to be offered as a sacrifice, we read: "And it came to pass after these things that God did tempt Abraham, and said to him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am. And He said, Take now your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt-offering upon one of the mountains that I will tell you of." Certainly God is mentioned here, not an angel. But shortly afterward Scripture says: "And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son. And the angel of the Lord called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I. And he said, Lay not your hand upon the lad, neither do anything unto him." What can be said to this? Will they claim that God commanded Isaac to be killed and that an angel forbade it? And furthermore, that the father himself, in opposition to God's decree commanding the slaying, obeyed the angel who told him to spare the boy? Such an interpretation must be rejected as absurd. Yet Scripture leaves no room even for this crude and base interpretation, for it immediately adds: "For now I know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, on account of me." What does "on account of me" mean except on account of Him who had commanded the slaying? Was the God of Abraham the same as the angel, or was it rather God acting through an angel? Consider what follows. Here an angel has most clearly been mentioned; yet notice the context: "And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt-offering in the stead of his son. And Abraham called the name of that place, The Lord saw: as it is said to this day, In the mount the Lord was seen." Just as when God said through the angel a little earlier, "For now I know that you fear God"—not because it should be understood that God then came to know, but that He brought it about that through God Abraham himself came to know what strength of heart he had to obey God, even to sacrificing his only son—this follows that manner of speaking in which the effect is signified by the cause, just as cold is called sluggish because it makes people sluggish. So He was said to know because He made Abraham himself know, since Abraham might well not have discerned the firmness of his own faith had it not been tested by such a trial. So here too, Abraham called the place "The Lord saw," meaning He caused Himself to be seen. For he immediately continues, "As it is said to this day, In the mount the Lord was seen." Here you see the same angel is called Lord—why, except that the Lord was speaking through the angel? But if we continue to what follows, the angel clearly speaks as a prophet and reveals explicitly that God is speaking through the angel. "And the angel of the Lord," it says, "called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time, and said, By myself I have sworn, says the Lord; for because you have done this thing, and hast not withheld your son, your only son, on account of me," and so on. Certainly these words—that he through whom the Lord speaks should say "Thus says the Lord"—are commonly used by the prophets as well. Does the Son of God say of the Father "The Lord says," while He Himself is that Angel of the Father? What then? Don't they see how hard pressed they are concerning these three men who appeared to Abraham, when it had been said before, "The Lord appeared to him"? Were they not angels just because they are called men? Let them read Daniel, saying, "Behold the man Gabriel."

25. Can there be any one who will say that the Lord appeared to Moses by an angel, but to Abraham by Himself? Let us not answer this question from Stephen, but from the book itself, whence Stephen took his narrative. For, pray, because it is written, And the Lord God said to Abraham; and a little after, And the Lord God appeared unto Abraham; were these things, for this reason, not done by angels? Whereas it is said in like manner in another place, And the Lord appeared to him in the plains of Mamre, as he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day; and yet it is added immediately, And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: of whom we have already spoken. For how will these people, who either will not rise from the words to the meaning, or easily throw themselves down from the meaning to the words — how, I say, will they be able to explain that God was seen in three men, except they confess that they were angels, as that which follows also shows? Because it is not said an angel spoke or appeared to him, will they therefore venture to say that the vision and voice granted to Moses was wrought by an angel because it is so written, but that God appeared and spoke in His own substance to Abraham because there is no mention made of an angel? What of the fact, that even in respect to Abraham an angel is not left unmentioned? For when his son was ordered to be offered up as a sacrifice, we read thus: And it came to pass after these things that God did tempt Abraham, and said to him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am. And He said, Take now your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt-offering upon one of the mountains that I will tell you of. Certainly God is here mentioned, not an angel. But a little afterwards Scripture has it thus: And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son. And the angel of the Lord called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I. And he said, Lay not your hand upon the lad, neither do anything unto him. What can be answered to this? Will they say that God commanded that Isaac should be slain, and that an angel forbade it? And further, that the father himself, in opposition to the decree of God, who had commanded that he should be slain, obeyed the angel, who had bidden him spare him? Such an interpretation is to be rejected as absurd. Yet not even for it, gross and abject as it is, does Scripture leave any room, for it immediately adds: For now I know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, on account of me. What is on account of me, except on account of Him who had commanded him to be slain? Was then the God of Abraham the same as the angel, or was it not rather God by an angel? Consider what follows. Here, certainly, already an angel has been most clearly spoken of; yet notice the context: And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt-offering in the stead of his son. And Abraham called the name of that place, The Lord saw: as it is said to this day, In the mount the Lord was seen. Just as that which a little before God said by an angel, For now I know that you fear God; not because it was to be understood that God then came to know, but that He brought it to pass that through God Abraham himself came to know what strength of heart he had to obey God, even to the sacrificing of his only son: after that mode of speech in which the effect is signified by the efficient — as cold is said to be sluggish, because it makes men sluggish; so that He was therefore said to know, because He had made Abraham himself to know, who might well have not discerned the firmness of his own faith, had it not been proved by such a trial. So here, too, Abraham called the name of the place The Lord saw, that is, caused Himself to be seen. For he goes on immediately to say, As it is said to this day, In the mount the Lord was seen. Here you see the same angel is called Lord: wherefore, unless because the Lord spoke by the angel? But if we pass on to that which follows, the angel altogether speaks as a prophet, and reveals expressly that God is speaking by the angel. And the angel of the Lord, he says, called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time, and said, By myself I have sworn, says the Lord; for because you have done this thing, and hast not withheld your son, your only son, on account of me, etc. Certainly these words, viz. that he by whom the Lord speaks should say, Thus says the Lord, are commonly used by the prophets also. Does the Son of God say of the Father, The Lord says, while He Himself is that Angel of the Father? What then? Do they not see how hard pressed they are about these three men who appeared to Abraham, when it had been said before, The Lord appeared to him? Were they not angels because they are called men? Let them read Daniel, saying, Behold the man Gabriel.

Why do we delay any longer to silence them with another very clear and compelling proof, where neither an angel in the singular nor men in the plural are mentioned, but simply angels? Through these angels not just some particular word was accomplished, but the Law itself is most clearly declared to have been given. Certainly none of the faithful doubts that God gave the Law to Moses for governing the children of Israel, or that it was given through angels. Stephen speaks this way: "You stiff-necked," he says, "and uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you. Which of the prophets have your fathers not persecuted? They have killed those who foretold the coming of the Just One, of whom you have now become the betrayers and murderers—you who received the Law through the arrangement of angels, and have not kept it." What is clearer than this? What carries stronger authority? The Law was indeed given to that people through the arrangement of angels. But the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ was prepared and announced beforehand through it. And He Himself, as the Word of God, was in some wonderful and unexplainable way present in the angels, through whose arrangement the Law itself was given. Hence He said in the Gospel, "For if you had believed Moses, you would have believed me, for he wrote of me." Therefore the Lord was speaking through the angels, and the Son of God, who was to be the Mediator between God and humanity, from the seed of Abraham, was preparing His own coming through the angels, so that He might find some who would receive Him—people confessing their guilt, whom the unfulfilled Law had made transgressors. For this reason the apostle also says to the Galatians, "Why then the Law? It was added because of transgressions, until the seed should come to whom the promise was made, and it was arranged through angels by the hand of a mediator"—that is, arranged through angels in His own hand. For He was not born in limitation, but in power. But you learn in another place that he does not mean any one of the angels as the mediator, but the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, insofar as He chose to be made man. For, "There is one God," he says, "and one Mediator between God and humanity, the man Christ Jesus." From this came that Passover in the killing of the lamb; from this came all those things spoken symbolically in the Law about Christ who would come in the flesh and suffer, but also rise again. This Law was given through the arrangement of angels, in which angels the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit were certainly present. In these angels, sometimes the Father, sometimes the Son, sometimes the Holy Spirit, and sometimes God without any distinction of person, was symbolically represented by them, appearing in visible and sensible forms, yet through His own creation, not through His substance, since the seeing of that substance requires hearts to be cleansed through all those things which are seen by the eyes and heard by the ears.

26. But why do we delay any longer to stop their mouths by another most clear and most weighty proof, where not an angel in the singular nor men in the plural are spoken of, but simply angels; by whom not any particular word was wrought, but the Law itself is most distinctly declared to be given; which certainly none of the faithful doubts that God gave to Moses for the control of the children of Israel, or yet, that it was given by angels. So Stephen speaks: You stiff-necked, he says, and uncircumcised in heart and ears, you do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do you. Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? And they have slain them which showed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom you have been now the betrayers and murderers: who have received the Law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it. What is more evident than this? What more strong than such an authority? The Law, indeed, was given to that people by the disposition of angels; but the advent of our Lord Jesus Christ was by it prepared and pre-announced; and He Himself, as the Word of God, was in some wonderful and unspeakable manner in the angels, by whose disposition the Law itself was given. And hence He said in the Gospel, For had you believed Moses, you would have believed me; for he wrote of me. Therefore then the Lord was speaking by the angels; and the son of God, who was to be the Mediator of God and men, from the seed of Abraham, was preparing His own advent by the angels, that He might find some by whom He would be received, confessing themselves guilty, whom the Law unfulfilled had made transgressors. And hence the apostle also says to the Galatians, Wherefore then serves the Law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made, which [seed] was ordered through angels in the hand of a mediator; that is, ordered through angels in His own hand. For He was not born in limitation, but in power. But you learn in another place that he does not mean any one of the angels as a mediator, but the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, in so far as He deigned to be made man: For there is one God, he says, and one Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus. Hence that passover in the killing of the lamb: hence all those things which are figuratively spoken in the Law, of Christ to come in the flesh, and to suffer, but also to rise again, which Law was given by the disposition of angels; in which angels, were certainly the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit; and in which, sometimes the Father, sometimes the Son, sometimes the Holy Spirit, and sometimes God, without any distinction of person, was figuratively signified by them, although appearing in visible and sensible forms, yet by His own creature, not by His substance, in order to the seeing of which, hearts are cleansed through all those things which are seen by the eyes and heard by the ears.

I believe we have now adequately discussed and demonstrated what we set out to show in this book, to the best of my ability. We have established both by reasonable argument—as far as a person, or rather as far as I am able—and by the force of authority—as far as divine declarations from Holy Scripture have made clear—that those words and bodily appearances given to our ancient fathers before the Savior's incarnation, when God was said to appear, were accomplished through angels. Either the angels themselves spoke or did something in the person of God, as we have shown the prophets also customarily did, or they took on from creation something they themselves were not, so that God might be shown figuratively to people. Scripture teaches through many examples that the prophets also used this manner of showing. Therefore, what remains for us now to consider is this: in the Lord's birth from a virgin, in the Holy Spirit's descent in bodily form like a dove, and in the tongues as of fire that appeared with a sound from heaven on Pentecost after the Lord's ascension, it was not the Word of God himself in his own substance—in which he is equal and eternal with the Father—nor the Spirit of the Father and of the Son in his own substance—in which he himself is also equal and coeternal with both—but certainly a creature that could be formed and exist in these appearances, which were visible to bodily and mortal senses. What remains, I say, is to consider what difference exists between these manifestations and those that were proper to the Son of God and to the Holy Spirit, though accomplished through visible creation. We will more conveniently begin this subject in another book.

27. But now, as I think, that which we had undertaken to show in this book has been sufficiently discussed and demonstrated, according to our capacity; and it has been established, both by probable reason, so far as a man, or rather, so far as I am able, and by strength of authority, so far as the divine declarations from the Holy Scriptures have been made clear, that those words and bodily appearances which were given to these ancient fathers of ours before the incarnation of the Saviour, when God was said to appear, were wrought by angels: whether themselves speaking or doing something in the person of God, as we have shown that the prophets also were wont to do, or assuming from the creature that which they themselves were not, wherein God might be shown in a figure to men; which manner of showing also, Scripture teaches by many examples, that the prophets, too, did not omit. It remains, therefore, now for us to consider — since both in the Lord as born of a virgin, and in the Holy Spirit descending in a corporeal form like a dove, and in the tongues like as of fire, which appeared with a sound from heaven on the day of Pentecost, after the ascension of the Lord, it was not the Word of God Himself by His own substance, in which He is equal and eternal with the Father, nor the Spirit of the Father and of the Son by His own substance, in which He Himself also is equal and co-eternal with both, but assuredly a creature, such as could be formed and exist in these fashions, which appeared to corporeal and mortal senses — it remains, I say, to consider what difference there is between these manifestations and those which were proper to the Son of God and to the Holy Spirit, although wrought by the visible creature; which subject we shall more conveniently begin in another book.

When people seek to know God and apply their minds—within the limits of human weakness—to understanding the Trinity, they learn through experience how difficult and exhausting this task is. This difficulty comes either from the mind itself trying to look upon unapproachable light, or from the many different ways of speaking found in the sacred writings. In these writings, it seems to me, the mind is put through rigorous exercise so that it may find sweetness when glorified by the grace of Christ. Such people, once they have cleared up every confusion and reached something certain, ought to be the most willing to show patience toward those who make mistakes in investigating so profound a mystery. But there are two things that are very hard to tolerate in those who are in error: jumping to conclusions before the truth is clear, and then defending the falsehood they hastily assumed once the truth has been made clear. I pray and hope that God will defend and protect me from these two faults—which work against discovering truth and properly handling the divine and sacred books—with the shield of His goodwill and the grace of His mercy. If He does, I will not hesitate to search out the ousia of God, whether through His Scripture or through creation. Both of these are set before us for contemplation so that we may seek Him and love Him—the one who inspired Scripture and created the world. I will not be afraid to give my opinion, and I would rather have upright people examine it than fear criticism from those who twist things. Love, which is most excellent and humble, gladly welcomes the gentle eye of the dove, but against the dog's tooth nothing is left except to avoid it through careful humility or to dull it with solid truth. I would much rather be criticized by anyone at all than be praised by someone who is mistaken or by a flatterer. For the lover of truth need not fear anyone's criticism. Anyone who criticizes must be either an enemy or a friend. If an enemy attacks, he must be endured. But if a friend makes a mistake, he must be taught; if he teaches, he must be listened to. However, if someone who is wrong praises you, he confirms your error; if a flatterer praises you, he lures you into error. Therefore, let the righteous strike me—it will be a kindness—and let him correct me; but the oil of the sinner shall not anoint my head.

When men seek to know God, and bend their minds according to the capacity of human weakness to the understanding of the Trinity; learning, as they must, by experience, the wearisome difficulties of the task, whether from the sight itself of the mind striving to gaze upon light unapproachable, or, indeed, from the manifold and various modes of speech employed in the sacred writings (wherein, as it seems to me, the mind is nothing else but roughly exercised, in order that it may find sweetness when glorified by the grace of Christ);– such men, I say, when they have dispelled every ambiguity, and arrived at something certain, ought of all others most easily to make allowance for those who err in the investigation of so deep a secret. But there are two things most hard to bear with, in the case of those who are in error: hasty assumption before the truth is made plain; and, when it has been made plain, defense of the falsehood thus hastily assumed. From which two faults, inimical as they are to the finding out of the truth, and to the handling of the divine and sacred books, should God, as I pray and hope, defend and protect me with the shield of His good will, and with the grace of His mercy, I will not be slow to search out the substance of God, whether through His Scripture or through the creature. For both of these are set forth for our contemplation to this end, that He may Himself be sought, and Himself be loved, who inspired the one, and created the other. Nor shall I be afraid of giving my opinion, in which I shall more desire to be examined by the upright, than fear to be carped at by the perverse. For charity, most excellent and unassuming, gratefully accepts the dovelike eye; but for the dog's tooth nothing remains, save either to shun it by the most cautious humility, or to blunt it by the most solid truth; and far rather would I be censured by any one whatsoever, than be praised by either the erring or the flatterer. For the lover of truth need fear no one's censure. For he that censures, must needs be either enemy or friend. And if an enemy reviles, he must be borne with: but a friend, if he errs, must be taught; if he teaches, listened to. But if one who errs praises you, he confirms your error; if one who flatters, he seduces you into error. Let the righteous, therefore, smite me, it shall be a kindness; and let him reprove me; but the oil of the sinner shall not anoint my head.

We hold firmly to what may be called the canonical rule concerning our Lord Jesus Christ, as it is spread throughout the Scriptures and has been demonstrated by learned and Catholic interpreters of those same Scriptures. This rule is that the Son of God is understood to be equal to the Father according to the form of God in which He exists, and less than the Father according to the form of a servant which He took. In this form, He was found to be not only less than the Father but also less than the Holy Spirit, and not only so, but less even than Himself—not than Himself who was, but than Himself who is. By taking the form of a servant, He did not lose the form of God, as the testimonies of the Scriptures teach us, which we referred to in the earlier book. However, some things in the sacred text are expressed in such a way that it is unclear which rule they should be understood by: whether by the rule that makes us understand the Son as less because He has taken upon Himself the creature, or by the rule that makes us understand that the Son is not less than but equal to the Father, yet He is from Him, God of God, Light of light. We call the Son God of God, but the Father, God only, not of God. From this it is clear that the Son has another from whom He is and to whom He is Son, but the Father does not have a Son from whom He is, but only to whom He is Father. Every son is what he is from his father and is son to his father, but no father is what he is from his son, but is father to his son.

2. Wherefore, although we hold most firmly, concerning our Lord Jesus Christ, what may be called the canonical rule, as it is both disseminated through the Scriptures, and has been demonstrated by learned and Catholic handlers of the same Scriptures, namely, that the Son of God is both understood to be equal to the Father according to the form of God in which He is, and less than the Father according to the form of a servant which He took; in which form He was found to be not only less than the Father, but also less than the Holy Spirit; and not only so, but less even than Himself — not than Himself who was, but than Himself who is; because, by taking the form of a servant, He did not lose the form of God, as the testimonies of the Scriptures taught us, to which we have referred in the former book: yet there are some things in the sacred text so put as to leave it ambiguous to which rule they are rather to be referred; whether to that by which we understand the Son as less, in that He has taken upon Him the creature, or to that by which we understand that the Son is not indeed less than, but equal to the Father, but yet that He is from Him, God of God, Light of light. For we call the Son God of God; but the Father, God only; not of God. Whence it is plain that the Son has another of whom He is, and to whom He is Son; but that the Father has not a Son of whom He is, but only to whom He is father. For every son is what he is, of his father, and is son to his father; but no father is what he is, of his son, but is father to his son.

Some things in the Scriptures concerning the Father and the Son are expressed in ways that point to the unity and equality of their substance. For instance, "I and the Father are one," and "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God," along with other similar texts. Other passages present the Son as less on account of the form of a servant, that is, because He took upon Himself a changeable human substance. Examples include "For my Father is greater than I" and "The Father judges no man, but has committed all judgment unto the Son." A little later it continues, "And has given Him authority to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of man." Still other passages present Him neither as less nor as equal, but simply indicate that He is from the Father. For instance, "For as the Father has life in Himself, so has He given to the Son to have life in Himself," and "The Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do." If we interpret this last statement to mean the Son is less because of the nature He took from creation, it would follow that the Father must have walked on water, or opened the eyes of some other blind person with clay and spittle, and done all the other things which the Son did among people when appearing in the flesh, before the Son did them. This would be necessary so that the Son could do these things, since He said He could do nothing of Himself except what He has seen the Father do. But who, even if insane, would think this? Therefore, these texts are expressed this way because the Son's life is as unchangeable as the Father's life is, and yet He is from the Father. The Father and Son's working is undivided, yet the ability to work is given to the Son by the one from whom He Himself exists, that is, from the Father. The Son sees the Father in such a way that He is the Son in the very act of seeing Him. For the Son, to be from the Father—that is, to be born of the Father—is nothing other than to see the Father, and to see Him working is nothing other than to work with Him. But He does not work from Himself because He is not from Himself. Therefore, the things which He sees the Father do, these the Son also does in the same way, because He is from the Father. He does not do different things in a similar manner, as a painter paints different pictures in the same way he has seen pictures painted by another. Nor does He do the same things in a different manner, as the body expresses the same letters that the mind has thought. Rather, He says, "Whatsoever things the Father does, these same things also does the Son likewise." He said both "these same things" and "likewise," which shows that the working of both Father and Son is undivided and equal, but it comes from the Father to the Son. Therefore the Son cannot do anything of Himself, except what He sees the Father do. From this rule, by which the Scriptures speak not to present one as less than another but only to show which is from which, some have mistakenly concluded that the Son is being called less. Some among us who are less educated and least instructed in these matters try to interpret these texts according to the form of a servant, and by misinterpreting them this way, become confused. To prevent this, the rule in question must be observed: the Son is not less, but it is simply indicated that He is from the Father, and in these words not His inequality but His birth is being declared.

3. Some things, then, are so put in the Scriptures concerning the Father and the Son, as to intimate the unity and equality of their substance; as, for instance, I and the Father are one; and, Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God; and whatever other texts there are of the kind. And some, again, are so put that they show the Son as less on account of the form of a servant, that is, of His having taken upon Him the creature of a changeable and human substance; as, for instance, that which says, For my Father is greater than I; and, The Father judges no man, but has committed all judgment unto the Son. For a little after he goes on to say, And has given Him authority to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of man. And further, some are so put, as to show Him at that time neither as less nor as equal, but only to intimate that He is of the Father; as, for instance, that which says, For as the Father has life in Himself, so has He given to the Son to have life in Himself; and that other: The Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do. For if we shall take this to be therefore so said, because the Son is less in the form taken from the creature, it will follow that the Father must have walked on the water, or opened the eyes with clay and spittle of some other one born blind, and have done the other things which the Son appearing in the flesh did among men, before the Son did them; in order that He might be able to do those things, who said that the Son was not able to do anything of Himself, except what He has seen the Father do. Yet who, even though he were mad, would think this? It remains, therefore, that these texts are so expressed, because the life of the Son is unchangeable as that of the Father is, and yet He is of the Father; and the working of the Father and of the Son is indivisible, and yet so to work is given to the Son from Him of whom He Himself is, that is, from the Father; and the Son so sees the Father, as that He is the Son in the very seeing Him. For to be of the Father, that is, to be born of the Father, is to Him nothing else than to see the Father; and to see Him working, is nothing else than to work with Him: but therefore not from Himself, because He is not from Himself. And, therefore, those things which He sees the Father do, these also does the Son likewise, because He is of the Father. For He neither does other things in like manner, as a painter paints other pictures, in the same way as he sees others to have been painted by another man; nor the same things in a different manner, as the body expresses the same letters, which the mind has thought; but whatsoever things, says He, the Father does, these same things also does the Son likewise. He has said both these same things, and likewise; and hence the working of both the Father and the Son is indivisible and equal, but it is from the Father to the Son. Therefore the Son cannot do anything of Himself, except what He sees the Father do. From this rule, then, whereby the Scriptures so speak as to mean, not to set forth one as less than another, but only to show which is of which, some have drawn this meaning, as if the Son were said to be less. And some among ourselves who are more unlearned and least instructed in these things, endeavoring to take these texts according to the form of a servant, and so misinterpreting them, are troubled. And to prevent this, the rule in question is to be observed whereby the Son is not less, but it is simply intimated that He is of the Father, in which words not His inequality but His birth is declared.

There are some things in the sacred books, as I said at the beginning, that are stated in such a way that it's unclear which rule they should be referred to: whether to the rule that the Son is less because He took on created nature, or to the rule that indicates He is equal to the Father yet still from the Father. In my opinion, if something is so unclear that what it really means cannot be explained or determined, then such passages can safely be understood according to either rule. For example, take the statement "My doctrine is not mine, but His that sent me." This can be understood according to the form of a servant, as we already discussed in the previous book, or according to the form of God, in which He is equal to the Father while still being from the Father. For according to the form of God, just as the Son is not one thing and His life another thing, but the life itself is the Son, so too the Son is not one thing and His doctrine another thing, but the doctrine itself is the Son. Therefore, just as the text "He has given life to the Son" should be understood to mean "He has begotten the Son, who is life," so also when it says "He has given doctrine to the Son," it can rightly be understood to mean "He has begotten the Son, who is doctrine." Thus, when it says "My doctrine is not mine, but His who sent me," it should be understood as if it were saying "I am not from myself, but from Him who sent me."

4. There are, then, some things in the sacred books, as I began by saying, so put, that it is doubtful to which they are to be referred: whether to that rule whereby the Son is less on account of His having taken the creature; or whether to that whereby it is intimated that although equal, yet He is of the Father. And in my opinion, if this is in such way doubtful, that which it really is can neither be explained nor discerned, then such passages may without danger be understood according to either rule, as that, for instance, My doctrine is not mine, but His that sent me. For this may both be taken according to the form of a servant, as we have already treated it in the former book; or according to the form of God, in which He is in such way equal to the Father, that He is yet of the Father. For according to the form of God, as the Son is not one and His life another, but the life itself is the Son; so the Son is not one and His doctrine another, but the doctrine itself is the Son. And hence, as the text, He has given life to the Son, is no otherwise to be understood than, He has begotten the Son, who is life; so also when it is said, He has given doctrine to the Son, it may be rightly understood to mean, He has begotten the Son, who is doctrine so that, when it is said, My doctrine is not mine, but His who sent me, it is so to be understood as if it were, I am not from myself, but from Him who sent me.

Even concerning the Holy Spirit, of whom it is not said that He emptied Himself and took upon Him the form of a servant, the Lord Himself says, "When He the Spirit of Truth has come, He will guide you into all truth. For He shall not speak of Himself, but whatsoever He shall hear that shall He speak; and He will show you things to come. He shall glorify me; for He shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto you." If He had not immediately added after this, "All things that the Father has are mine; therefore said I, that He shall take of mine, and shall show it unto you," it might perhaps have been believed that the Holy Spirit was born of Christ in the same way that Christ is of the Father. Since He had said of Himself, "My doctrine is not mine, but His that sent me," but of the Holy Spirit, "For He shall not speak of Himself, but whatsoever He shall hear, that shall He speak," and "For He shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto you." But because He has given the reason why He said, "He shall receive of mine"—for He says, "All things that the Father has are mine; therefore said I, that He shall take of mine"—it remains that the Holy Spirit be understood to have of that which is the Father's, just as the Son also has. How can this be, unless according to what we said above: "But when the Comforter has come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth which proceeds from the Father, He shall testify of me"? He is said, therefore, not to speak of Himself in that He proceeds from the Father. Just as it does not follow that the Son is less because He said, "The Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do"—for He did not say this according to the form of a servant, but according to the form of God, as we have already shown, and these words do not set Him forth as less than, but as of the Father—so it does not follow that the Holy Spirit is less because it is said of Him, "For He shall not speak of Himself, but whatsoever He shall hear, that shall He speak," for the words refer to Him as proceeding from the Father. But whereas both the Son is of the Father and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, why both are not called sons and both not said to be begotten, but the former is called the one only-begotten Son and the latter, namely the Holy Spirit, is neither son nor begotten—because if begotten, then certainly a son—we will discuss in another place, if God grants, and as far as He grants.

5. For even of the Holy Spirit, of whom it is not said, He emptied Himself, and took upon Him the form of a servant; yet the Lord Himself says, Howbeit, when He the Spirit of Truth has come, He will guide you into all truth. For He shall not speak of Himself, but whatsoever He shall hear that shall He speak; and He will show you things to come. He shall glorify me; for He shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto you. And except He had immediately gone on to say after this, All things that the Father has are mine; therefore said I, that He shall take of mine, and shall show it unto you; it might, perhaps, have been believed that the Holy Spirit was so born of Christ, as Christ is of the Father. Since He had said of Himself, My doctrine is not mine, but His that sent me; but of the Holy Spirit, For He shall not speak of Himself, but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall He speak; and, For He shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto you. But because He has rendered the reason why He said, He shall receive of mine (for He says, All things that the Father has are mine; therefore said I, that He shall take of mine); it remains that the Holy Spirit be understood to have of that which is the Father's, as the Son also has. And how can this be, unless according to that which we have said above, But when the Comforter has come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth which proceeds from the Father, He shall testify of me? He is said, therefore, not to speak of Himself, in that He proceeds from the Father; and as it does not follow that the Son is less because He said, The Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do (for He has not said this according to the form of a servant, but according to the form of God, as we have already shown, and these words do not set Him forth as less than, but as of the Father), so it is not brought to pass that the Holy Spirit is less, because it is said of Him, For He shall not speak of Himself, but whatsoever He shall hear, that shall He speak; for the words belong to Him as proceeding from the Father. But whereas both the Son is of the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, why both are not called sons, and both not said to be begotten, but the former is called the one only-begotten Son, and the latter, viz. the Holy Spirit, neither son nor begotten, because if begotten, then certainly a son, we will discuss in another place, if God shall grant, and so far as He shall grant.

Those who think this passage shows that the Father is greater than the Son because the Son said "Father, glorify me" need to wake up. After all, the Holy Spirit also glorifies Him. Does that mean the Spirit is greater than He is? Furthermore, if the Holy Spirit glorifies the Son because He receives from what belongs to the Son, and He receives from what belongs to the Son because all things that the Father has also belong to the Son, then it's clear that when the Holy Spirit glorifies the Son, the Father glorifies the Son. From this we can understand that all things the Father has belong not only to the Son but also to the Holy Spirit, since the Holy Spirit is able to glorify the Son whom the Father glorifies. But if the one who glorifies is greater than the one being glorified, then they should admit that those who mutually glorify each other are equal. Scripture also says that the Son glorifies the Father, for He says, "I have glorified You on the earth." They had better be careful not to conclude that the Holy Spirit is greater than both, since He glorifies the Son whom the Father glorifies, yet Scripture never says that He Himself is glorified by either the Father or the Son.

6. But here also let them wake up if they can, who have thought this, too, to be a testimony on their side, to show that the Father is greater than the Son, because the Son has said, Father, glorify me. Why, the Holy Spirit also glorifies Him. Pray, is the Spirit, too, greater than He? Moreover, if on that account the Holy Spirit glorifies the Son, because He shall receive of that which is the Son's, and shall therefore receive of that which is the Son's because all things that the Father has are the Son's also; it is evident that when the Holy Spirit glorifies the Son, the Father glorifies the Son. Whence it may be perceived that all things that the Father has are not only of the Son, but also of the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit is able to glorify the Son, whom the Father glorifies. But if he who glorifies is greater than he whom he glorifies, let them allow that those are equal who mutually glorify each other. But it is written, also, that the Son glorifies the Father; for He says, I have glorified You on the earth. Truly let them beware lest the Holy Spirit be thought greater than both, because He glorifies the Son whom the Father glorifies, while it is not written that He Himself is glorified either by the Father or by the Son.

Having been proved wrong on those points, people then resort to saying that the one who sends is greater than the one who is sent. Therefore, they argue, the Father is greater than the Son because the Son continually speaks of himself as being sent by the Father. They also claim the Father is greater than the Holy Spirit because Jesus said of the Spirit, "Whom the Father will send in my name." And they say the Holy Spirit is less than both, because both the Father sends him, as we have noted, and the Son does too, when he says, "But if I depart, I will send him to you." So I first ask in this investigation: from where and to where was the Son sent? He says, "I came forth from the Father and have come into the world." Therefore, to be sent means to come forth from the Father and to come into the world. But then what about what the same evangelist says concerning him: "He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not"? And then he adds, "He came to his own." Certainly he was sent to the place where he came. But if he was sent into the world because he came forth from the Father, then he both came into the world and was already in the world. He was sent, therefore, to the place where he already was. Consider also what is written in the prophet, where God said, "Do not I fill heaven and earth?" If this is said of the Son—for some interpret it to mean that the Son himself spoke either by the prophets or in the prophets—where was he sent except to the place where he already was? For he who says "I fill heaven and earth" was everywhere. But if this is said of the Father, where could he be without his own Word and without his own Wisdom, which "reaches from one end to another mightily and sweetly orders all things"? Yet he cannot be anywhere without his own Spirit. Therefore, if God is everywhere, his Spirit also is everywhere. So the Holy Spirit too was sent to the place where he already was. For the psalmist who finds no place where he might go from God's presence, who says, "If I ascend up into heaven, you are there; if I go down into hell, behold, you are there"—wanting it to be understood that God is present everywhere—named his Spirit in the previous verse. For he says, "Where shall I go from your Spirit? Or where shall I flee from your presence?"

7. But being proved wrong so far, men betake themselves to saying, that he who sends is greater than he who is sent: therefore the Father is greater than the Son, because the Son continually speaks of Himself as being sent by the Father; and the Father is also greater than the Holy Spirit, because Jesus has said of the Spirit, Whom the Father will send in my name; and the Holy Spirit is less than both, because both the Father sends Him, as we have said, and the Son, when He says, But if I depart, I will send Him unto you. I first ask, then, in this inquiry, whence and whither the Son was sent. I, He says, came forth from the Father, and have come into the world. Therefore, to be sent, is to come forth forth from the Father, and to come into the world. What, then, is that which the same evangelist says concerning Him, He was in the world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not; and then he adds, He came unto His own? Certainly He was sent there, whither He came; but if He was sent into the world, because He came forth from the Father, then He both came into the world and was in the world. He was sent therefore there, where He already was. For consider that, too, which is written in the prophet, that God said, Do not I fill heaven and earth? If this is said of the Son (for some will have it understood that the Son Himself spoke either by the prophets or in the prophets), whither was He sent except to the place where He already was? For He who says, I fill heaven and earth, was everywhere. But if it is said of the Father, where could He be without His own word and without His own wisdom, which reaches from one end to another mightily, and sweetly orders all things? But He cannot be anywhere without His own Spirit. Therefore, if God is everywhere, His Spirit also is everywhere. Therefore, the Holy Spirit, too, was sent there, where He already was. For he, too, who finds no place to which he might go from the presence of God, and who says, If I ascend up into heaven, You are there; if I shall go down into hell, behold, You are there; wishing it to be understood that God is present everywhere, named in the previous verse His Spirit; for He says, Whither shall I go from Your Spirit? Or whither shall I flee from Your presence?

If both the Son and the Holy Spirit are sent to where they already were, we must ask how this sending—whether of the Son or of the Holy Spirit—is to be understood, since we nowhere read that the Father is sent. Now, concerning the Son, the apostle writes: "But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law." He says God sent His Son, made of a woman. What Catholic does not know that by the term "woman" he did not mean to deny virginity, but rather, following Hebrew usage, to indicate the female sex? Therefore, when he says "God sent His Son, made of a woman," he clearly shows that the Son was sent precisely in being made of a woman. So while He was in the world by being born of God, He was sent and came into the world by being born of Mary. Furthermore, the Son could not be sent by the Father without the Holy Spirit, not only because when the Father sent Him—that is, when He made Him of a woman—the Father certainly must be understood as not having done so without His own Spirit, but also because it is stated most plainly and explicitly in the Gospel, when the Virgin Mary asked the angel, "How shall this be?" The answer was: "The Holy Ghost shall come upon you, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow you." And Matthew says, "She was found with child of the Holy Ghost." Even in the prophet Isaiah, Christ Himself is understood to speak of His own future coming: "And now the Lord God and His Spirit has sent me."

8. For this reason, then, if both the Son and the Holy Spirit are sent there where they were, we must inquire, how that sending, whether of the Son or of the Holy Spirit, is to be understood; for of the Father alone, we nowhere read that He is sent. Now, of the Son, the apostle writes thus: But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law. He sent, he says, His Son, made of a woman. And by this term, woman, what Catholic does not know that he did not wish to signify the privation of virginity; but, according to a Hebraism, the difference of sex? When, therefore, he says, God sent His Son, made of a woman, he sufficiently shows that the Son was sent in this very way, in that He was made of a woman. Therefore, in that He was born of God, He was in the world; but in that He was born of Mary, He was sent and came into the world. Moreover, He could not be sent by the Father without the Holy Spirit, not only because the Father, when He sent Him, that is, when He made Him of a woman, is certainly understood not to have so made Him without His own Spirit; but also because it is most plainly and expressly said in the Gospel in answer to the Virgin Mary, when she asked of the angel, How shall this be? The Holy Ghost shall come upon you, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow you. And Matthew says, She was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Although, too, in the prophet Isaiah, Christ Himself is understood to say of His own future advent, And now the Lord God and His Spirit has sent me.

Someone might want to push us to say that the Son is also sent by Himself, since the conception and birth from Mary is the work of the Trinity, through whose creative act all things are created. "How," he might continue, "has the Father sent Him if He sent Himself?" My first response is to ask him to tell me, if he can, how the Father has sanctified Him if He has sanctified Himself. For the same Lord says both things: "Say of Him," He says, "whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world, 'You blaspheme,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God,'" while in another place He says, "And for their sake I sanctify myself." I also ask how the Father delivered Him if He delivered Himself. For the Apostle Paul says both: "Who," he says, "spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all," while elsewhere he says of the Savior Himself, "Who loved me, and delivered Himself for me." If he has a right understanding of these things, he will reply, I suppose, "Because the will of the Father and the Son is one, and their working indivisible." In the same way, then, let him understand that the incarnation and birth from the Virgin, in which the Son is understood as sent, was accomplished by one and the same operation of the Father and of the Son indivisibly—with the Holy Spirit certainly not excluded, since it is expressly said, "She was found with child by the Holy Spirit." Perhaps our meaning will be more clearly explained if we ask how God sent His Son. Did He command that He should come, and did He comply with the command and come? Did He request, or did He only suggest? But whichever of these it was, it was certainly done by a word, and the Word of God is the Son of God Himself. Therefore, since the Father sent Him by a word, His being sent was the work of both the Father and His Word. Therefore the same Son was sent by the Father and the Son, because the Son Himself is the Word of the Father. For who would embrace such an impious opinion as to think that the Father uttered a word in time so that the eternal Son might thereby be sent and appear in the flesh in the fullness of time? But surely it was in that Word of God itself which was in the beginning with God and was God—namely, in the wisdom itself of God—apart from time, that it was determined at what time that wisdom should appear in the flesh. Therefore, since the Word was in the beginning without any beginning of time, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God, it was in the Word itself without any time that it was determined when the Word was to be made flesh and dwell among us. And when this fullness of time came, God sent His Son, made of a woman—that is, made in time—so that the Incarnate Word might appear to men, while it was in that Word Himself, apart from time, when this was to be done. For the order of times exists in the eternal wisdom of God without time. Since, then, the Son's appearing in the flesh was accomplished by both the Father and the Son, it is appropriate to say that He who appeared in that flesh was sent, and that He who did not appear in it sent Him, because those things which happen outwardly before bodily eyes have their existence from the inward structure (apparatu) of the spiritual nature, and for that reason are appropriately said to be sent. Furthermore, that form of man which He took is the person of the Son, not also of the Father. For this reason the invisible Father, together with the Son who with the Father is invisible, is said to have sent the same Son by making Him visible. But if He became visible in such a way that He ceased to be invisible with the Father—that is, if the substance of the invisible Word were turned by a change and transition into a visible creature—then the Son would be understood to be sent by the Father in such a way that He would be found to be only sent, not also sending with the Father. But since He took the form of a servant in such a way that the unchangeable form of God remained, it is clear that what became apparent in the Son was done by the Father and the Son not being apparent—that is, by the invisible Father with the invisible Son, the same Son Himself was sent so as to be visible. Why, therefore, does He say, "Neither came I of myself"? We may now say that this is said according to the form of a servant, in the same way as "I judge no man" is said.

9. Perhaps some one may wish to drive us to say, that the Son is sent also by Himself, because the conception and childbirth of Mary is the working of the Trinity, by whose act of creating all things are created. And how, he will go on to say, has the Father sent Him, if He sent Himself? To whom I answer first, by asking him to tell me, if he can, in what manner the Father has sanctified Him, if He has sanctified Himself? For the same Lord says both; Say of Him, He says, whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world, You blaspheme, because I said, I am the Son of God; while in another place He says, And for their sake I sanctify myself. I ask, also, in what manner the Father delivered Him, if He delivered Himself? For the Apostle Paul says both: Who, he says, spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all; while elsewhere he says of the Saviour Himself, Who loved me, and delivered Himself for me. He will reply, I suppose, if he has a right sense in these things, Because the will of the Father and the Son is one, and their working indivisible. In like manner, then, let him understand the incarnation and nativity of the Virgin, wherein the Son is understood as sent, to have been wrought by one and the same operation of the Father and of the Son indivisibly; the Holy Spirit certainly not being thence excluded, of whom it is expressly said, She was found with child by the Holy Ghost. For perhaps our meaning will be more plainly unfolded, if we ask in what manner God sent His Son. He commanded that He should come, and He, complying with the commandment, came. Did He then request, or did He only suggest? But whichever of these it was, certainly it was done by a word, and the Word of God is the Son of God Himself. Wherefore, since the Father sent Him by a word, His being sent was the work of both the Father and His Word; therefore the same Son was sent by the Father and the Son, because the Son Himself is the Word of the Father. For who would embrace so impious an opinion as to think the Father to have uttered a word in time, in order that the eternal Son might thereby be sent and might appear in the flesh in the fullness of time? But assuredly it was in that Word of God itself which was in the beginning with God and was God, namely, in the wisdom itself of God, apart from time, at what time that wisdom must needs appear in the flesh. Therefore, since without any commencement of time, the Word was in the beginning, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God, it was in the Word itself without any time, at what time the Word was to be made flesh and dwell among us. And when this fullness of time had come, God sent His Son, made of a woman, that is, made in time, that the Incarnate Word might appear to men; while it was in that Word Himself, apart from time, at what time this was to be done; for the order of times is in the eternal wisdom of God without time. Since, then, that the Son should appear in the flesh was wrought by both the Father and the Son, it is fitly said that He who appeared in that flesh was sent, and that He who did not appear in it, sent Him; because those things which are transacted outwardly before the bodily eyes have their existence from the inward structure ( apparatu) of the spiritual nature, and on that account are fitly said to be sent. Further, that form of man which He took is the person of the Son, not also of the Father; on which account the invisible Father, together with the Son, who with the Father is invisible, is said to have sent the same Son by making Him visible. But if He became visible in such way as to cease to be invisible with the Father, that is, if the substance of the invisible Word were turned by a change and transition into a visible creature, then the Son would be so understood to be sent by the Father, that He would be found to be only sent; not also, with the Father, sending. But since He so took the form of a servant, as that the unchangeable form of God remained, it is clear that that which became apparent in the Son was done by the Father and the Son not being apparent; that is, that by the invisible Father, with the invisible Son, the same Son Himself was sent so as to be visible. Why, therefore, does He say, Neither came I of myself? This, we may now say, is said according to the form of a servant, in the same way as it is said, I judge no man.

If, therefore, the Son is said to be sent insofar as He appeared outwardly in bodily form, while inwardly in His spiritual nature He is always hidden from mortal eyes, it is now easy to understand why the Holy Spirit is also said to be sent. For at the proper time a certain outward appearance through created means was produced, in which the Holy Spirit might be visibly shown—whether when He descended upon the Lord Himself in bodily form as a dove, or when, ten days after His ascension, on the day of Pentecost a sound came suddenly from heaven like a rushing mighty wind, and divided tongues as of fire appeared and rested upon each of them. This work, visibly displayed and presented to mortal eyes, is called the sending of the Holy Spirit. This does not mean that His very substance appeared, in which He Himself is also invisible and unchangeable like the Father and the Son, but rather that human hearts, moved by things seen outwardly, might be turned from the temporal manifestation of Him as coming to His hidden eternity as always present.

10. If, therefore, He is said to be sent, in so far as He appeared outwardly in the bodily creature, who inwardly in His spiritual nature is always hidden from the eyes of mortals, it is now easy to understand also of the Holy Spirit why He too is said to be sent. For in due time a certain outward appearance of the creature was wrought, wherein the Holy Spirit might be visibly shown; whether when He descended upon the Lord Himself in a bodily shape as a dove, or when, ten days having past since His ascension, on the day of Pentecost a sound came suddenly from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and cloven tongues like as of fire were seen upon them, and it sat upon each of them. This operation, visibly exhibited, and presented to mortal eyes, is called the sending of the Holy Spirit; not that His very substance appeared, in which He himself also is invisible and unchangeable, like the Father and the Son, but that the hearts of men, touched by things seen outwardly, might be turned from the manifestation in time of Him as coming to His hidden eternity as ever present.

This is why Scripture nowhere says that the Father is greater than the Holy Spirit, or that the Holy Spirit is less than God the Father. The creature through which the Holy Spirit was to appear was not taken in the same way that the Son of man was taken as the form in which the person of the Word of God Himself would be revealed. This was not so that He might possess the word of God as other holy and wise people have possessed it, but above His fellows. It was not that He possessed the word more than they did, making Him wiser than the rest, but that He was the very Word Himself. For the word in the flesh is one thing, and the Word made flesh is another—that is, the word in man is one thing, but the Word that is man is another. Here "flesh" stands for man, as when it says "the Word was made flesh," and again, "And all flesh shall see the salvation of God." This does not mean flesh without soul and without mind, but "all flesh" is the same as saying "every man." Therefore, the creature through which the Holy Spirit appeared was not taken in the same way that the flesh and human form were taken from the Virgin Mary. For the Spirit did not make the dove, the wind, or the fire blessed and join them forever to Himself and to His person in unity and form. Nor is the nature of the Holy Spirit changeable and mutable, so that these things were made from the creature by Him changing and transforming Himself first into one thing and then into another, as water changes into ice. Rather, these things appeared at the appropriate times, with the creature serving the Creator and being changed and transformed at the command of the One who remains unchangeably in Himself, in order to signify and reveal Him in the way that was fitting for mortal people. Therefore, although that dove is called the Spirit, and speaking of that fire it says, "There appeared unto them cloven tongues, like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them, and they began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance"—showing that the Spirit was manifested by that fire just as by the dove—we still cannot call the Holy Spirit both God and a dove, or both God and fire, in the same way we call the Son both God and man, or as we call the Son the Lamb of God. Not only does John the Baptist say "Behold the Lamb of God," but John the Evangelist also sees the Lamb slain in the Apocalypse. That prophetic vision was not shown to bodily eyes through bodily forms, but in the spirit through spiritual images of bodily things. But whoever saw that dove and that fire saw them with their eyes. Though there may be a question about the fire, whether it was seen with the eyes or in the spirit, because of how the sentence is constructed. The text does not say "They saw cloven tongues like fire," but "There appeared to them." We do not usually say "It appeared to me" with the same meaning as "I saw." In those spiritual visions of bodily images, the usual expressions are both "It appeared to me" and "I saw," but for things shown to the eyes through actual bodily forms, the common expression is not "It appeared to me" but "I saw." Therefore, there may be a question about that fire—how it was seen, whether inwardly in the spirit as if outwardly, or actually outwardly before the eyes of the flesh. But regarding that dove, which is said to have descended in bodily form, no one has ever doubted that it was seen with the eyes. Nor can we call the Spirit a dove or fire in the same way we call the Son a Rock, for it is written, "And that Rock was Christ." That rock was something already created that was called by the name of Christ, whom it signified, according to how it functioned—like the stone placed under Jacob's head and also anointed, which he used to signify the Lord, or as Isaac was Christ when he carried the wood for his own sacrifice. A particular symbolic action was added to these already existing things; they did not, like that dove and fire, suddenly come into being simply in order to signify. The dove and the fire seem to me more like that flame which appeared to Moses in the bush, or that pillar which the people followed in the wilderness, or the thunders and lightnings that came when the Law was given on the mount. For the bodily form of these things came into being for the very purpose of signifying something, and then passing away.

11. It is, then, for this reason nowhere written, that the Father is greater than the Holy Spirit, or that the Holy Spirit is less than God the Father, because the creature in which the Holy Spirit was to appear was not taken in the same way as the Son of man was taken, as the form in which the person of the Word of God Himself should be set forth not that He might possess the word of God, as other holy and wise men have possessed it, but above His fellows; not certainly that He possessed the word more than they, so as to be of more surpassing wisdom than the rest were, but that He was the very Word Himself. For the word in the flesh is one thing, and the Word made flesh is another; i.e. the word in man is one thing, the Word that is man is another. For flesh is put for man, where it is said, The Word was made flesh; and again, And all flesh shall see the salvation of God. For it does not mean flesh without soul and without mind; but all flesh, is the same as if it were said, every man. The creature, then, in which the Holy Spirit should appear, was not so taken, as that flesh and human form were taken, of the Virgin Mary. For the Spirit did not beatify the dove, or the wind, or the fire, and join them for ever to Himself and to His person in unity and fashion. Nor, again, is the nature of the Holy Spirit mutable and changeable; so that these things were not made of the creature, but He himself was turned and changed first into one and then into another, as water is changed into ice. But these things appeared at the seasons at which they ought to have appeared, the creature serving the Creator, and being changed and converted at the command of Him who remains immutably in Himself, in order to signify and manifest Him in such way as it was fit He should be signified and manifested to mortal men. Accordingly, although that dove is called the Spirit; and in speaking of that fire, There appeared unto them, he says, cloven tongues, like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them; and they began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance; in order to show that the Spirit was manifested by that fire, as by the dove; yet we cannot call the Holy Spirit both God and a dove, or both God and fire, in the same way as we call the Son both God and man; nor as we call the Son the Lamb of God; which not only John the Baptist says, Behold the Lamb of God, but also John the Evangelist sees the Lamb slain in the Apocalypse. For that prophetic vision was not shown to bodily eyes through bodily forms, but in the spirit through spiritual images of bodily things. But whosoever saw that dove and that fire, saw them with their eyes. Although it may perhaps be disputed concerning the fire, whether it was seen by the eyes or in the spirit, on account of the form of the sentence. For the text does not say, They saw cloven tongues like fire, but, There appeared to them. But we are not wont to say with the same meaning, It appeared to me; as we say, I saw. And in those spiritual visions of corporeal images the usual expressions are, both, It appeared to me; and, I saw: but in those things which are shown to the eyes through express corporeal forms, the common expression is not, It appeared to me; but, I saw. There may, therefore, be a question raised respecting that fire, how it was seen; whether within in the spirit as it were outwardly, or really outwardly before the eyes of the flesh. But of that dove, which is said to have descended in a bodily form, no one ever doubted that it was seen by the eyes. Nor, again, as we call the Son a Rock (for it is written, And that Rock was Christ), can we so call the Spirit a dove or fire. For that rock was a thing already created, and after the mode of its action was called by the name of Christ, whom it signified; like the stone placed under Jacob's head, and also anointed, which he took in order to signify the Lord; or as Isaac was Christ, when he carried the wood for the sacrifice of himself. A particular significative action was added to those already existing things; they did not, as that dove and fire, suddenly come into being in order simply so to signify. The dove and the fire, indeed, seem to me more like that flame which appeared to Moses in the bush, or that pillar which the people followed in the wilderness, or the thunders and lightnings which came when the Law was given in the mount. For the corporeal form of these things came into being for the very purpose, that it might signify something, and then pass away.

The Holy Spirit, then, is also said to be sent, on account of these bodily forms that came into existence in time, in order to signify and reveal Him as He must be revealed to human senses. Yet He is not said to be less than the Father, as the Son is said to be because He was in the form of a servant. This is because that form of a servant was united to the one person of the Son, but those bodily forms appeared temporarily to show what needed to be shown and then ceased to exist. Why, then, is the Father not also said to be sent through those bodily forms—the fire of the bush, the pillar of cloud or fire, the lightning on the mountain, and whatever other similar things appeared at that time when, as we have learned from Scripture, He spoke face to face with the fathers—if He Himself was revealed through those modes and forms of created things, presented bodily to human sight? But if the Son was revealed through them, why is He said to be sent only much later, when He was made of a woman, as the apostle says: "But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman," since He was also sent before when He appeared to the fathers through those changeable forms of created things? Or if He cannot rightly be said to be sent unless when the Word was made flesh, why is the Holy Spirit said to be sent, when no such incarnation ever happened with Him? But if through those visible things presented to us in the Law and the prophets, neither the Father nor the Son but the Holy Spirit was revealed, why is He also said to be sent now, when He was sent before in these same ways?

12. The Holy Spirit, then, is also said to be sent, on account of these corporeal forms which came into existence in time, in order to signify and manifest Him, as He must needs be manifested, to human senses; yet He is not said to be less than the Father, as the Son, because He was in the form of a servant, is said to be; because that form of a servant inhered in the unity of the person of the Son, but those corporeal forms appeared for a time, in order to show what was necessary to be shown, and then ceased to be. Why, then, is not the Father also said to be sent, through those corporeal forms, the fire of the bush, and the pillar of cloud or of fire, and the lightnings in the mount, and whatever other things of the kind appeared at that time, when (as we have learned from Scripture testimony) He spoke face to face with the fathers, if He Himself was manifested by those modes and forms of the creature, as exhibited and presented corporeally to human sight? But if the Son was manifested by them, why is He said to be sent so long after, when He was made of a woman, as the apostle says, But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, seeing that He was sent also before, when He appeared to the fathers by those changeable forms of the creature? Or if He cannot rightly be said to be sent, unless when the Word was made flesh, why is the Holy Spirit said to be sent, of whom no such incarnation was ever wrought? But if by those visible things, which are put before us in the Law and in the prophets, neither the Father nor the Son but the Holy Spirit was manifested, why also is He said to be sent now, when He was sent also before after these modes?

In the confusion this investigation brings, and with the Lord's help, we must first ask whether the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit—or whether sometimes the Father, sometimes the Son, sometimes the Holy Spirit—or whether it was without any distinction of persons, in the same way that the one and only God is spoken of (that is, the Trinity itself)—appeared to the Fathers through those created forms. Next, whichever of these options turns out to be true or seems true, we must ask whether the creature was fashioned only for this purpose, so that God might be shown to human sight in whatever way He judged suitable at that time, or whether angels who already existed were sent in such a way as to speak in the person of God, taking on a bodily form from the bodily creation for their ministry, as each situation required. Or perhaps, according to the power the Creator has given them, they changed and transformed their own body itself—which is not in authority over them, but which they govern as subject to themselves—into whatever appearances they wished that were suitable and appropriate for their various tasks. Finally, we shall determine what we set out to ask, namely whether the Son and the Holy Spirit were also sent before, and if they were sent, what difference there is between that sending and the one we read about in the Gospel. Or whether in truth neither of them was sent except when the Son was made of the Virgin Mary, or when the Holy Spirit appeared in a visible form, whether as the dove or as tongues of fire.

13. In the perplexity of this inquiry, the Lord helping us, we must ask, first, whether the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit; or whether, sometimes the Father, sometimes the Son, sometimes the Holy Spirit; or whether it was without any distinction of persons, in such way as the one and only God is spoken of, that is, that the Trinity itself appeared to the Fathers by those forms of the creature. Next, whichever of these alternatives shall have been found or thought true, whether for this purpose only the creature was fashioned, wherein God, as He judged it suitable at that time, should be shown to human sight; or whether angels, who already existed, were so sent, as to speak in the person of God, taking a corporeal form from the corporeal creature, for the purpose of their ministry, as each had need; or else, according to the power the Creator has given them, changing and converting their own body itself, to which they are not subject, but govern it as subject to themselves, into whatever appearances they would that were suited and apt to their several actions. Lastly, we shall discern that which it was our purpose to ask, viz. whether the Son and the Holy Spirit were also sent before; and, if they were so sent, what difference there is between that sending, and the one which we read of in the Gospel; or whether in truth neither of them were sent, except when either the Son was made of the Virgin Mary, or the Holy Spirit appeared in a visible form, whether in the dove or in tongues of fire.

Let us therefore say nothing of those who, with an overly carnal mind, have thought that the nature of the Word of God and the Wisdom—which, remaining in herself, makes all things new, and whom we call the only Son of God—is not only changeable but also visible. These people approach the investigation of divine things with more audacity than genuine religion, bringing a very dull heart to the task. The soul is a spiritual substance, and it was made—and could only have been made by Him through whom all things were made and without whom nothing is made. Although the soul is changeable, it is not visible. Yet these people have believed that the Word Himself and the Wisdom of God itself, by which the soul was made, shares this same character. But this Wisdom is not only invisible, as the soul also is, but also unchangeable, which the soul is not. This unchangeableness is precisely what is referred to when it was said, Remaining in herself she makes all things new. Nevertheless, these people try to support their collapsing error with testimonies from the divine Scriptures by citing the words of the Apostle Paul. They take what is said of the one only God—in whom the Trinity itself is understood—to be said only of the Father, and not of the Son or the Holy Spirit: Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honor and glory for ever and ever; and that other passage, The blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; who only has immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man has seen, nor can see. How these passages are to be understood, I think we have already discussed sufficiently.

14. Let us therefore say nothing of those who, with an over carnal mind, have thought the nature of the Word of God, and the Wisdom, which, remaining in herself, makes all things new, whom we call the only Son of God, not only to be changeable, but also to be visible. For these, with more audacity than religion, bring a very dull heart to the inquiry into divine things. For whereas the soul is a spiritual substance, and whereas itself also was made, yet could not be made by any other than by Him by whom all things were made, and without whom nothing is made, it, although changeable, is yet not visible; and this they have believed to be the case with the Word Himself and with the Wisdom of God itself, by which the soul was made; whereas this Wisdom is not only invisible, as the soul also is, but likewise unchangeable, which the soul is not. It is in truth the same unchangeableness in it, which is referred to when it was said, Remaining in herself she makes all things new. Yet these people, endeavoring, as it were, to prop up their error in its fall by testimonies of the divine Scriptures, adduce the words of the Apostle Paul; and take that, which is said of the one only God, in whom the Trinity itself is understood, to be said only of the Father, and neither of the Son nor of the Holy Spirit: Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honor and glory for ever and ever; and that other passage, The blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; who only has immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man has seen, nor can see. How these passages are to be understood, I think we have already discoursed sufficiently.

Those who insist these texts apply only to the Father and not to the Son or the Holy Spirit claim that the Son is visible not merely by taking flesh from the Virgin, but was visible beforehand in Himself. They say He appeared to the eyes of the Fathers. If you tell them that whatever makes the Son visible in Himself would also make Him mortal in Himself, so that the statement "Who only has immortality" would also apply only to the Father, and if the Son is mortal because He took on our flesh, then they should admit He is also visible because of this flesh, they respond that they do not say the Son is mortal because of the flesh. Rather, just as He was visible before, so He was also mortal before. If they said the Son is mortal from taking our flesh, then the Father alone would not have immortality without the Son, because His Word, by which all things were made, would also have immortality. He did not lose His immortality by taking mortal flesh, just as the human soul cannot die with the body, since the Lord Himself says, "Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul." Surely the Holy Spirit did not take flesh. They will certainly have difficulty explaining, if the Son is mortal because He took our flesh, how they understand that the Father alone has immortality without the Son and the Holy Spirit, since the Holy Spirit did not take our flesh. If the Holy Spirit does not have immortality, then the Son is not mortal because of taking our flesh. But if the Holy Spirit has immortality, then "Who only has immortality" is not said only of the Father. Therefore they think they can prove that the Son in Himself was mortal even before the incarnation, because changeableness itself can properly be called mortality, according to which the soul is also said to die. This is not because it is changed and turned into body or some other substance, but because whatever in its own substance exists in a different mode than it once was is found to be mortal, insofar as it has ceased to be what it was. Because the Son of God, they say, before He was born of the Virgin Mary, appeared to our fathers not in one and the same form only, but in many forms, first in one form, then in another, He is both visible in Himself, because His substance was visible to mortal eyes when He had not yet taken our flesh, and mortal, inasmuch as He is changeable. The same applies to the Holy Spirit, who appeared at one time as a dove and another time as fire. Therefore, they say, the following texts do not belong to the Trinity but belong singularly and properly to the Father only: "Now unto the King eternal, immortal, and invisible, the only wise God," and "Who only has immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man has seen, nor can see."

15. But they who will have these texts understood only of the Father, and not of the Son or the Holy Spirit, declare the Son to be visible, not by having taken flesh of the Virgin, but aforetime also in Himself. For He Himself, they say, appeared to the eyes of the Fathers. And if you say to them, In whatever manner, then, the Son is visible in Himself, in that manner also He is mortal in Himself; so that it plainly follows that you would have this saying also understood only of the Father, viz., Who only has immortality; for if the Son is mortal from having taken upon Him our flesh, then allow that it is on account of this flesh that He is also visible: they reply, that it is not on account of this flesh that they say that the Son is mortal; but that, just as He was also before visible, so He was also before mortal. For if they say the Son is mortal from having taken our flesh, then it is not the Father alone without the Son who has immortality; because His Word also has immortality, by which all things were made. For He did not therefore lose His immortality, because He took mortal flesh; seeing that it could not happen even to the human soul, that it should die with the body, when the Lord Himself says, Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul. Or, forsooth, also the Holy Spirit took flesh: concerning whom certainly they will, without doubt, be troubled to say — if the Son is mortal on account of taking our flesh — in what manner they understand that the Father only has immortality without the Son and the Holy Spirit, since, indeed, the Holy Spirit did not take our flesh; and if He has not immortality, then the Son is not mortal on account of taking our flesh; but if the Holy Spirit has immortality, then it is not said only of the Father, Who only has immortality. And therefore they think they are able to prove that the Son in Himself was mortal also before the incarnation, because changeableness itself is not unfitly called mortality, according to which the soul also is said to die; not because it is changed and turned into body, or into some substance other than itself, but because, whatever in its own selfsame substance is now after another mode than it once was, is discovered to be mortal, in so far as it has ceased to be what it was. Because then, say they, before the Son of God was born of the Virgin Mary, He Himself appeared to our fathers, not in one and the same form only, but in many forms; first in one form, then in another; He is both visible in Himself, because His substance was visible to mortal eyes, when He had not yet taken our flesh, and mortal, inasmuch as He is changeable. And so also the Holy Spirit, who appeared at one time as a dove, and another time as fire. Whence, they say, the following texts do not belong to the Trinity, but singularly and properly to the Father only: Now unto the King eternal, immortal, and invisible, the only wise God; and, Who only has immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man has seen, nor can see.

Setting aside those thinkers who are unable to understand even the nature of the soul, which is invisible, and therefore are extremely far from understanding that the ousia of the one and only God—that is, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit—remains always not only invisible but also unchangeable, and therefore possesses true and real immortality; let us, who deny that God, whether the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit, ever appeared to bodily eyes except through the corporeal creation made subject to His own power; let us—ready to be corrected if we are reproved in a brotherly and honest spirit, ready to be so even if criticized by an enemy, as long as he speaks the truth—in catholic peace and with peaceful study inquire whether God appeared without distinction to our fathers before Christ came in the flesh, or whether it was any one person of the Trinity, or whether they appeared individually, as if taking turns.

16. Passing by, then, these reasoners, who are unable to know the substance even of the soul, which is invisible, and therefore are very far indeed from knowing that the substance of the one and only God, that is, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, remains ever not only invisible, but also unchangeable, and that hence it possesses true and real immortality; let us, who deny that God, whether the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit, ever appeared to bodily eyes, unless through the corporeal creature made subject to His own power; let us, I say — ready to be corrected, if we are reproved in a fraternal and upright spirit, ready to be so, even if carped at by an enemy, so that he speak the truth — in catholic peace and with peaceful study inquire, whether God indiscriminately appeared to our fathers before Christ came in the flesh, or whether it was any one person of the Trinity, or whether severally, as it were by turns.

And first, concerning what is written in Genesis—that God spoke with the man He had formed from dust—if we set aside the figurative meaning and treat the narrative as trustworthy even in its literal sense, it appears that God spoke with man in the appearance of a man. This is not explicitly stated in the book, but the general flow of the reading suggests this sense, especially in the passage where Adam heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the evening and hid himself among the trees of the garden. When God said, "Adam, where are you?" Adam replied, "I heard Your voice, and I was afraid because I was naked, and I hid myself from Your face." I do not see how such walking and conversation of God can be understood literally unless He appeared as a man. We cannot say that only a voice of God was produced when God is said to have walked, nor that He who was walking in a place was invisible, since Adam says he hid himself from the face of God. Who then was He? The Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit? Did God the Trinity Himself speak to man in human form without distinction? The flow of Scripture itself nowhere seems to indicate a change from person to person. Rather, it seems that the same one who said "Let there be light" and "Let there be a firmament," and so on through each of those days, continues speaking to the first man. We usually understand this to be God the Father, creating by a word whatever He willed to create. For He made all things by His Word, which Word we know, according to the correct rule of faith, to be His only Son. If, therefore, God the Father spoke to the first man, and He Himself was walking in the garden in the cool of the evening, and if it was from His face that the sinner hid himself among the trees of the garden, why should we not continue to understand that it was He also who appeared to Abraham and to Moses, and to whomever He chose, and in whatever manner He chose, through the changeable and visible creation subjected to Himself, while He Himself remains in Himself and in His own substance, in which He is unchangeable and invisible? But perhaps Scripture passed over from person to person in a hidden way, and while it had related that the Father said "Let there be light" and the rest which it mentioned Him doing by the Word, it went on to indicate the Son as speaking to the first man—not revealing this openly, but suggesting it for understanding by those who could grasp it.

17. And first, in that which is written in Genesis, viz., that God spoke with man whom He had formed out of the dust; if we set apart the figurative meaning, and treat it so as to place faith in the narrative even in the letter, it should appear that God then spoke with man in the appearance of a man. This is not indeed expressly laid down in the book, but the general tenor of its reading sounds in this sense, especially in that which is written, that Adam heard the voice of the Lord God, walking in the garden in the cool of the evening, and hid himself among the trees of the garden; and when God said, Adam, where are you? replied, I heard Your voice, and I was afraid because I was naked, and I hid myself from Your face. For I do not see how such a walking and conversation of God can be understood literally, except He appeared as a man. For it can neither be said that a voice only of God was framed, when God is said to have walked, or that He who was walking in a place was not visible; while Adam, too, says that he hid himself from the face of God. Who then was He? Whether the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit? Whether altogether indiscriminately did God the Trinity Himself speak to man in the form of man? The context, indeed, itself of the Scripture nowhere, it should seem, indicates a change from person to person; but He seems still to speak to the first man, who said, Let there be light, and, Let there be a firmament, and so on through each of those days; whom we usually take to be God the Father, making by a word whatever He willed to make. For He made all things by His word, which Word we know, by the right rule of faith, to be His only Son. If, therefore, God the Father spoke to the first man, and Himself was walking in the garden in the cool of the evening, and if it was from His face that the sinner hid himself among the trees of the garden, why are we not to go on to understand that it was He also who appeared to Abraham and to Moses, and to whom He would, and how He would, through the changeable and visible creature, subjected to Himself, while He Himself remains in Himself and in His own substance, in which He is unchangeable and invisible? But, possibly, it might be that the Scripture passed over in a hidden way from person to person, and while it had related that the Father said Let there be light, and the rest which it mentioned Him to have done by the Word, went on to indicate the Son as speaking to the first man; not unfolding this openly, but intimating it to be understood by those who could understand it.

Let the person who has the ability to penetrate this mystery with his mind's eye—so that it becomes clear to him whether the Father is also able, or whether only the Son and Holy Spirit are able, to appear to human eyes through a visible creature—let him, I say, go ahead and examine these things if he can, or even express and discuss them in words. But as far as this particular Scripture passage is concerned, where God spoke with man, I do not think we can determine the answer, because it does not clearly show whether Adam normally saw God with his bodily eyes. This is especially true since there is a major question about what kind of eyes were opened when they ate the forbidden fruit, since before they ate, these eyes were closed. However, even if Scripture indicates that Paradise was a physical place, I would not rashly claim that God could only have walked there in some bodily form. For it could be argued that only words were created for the man to hear, without his seeing any form. And just because it is written that Adam hid himself from the face of God, it does not automatically follow that he normally saw His face. For what if Adam himself could not see, but was afraid of being seen by God, whose voice he had heard and whose presence he had sensed as God walked? For Cain also said to God, "From Your face I will hide myself," yet we are not therefore forced to admit that he was accustomed to seeing the face of God with his bodily eyes in any visible form, although he had heard the voice of God questioning and speaking with him about his sin. But what kind of speech it was that God then uttered to the outward ears of men, especially in speaking to the first man, is both difficult to discover, and we have not set out to explain it in this discussion. But if only words and sounds were produced to create some sensible presence of God to those first men, I do not know why I should not understand this as the person of God the Father, since His person is also manifested in that voice when Jesus appeared in glory on the mountain before the three disciples, and in that voice when the dove descended upon Him at His baptism, and in that voice where He cried to the Father concerning His own glorification and was answered, "I have both glorified, and will glorify again." This does not mean that the voice could be produced without the work of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (since the Trinity works indivisibly), but rather that such a voice was produced so as to manifest the person of the Father only—just as the Trinity produced that human form from the Virgin Mary, yet it is the person of the Son alone, for the invisible Trinity produced the visible person of the Son alone. Nor does anything prevent us from understanding those words spoken to Adam not only as spoken by the Trinity, but also as manifesting the person of that Trinity. For we are compelled to understand as referring to the Father only what is said: "This is my beloved Son." For Jesus can neither be believed nor understood to be the Son of the Holy Spirit, or even His own Son. And where the voice said, "I have both glorified, and will glorify again," we acknowledge it was only the person of the Father, since it is the answer to the Lord's words when He had said, "Father, glorify your Son," which He could only say to God the Father alone, and not also to the Holy Spirit, whose Son He was not. But here, where it is written, "And the Lord God said to Adam," no reason can be given why the Trinity itself should not be understood.

18. Let him, then, who has the strength whereby he can penetrate this secret with his mind's eye, so that to him it appears clearly, either that the Father also is able, or that only the Son and Holy Spirit are able, to appear to human eyes through a visible creature; let him, I say, proceed to examine these things if he can, or even to express and handle them in words; but the thing itself, so far as concerns this testimony of Scripture, where God spoke with man, is, in my judgment, not discoverable, because it does not evidently appear even whether Adam usually saw God with the eyes of his body; especially as it is a great question what manner of eyes it was that were opened when they tasted the forbidden fruit; for before they had tasted, these eyes were closed. Yet I would not rashly assert, even if that scripture implies Paradise to have been a material place, that God could not have walked there in any way except in some bodily form. For it might be said, that only words were framed for the man to hear, without seeing any form. Neither, because it is written, Adam hid himself from the face of God, does it follow immediately that he usually saw His face. For what if he himself indeed could not see, but feared to be himself seen by Him whose voice he had heard, and had felt His presence as he walked? For Cain, too, said to God, From Your face I will hide myself; yet we are not therefore compelled to admit that he was wont to behold the face of God with his bodily eyes in any visible form, although he had heard the voice of God questioning and speaking with him of his sin. But what manner of speech it was that God then uttered to the outward ears of men, especially in speaking to the first man, it is both difficult to discover, and we have not undertaken to say in this discourse. But if words alone and sounds were wrought, by which to bring about some sensible presence of God to those first men, I do not know why I should not there understand the person of God the Father, seeing that His person is manifested also in that voice, when Jesus appeared in glory on the mount before the three disciples; and in that when the dove descended upon Him at His baptism; and in that where He cried to the Father concerning His own glorification and it was answered Him, I have both glorified, and will glorify again. Not that the voice could be wrought without the work of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (since the Trinity works indivisibly), but that such a voice was wrought as to manifest the person of the Father only; just as the Trinity wrought that human form from the Virgin Mary, yet it is the person of the Son alone; for the invisible Trinity wrought the visible person of the Son alone. Neither does anything forbid us, not only to understand those words spoken to Adam as spoken by the Trinity, but also to take them as manifesting the person of that Trinity. For we are compelled to understand of the Father only, that which is said, This is my beloved Son. For Jesus can neither be believed nor understood to be the Son of the Holy Spirit, or even His own Son. And where the voice uttered, I have both glorified, and will glorify again, we confess it was only the person of the Father; since it is the answer to that word of the Lord, in which He had said, Father, glorify your Son, which He could not say except to God the Father only, and not also to the Holy Spirit, whose Son He was not. But here, where it is written, And the Lord God said to Adam, no reason can be given why the Trinity itself should not be understood.

Similarly, in the passage that says "Now the Lord had said to Abraham, Get you out of your country, and from your kindred, and your father's house," it is not clear whether only a voice came to Abraham's ears or whether something also appeared to his eyes. But shortly afterward, it is stated somewhat more clearly, "And the Lord appeared unto Abraham, and said, Unto your seed will I give this land." Yet even there it is not explicitly stated in what form God appeared to him, or whether the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit appeared to him. Perhaps some think it was the Son who appeared to Abraham because it is not written "God appeared to him" but "the Lord appeared to him." For the Son seems to be called the Lord as if that name belonged especially to Him, as for example the apostle says, "For 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, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by Him." But since we find that God the Father is also called Lord in many places—for instance, "The Lord has said to me, You are my Son; this day have I begotten You"; and again, "The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand"; since also the Holy Spirit is found to be called Lord, as where the apostle says, "Now the Lord is that Spirit"; and then, lest anyone should think the Son is meant and is called the Spirit because of His incorporeal substance, he continues by saying, "And where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty"; and no one ever doubted that the Spirit of the Lord is the Holy Spirit—therefore, even here it does not appear plainly whether it was any person of the Trinity that appeared to Abraham, or God Himself the Trinity, of which one God it is said, "You shall fear the Lord your God, and Him only shall you serve." But under the oak at Mamre he saw three men, whom he invited, hospitably received, and served as they ate. Yet Scripture at the beginning of that account does not say "three men appeared to him" but "The Lord appeared to him." And then, explaining in proper order how the Lord appeared to him, it adds the account of the three men, whom Abraham invites to his hospitality using the plural, and afterwards speaks to them in the singular as one person; and as one He promises him a son by Sarah, namely the one whom Scripture calls Lord, as at the beginning of the same account, "The Lord," it says, "appeared to Abraham." So he invites them, washes their feet, and escorts them at their departure as though they were men; but he speaks as with the Lord God, both when a son is promised to him and when the destruction about to come upon Sodom is shown to him.

19. Likewise, also, in that which is written, Now the Lord had said to Abraham, Get you out of your country, and from your kindred, and your father's house, it is not clear whether a voice alone came to the ears of Abraham, or whether anything also appeared to his eyes. But a little while after, it is somewhat more clearly said, And the Lord appeared unto Abraham, and said, Unto your seed will I give this land. But neither there is it expressly said in what form God appeared to him, or whether the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit appeared to him. Unless, perhaps, they think that it was the Son who appeared to Abraham, because it is not written, God appeared to him, but the Lord appeared to him. For the Son seems to be called the Lord as though the name was appropriated to Him; as e.g. the apostle says, For 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, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by Him. But since it is found that God the Father also is called Lord in many places — for instance, The Lord has said to me, You are my Son; this day have I begotten You; and again, The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand; since also the Holy Spirit is found to be called Lord, as where the apostle says, Now the Lord is that Spirit; and then, lest any one should think the Son to be signified, and to be called the Spirit on account of His incorporeal substance, has gone on to say, And where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty; and no one ever doubted the Spirit of the Lord to be the Holy Spirit: therefore, neither here does it appear plainly whether it was any person of the Trinity that appeared to Abraham, or God Himself the Trinity, of which one God it is said, You shall fear the Lord your God, and Him only shall you serve. But under the oak at Mamre he saw three men, whom he invited, and hospitably received, and ministered to them as they feasted. Yet Scripture at the beginning of that narrative does not say, three men appeared to him, but, The Lord appeared to him. And then, setting forth in due order after what manner the Lord appeared to him, it has added the account of the three men, whom Abraham invites to his hospitality in the plural number, and afterwards speaks to them in the singular number as one; and as one He promises him a son by Sara, viz. the one whom the Scripture calls Lord, as in the beginning of the same narrative, The Lord, it says, appeared to Abraham. He invites them then, and washes their feet, and leads them forth at their departure, as though they were men; but he speaks as with the Lord God, whether when a son is promised to him, or when the destruction is shown to him that was impending over Sodom.

That passage of Scripture requires neither a slight nor a passing consideration. For if one man had appeared, what else would those who say that the Son was visible also in His own substance before He was born of the Virgin immediately cry out, except that it was Himself? Since it is said, they argue, of the Father, "To the only invisible God." And yet I could still go on to ask, in what manner was He found in fashion as a man before He had taken our flesh, seeing that His feet were washed and that He fed upon earthly food? How could that be, when He was still in the form of God and thought it not robbery to be equal with God? For had He already emptied Himself, taking upon Him the form of a servant, and made in the likeness of men, and found in fashion as a man? We know when it was that He did this through His birth of the Virgin. How, then, before He had done this, did He appear as one man to Abraham? Or was that form not a reality? I could pose these questions if it had been one man who appeared to Abraham, and if that one were believed to be the Son of God. But since three men appeared, and no one of them is said to be greater than the rest either in form, or age, or power, why should we not understand here, as visibly indicated by the visible creature, the equality of the Trinity and one and the same substance in three persons?

20. That place of Scripture demands neither a slight nor a passing consideration. For if one man had appeared, what else would those at once cry out, who say that the Son was visible also in His own substance before He was born of the Virgin, but that it was Himself? Since it is said, they say, of the Father, To the only invisible God. And yet, I could still go on to demand, in what manner He was found in fashion as a man, before He had taken our flesh, seeing that his feet were washed, and that He fed upon earthly food? How could that be, when He was still in the form of God, and thought it not robbery to be equal with God? For, pray, had He already emptied Himself, taking upon Him the form of a servant, and made in the likeness of men, and found in fashion as a man? when we know when it was that He did this through His birth of the Virgin. How, then, before He had done this, did He appear as one man to Abraham? Or, was not that form a reality? I could put these questions, if it had been one man that appeared to Abraham, and if that one were believed to be the Son of God. But since three men appeared, and no one of them is said to be greater than the rest either in form, or age, or power, why should we not here understand, as visibly intimated by the visible creature, the equality of the Trinity, and one and the same substance in three persons?

For, in case anyone should think that one among the three was indicated to be the greater, and that this one should be understood to have been the Lord, the Son of God, while the other two were His angels (because, although three appeared, Abraham speaks to one as the Lord), Holy Scripture has not forgotten to anticipate such future thoughts and opinions by contradicting them. A little while after, Scripture says that two angels came to Lot, among whom that righteous man, who deserved to be freed from the burning of Sodom, also speaks to one as to the Lord. For Scripture continues to say, "And the Lord went His way, as soon as He left communing with Abraham; and Abraham returned to his place."

21. For, lest any one should think that one among the three is in this way intimated to have been the greater, and that this one is to be understood to have been the Lord, the Son of God, while the other two were His angels; because, whereas three appeared, Abraham there speaks to one as the Lord: Holy Scripture has not forgotten to anticipate, by a contradiction, such future cogitations and opinions, when a little while after it says that two angels came to Lot, among whom that just man also, who deserved to be freed from the burning of Sodom, speaks to one as to the Lord. For so Scripture goes on to say, And the Lord went His way, as soon as He left communing with Abraham; and Abraham returned to his place.

But there came two angels to Sodom at even. Here, what I have begun to set forth must be considered more carefully. Certainly Abraham was speaking with three and called that one, in the singular, the Lord. Perhaps someone may say he recognized one of the three to be the Lord, but the other two His angels. What, then, does it mean when Scripture goes on to say, And the Lord went His way, as soon as He had left communing with Abraham; and Abraham returned to his place: and there came two angels to Sodom at even? Are we to suppose that the one who, among the three, was recognized as the Lord, had departed and had sent the two angels who were with Him to destroy Sodom? Let us see, then, what follows. There came, it is said, two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them, rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground; and he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant's house. Here it is clear both that there were two angels and that in the plural they were invited to receive hospitality, and that they were respectfully called lords, when they were perhaps thought to be men.

But there came two angels to Sodom at even. Here, what I have begun to set forth must be considered more attentively. Certainly Abraham was speaking with three, and called that one, in the singular number, the Lord. Perhaps, some one may say, he recognized one of the three to be the Lord, but the other two His angels. What, then, does that mean which Scripture goes on to say, And the Lord went His way, as soon as He had left communing with Abraham; and Abraham returned to his place: and there came two angels to Sodom at even? Are we to suppose that the one who, among the three, was recognized as the Lord, had departed, and had sent the two angels that were with Him to destroy Sodom? Let us see, then, what follows. There came, it is said, two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them, rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground; and he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant's house. Here it is clear, both that there were two angels, and that in the plural number they were invited to partake of hospitality, and that they were honorably designated lords, when they perchance were thought to be men.

Yet again, it is objected that unless they were known to be angels of God, Lot would not have bowed himself with his face to the ground. Why, then, is hospitality and food offered to them, as if they needed such human help? But whatever may be hidden here, let us now continue with what we have set out to do. Two appear; both are called angels; they are invited in the plural; he speaks with the two in the plural, until the departure from Sodom. And then Scripture goes on to say, And it came to pass, when they had brought them forth abroad, that they said, Escape for your life; look not behind you, neither stay in all the plain; escape to the mountain, and there you shall be saved, lest you be consumed. And Lot said to them, Oh! not so, my lord: behold now, your servant has found grace in your sight, etc. What does it mean that he says to them, Oh! not so, my lord, if He who was the Lord had already departed and had sent the angels? Why is it said, Oh! not so, my lord, and not, Oh! not so, my lords? Or if he wanted to speak to one of them, why does Scripture say, But Lot said to them, Oh! not so, my lord: behold now, your servant has found grace in your sight, etc.? Are we here also to understand two persons in the plural number, but when the two are addressed as one, then the one Lord God of one substance? But which two persons do we understand here—of the Father and of the Son, or of the Father and of the Holy Spirit, or of the Son and of the Holy Spirit? The last is perhaps more suitable, for they said of themselves that they were sent, which is what we say of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. For we find nowhere in the Scriptures that the Father was sent.

22. Yet, again, it is objected that except they were known to be angels of God, Lot would not have bowed himself with his face to the ground. Why, then, is both hospitality and food offered to them, as though they wanted such human succor? But whatever may here lie hidden, let us now pursue that which we have undertaken. Two appear; both are called angels; they are invited plurally; he speaks as with two plurally, until the departure from Sodom. And then Scripture goes on to say, And it came to pass, when they had brought them forth abroad, that they said, Escape for your life; look not behind you, neither stay in all the plain; escape to the mountain, and there you shall be saved, lest you be consumed. And Lot said to them, Oh! not so, my lord: behold now, your servant has found grace in your sight, etc. What is meant by his saying to them, Oh! not so, my lord, if He who was the Lord had already departed, and had sent the angels? Why is it said, Oh! not so, my lord, and not, Oh! not so, my lords? Or if he wished to speak to one of them, why does Scripture say, But Lot said to them, Oh! not so, my lord: behold now, your servant has found grace in your sight, etc.? Are we here, too, to understand two persons in the plural number, but when the two are addressed as one, then the one Lord God of one substance? But which two persons do we here understand?– of the Father and of the Son, or of the Father and of the Holy Spirit, or of the Son and of the Holy Spirit? The last, perhaps, is the more suitable; for they said of themselves that they were sent, which is that which we say of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. For we find nowhere in the Scriptures that the Father was sent.

When Moses was sent to lead the children of Israel out of Egypt, it is written that the Lord appeared to him this way: Moses was keeping the flock of his father-in-law Jethro, the priest of Midian, and he led the flock to the far side of the desert and came to the mountain of God, to Horeb. And the Angel of the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire from the middle of a bush. He looked and saw that the bush was burning with fire, but the bush was not consumed. Moses said, "I will turn aside and see this great sight, why the bush is not burned." When the Lord saw that he turned aside to see, God called to him from the middle of the bush and said, "I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." Here also He is first called the Angel of the Lord, and then God. Was an angel, then, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? Therefore He may rightly be understood to be the Savior Himself, about whom the apostle says, "Whose are the fathers, and from whom according to the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed forever." He, therefore, who is over all, God blessed forever, is reasonably understood here also to be Himself the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. But why is He previously called the Angel of the Lord when He appeared in a flame of fire from the bush? Was it because it was one of many angels who by an economy (a dispensation or arrangement) carried the prosopon of his Lord? Or was something from creation assumed by Him in order to bring about a visible appearance for the task at hand, and so that words might be audibly spoken from there, whereby the presence of the Lord might be shown in a fitting way to the bodily senses of man by means of the created order made subject? For if he was one of the angels, who could easily say whether it was the prosopon of the Son that was imposed upon him to announce, or that of the Holy Spirit, or that of God the Father, or altogether of the Trinity itself, who is the one and only God, so that he might say, "I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob"? For we cannot say that the Son of God is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but the Father is not; nor will anyone dare to deny that either the Holy Spirit or the Trinity itself, whom we believe and understand to be the one God, is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. For whoever is not God is not the God of those fathers. Furthermore, if not only the Father is God, as everyone, even heretics, admit, but also the Son—which, whether they want to or not, they are compelled to acknowledge, since the apostle says, "who is over all, God blessed forever"—and the Holy Spirit—since the same apostle says, "Therefore glorify God in your body," after having said earlier, "Do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, which is in you, which you have from God?"—and these three are one God, as Catholic soundness believes, then it is not sufficiently clear which prosopon of the Trinity that angel carried, if he was one of the other angels, and whether any prosopon at all, rather than that of the Trinity itself. But if the creature was assumed for the purpose of the task at hand, in order both to appear to human eyes and to sound in human ears, and to be called the Angel of the Lord, and the Lord, and God, then God cannot here be understood to be the Father, but either the Son or the Holy Spirit. Although I cannot recall that the Holy Spirit is anywhere else called an angel, yet this may be understood from His work; for it is said of Him, "And He will show you things to come," and "angel" in Greek is certainly equivalent to "messenger" in Latin. But we read most clearly in the prophet that the Lord Jesus Christ is called the Angel of Great Counsel, while both the Holy Spirit and the Son of God is God and Lord of the angels.

23. But when Moses was sent to lead the children of Israel out of Egypt, it is written that the Lord appeared to him thus: Now Moses kept the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian: and he led the flock to the back side of the desert, and came to the mountain of God, even to Horeb. And the Angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a flame of fire, out of the midst of a bush; and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed. And Moses said, I will now turn aside, and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt. And when the Lord saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. He is here also first called the Angel of the Lord, and then God. Was an angel, then, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? Therefore He may be rightly understood to be the Saviour Himself, of whom the apostle says, Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed forever. He, therefore, who is over all, God blessed for ever, is not unreasonably here understood also to be Himself the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. But why is He previously called the Angel of the Lord, when He appeared in a flame of fire out of the bush? Was it because it was one of many angels, who by an economy [or arrangement] bare the person of his Lord? Or was something of the creature assumed by Him in order to bring about a visible appearance for the business in hand, and that words might thence be audibly uttered, whereby the presence of the Lord might be shown, in such way as was fitting, to the corporeal senses of man, by means of the creature made subject? For if he was one of the angels, who could easily affirm whether it was the person of the Son which was imposed upon him to announce, or that of the Holy Spirit, or that of God the Father, or altogether of the Trinity itself, who is the one and only God, in order that he might say, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? For we cannot say that the Son of God is the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, and that the Father is not; nor will any one dare to deny that either the Holy Spirit, or the Trinity itself, whom we believe and understand to be the one God, is the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. For he who is not God, is not the God of those fathers. Furthermore, if not only the Father is God, as all, even heretics, admit; but also the Son, which, whether they will or not, they are compelled to acknowledge, since the apostle says, Who is over all, God blessed for ever; and the Holy Spirit, since the same apostle says, Therefore glorify God in your body; when he had said above, Do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost, which is in you, which you have of God? and these three are one God, as Catholic soundness believes: it is not sufficiently apparent which person of the Trinity that angel bare, if he was one of the rest of the angels, and whether any person, and not rather that of the Trinity itself. But if the creature was assumed for the purpose of the business in hand, whereby both to appear to human eyes, and to sound in human ears, and to be called the Angel of the Lord, and the Lord, and God; then cannot God here be understood to be the Father, but either the Son or the Holy Spirit. Although I cannot call to mind that the Holy Spirit is anywhere else called an angel, which yet may be understood from His work; for it is said of Him, And He will show you things to come; and angel in Greek is certainly equivalent to messenger in Latin: but we read most evidently of the Lord Jesus Christ in the prophet, that He is called the Angel of Great Counsel, while both the Holy Spirit and the Son of God is God and Lord of the angels.

Also, regarding the departure of the children of Israel from Egypt, it is written, "And the Lord went before them, by day in a pillar of cloud to lead them the way, and by night in a pillar of fire. He took not away the pillar of cloud by day, nor the pillar of fire by night, from before the people." Here too, who would doubt that God appeared to the eyes of mortal human beings through the bodily creature made subject to Him, and not through His own substance? But it is not equally clear whether it was the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit, or the Trinity itself, the one God. Nor is this distinguished in that passage either, in my judgment, where it is written, "The glory of the Lord appeared in the cloud," and "the Lord spoke unto Moses, saying, I have heard the murmurings of the children of Israel," and so forth.

24. Also in the going forth of the children of Israel from Egypt it is written, And the Lord went before them, by day in a pillar of cloud to lead them the way, and by night in a pillar of fire. He took not away the pillar of the cloud by day, nor the pillar of fire by night, from before the people. Who here, too, would doubt that God appeared to the eyes of mortal men by the corporeal creature made subject to Him, and not by His own substance? But it is not similarly apparent whether the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit, or the Trinity itself, the one God. Nor is this distinguished there either, in my judgment, where it is written, The glory of the Lord appeared in the cloud, and the Lord spoke unto Moses, saying, I have heard the murmurings of the children of Israel, etc.

But now concerning the clouds, voices, lightning, trumpet, and smoke on Mount Sinai, when it was said, "And Mount Sinai was completely covered in smoke, because the Lord descended upon it in fire, and its smoke rose up like the smoke of a furnace; and all the people who were in the camp trembled; and when the sound of the trumpet grew long and louder and louder, Moses spoke, and God answered him with a voice." And a little later, after the Law had been given in the ten commandments, the text continues, "And all the people saw the thunder and the lightning and the noise of the trumpet and the mountain smoking." And a little after that, "And when the people saw it, they moved back and stood at a distance, and Moses drew near to the thick darkness where God was, and the Lord said to Moses," etc. What should I say about this, except that no one can be so foolish as to believe that the smoke, fire, cloud, darkness, and whatever else of this kind, were the ousia of the Word and Wisdom of God, which is Christ, or of the Holy Spirit? For not even the Arians ever dared to say that these were the ousia of God the Father. All these things, then, were produced through the created order serving the Creator, and were presented through a fitting dispensatio to human senses—unless perhaps, because it says, "And Moses drew near to the cloud where God was," fleshly thinking must insist that the cloud was indeed seen by the people, but that within the cloud Moses saw the Son of God with his physical eyes, whom foolish heretics insist can be seen in His own ousia. As if Moses could have seen Him with physical eyes, just as not only the wisdom of God which is Christ, but even the wisdom of any man, however wise, can be seen with physical eyes! Or as if, because it is written of the elders of Israel that they saw the place where the God of Israel had stood, and that under His feet there was something like a pavement of sapphire stone, and like the very appearance of heaven in its clearness, we must therefore believe that the Word and Wisdom of God in His own ousia stood within the boundaries of an earthly location—He who indeed reaches powerfully from end to end and orders all things graciously—and that the Word of God, through whom all things were made, is so changeable that He now contracts, now expands Himself (may the Lord cleanse the hearts of His faithful ones from such thoughts!). Rather, all these visible and perceptible things are, as we have often said, manifested through the created order made subject to God, in order to signify the invisible and intelligible God—not only the Father, but also the Son and the Holy Spirit, from whom are all things, and through whom are all things, and in whom are all things—even though the invisible things of God, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood through the things that are made, even His eternal power and divinity.

25. But now of the clouds, and voices, and lightnings, and the trumpet, and the smoke on Mount Sinai, when it was said, And Mount Sinai was altogether on a smoke, because the Lord descended upon it in fire, and the smoke thereof ascended as the smoke of a furnace; and all the people that was in the camp trembled; and when the voice of the trumpet sounded long and waxed louder and louder, Moses spoke, and God answered him by a voice. And a little after, when the Law had been given in the ten commandments, it follows in the text, And all the people saw the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the noise of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking. And a little after, And [when the people saw it,] they removed and stood afar off, and Moses drew near unto the thick darkness where God was, and the Lord said to Moses, etc. What shall I say about this, save that no one can be so insane as to believe the smoke, and the fire, and the cloud, and the darkness, and whatever there was of the kind, to be the substance of the word and wisdom of God which is Christ, or of the Holy Spirit? For not even the Arians ever dared to say that they were the substance of God the Father. All these things, then, were wrought through the creature serving the Creator, and were presented in a suitable economy ( dispensatio) to human senses; unless, perhaps, because it is said, And Moses drew near to the cloud where God was, carnal thoughts must needs suppose that the cloud was indeed seen by the people, but that within the cloud Moses with the eyes of the flesh saw the Son of God, whom doting heretics will have to be seen in His own substance. Forsooth, Moses may have seen Him with the eyes of the flesh, if not only the wisdom of God which is Christ, but even that of any man you please and howsoever wise, can be seen with the eyes of the flesh; or if, because it is written of the elders of Israel, that they saw the place where the God of Israel had stood, and that there was under His feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness, therefore we are to believe that the word and wisdom of God in His own substance stood within the space of an earthly place, who indeed reaches firmly from end to end, and sweetly orders all things; and that the Word of God, by whom all things were made, is in such wise changeable, as now to contract, now to expand Himself; (may the Lord cleanse the hearts of His faithful ones from such thoughts!) But indeed all these visible and sensible things are, as we have often said, exhibited through the creature made subject in order to signify the invisible and intelligible God, not only the Father, but also the Son and the Holy Spirit, of whom are all things, and through whom are all things, and in whom are all things; although the invisible things of God, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead.

Regarding our present purpose, I don't see how all those things fearfully displayed to the senses of mortal people on Mount Sinai make it clear whether God the Trinity spoke, or the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit individually. But if it's permissible to venture a modest and tentative guess about this passage without being rash, and if it's possible to understand it as referring to one person of the Trinity, why shouldn't we understand it to refer to the Holy Spirit? After all, the Law itself, which was given there, is said to have been written on stone tablets with the finger of God, and we know from the Gospel that this name signifies the Holy Spirit. Also, fifty days are counted from the slaying of the lamb and the celebration of Passover until the day when these things began to happen on Mount Sinai, just as fifty days are counted from our Lord's resurrection after his passion before the Holy Spirit came, whom the Son of God had promised. In that very coming of the Spirit, which we read about in the Acts of the Apostles, there appeared divided tongues like fire, and it sat upon each of them. This agrees with Exodus, where it says, "And Mount Sinai was altogether covered in smoke, because the Lord descended upon it in fire," and a little later it says, "And the sight of the glory of the Lord was like devouring fire on the top of the mountain in the eyes of the children of Israel." Or if these things happened because neither the Father nor the Son could be presented there in that manner without the Holy Spirit, by whom the Law itself had to be written, then we certainly know that God appeared there not by his own substance, which remains invisible and unchangeable, but through the previously mentioned appearance of the creature. But as far as I can understand, we don't see that some specific person of the Trinity appeared, distinguished by a particular identifying mark.

26. But as far as concerns our present undertaking, neither on Mount Sinai do I see how it appears, by all those things which were fearfully displayed to the senses of mortal men, whether God the Trinity spoke, or the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit severally. But if it is allowable, without rash assertion, to venture upon a modest and hesitating conjecture from this passage, if it is possible to understand it of one person of the Trinity, why do we not rather understand the Holy Spirit to be spoken of, since the Law itself also, which was given there, is said to have been written upon tables of stone with the finger of God, by which name we know the Holy Spirit to be signified in the Gospel. And fifty days are numbered from the slaying of the lamb and the celebration of the Passover until the day in which these things began to be done in Mount Sinai; just as after the passion of our Lord fifty days are numbered from His resurrection, and then came the Holy Spirit which the Son of God had promised. And in that very coming of His, which we read of in the Acts of the Apostles, there appeared cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them: which agrees with Exodus, where it is written, And Mount Sinai was altogether on a smoke, because the Lord descended upon it in fire; and a little after, And the sight of the glory of the Lord, he says, was like devouring fire on the top of the mount in the eyes of the children of Israel. Or if these things were therefore wrought because neither the Father nor the Son could be there presented in that mode without the Holy Spirit, by whom the Law itself must needs be written; then we know doubtless that God appeared there, not by His own substance, which remains invisible and unchangeable, but by the appearance above mentioned of the creature; but that some special person of the Trinity appeared, distinguished by a proper mark, as far as my capacity of understanding reaches, we do not see.

There is another difficulty that troubles most people: it is written, "And the Lord spoke unto Moses face to face, as a man speaks unto his friend." Yet a little later, this same Moses says, "Now therefore, I pray You, if I have found grace in Your sight, show me now Yourself plainly, that I may see You, that I may find grace in Your sight, and that I may consider that this nation is Your people." And a little after that, Moses again said to the Lord, "Show me Your glory." What does this mean? In everything that was done, as mentioned above, God was thought to have appeared by His own substance (ousia). From this, these miserable people have believed that the Son of God is visible not through the creature, but by Himself. They think that when Moses entered into the cloud, he did so precisely so that a cloudy darkness would be shown to the people's eyes, but that Moses within would hear God's words as though he beheld His face. And as it says, "And the Lord spoke unto Moses face to face, as a man speaks unto his friend." Yet behold, this same Moses says, "If I have found grace in Your sight, show me Yourself plainly." Clearly he knew that he saw bodily, and he sought the true sight of God spiritually. That manner of speech which was conveyed in words was so arranged as if it were a friend speaking to a friend. Yet who sees God the Father with bodily eyes? And that Word which was in the beginning, the Word which was with God, the Word which was God, by which all things were made—who sees Him with bodily eyes? And who sees the spirit of wisdom with bodily eyes? Yet what does "Show me now Yourself plainly, that I may see You" mean, except "Show me Your substance (ousia)"? If Moses had not said this, we would indeed have to tolerate as best we could those foolish people who think that God's substance (ousia) was made visible to his eyes through those things which, as mentioned above, were said or done. But when it is demonstrated here most clearly that this was not granted to him, even though he desired it, who will dare to say that through the visible forms that appeared to him, not the creature serving God, but God Himself appeared to the eyes of a mortal man?

26. There is yet another difficulty which troubles most people, viz. that it is written, And the Lord spoke unto Moses face to face, as a man speaks unto his friend; whereas a little after, the same Moses says, Now therefore, I pray You, if I have found grace in Your sight, show me now Yourself plainly, that I may see You, that I may find grace in Your sight, and that I may consider that this nation is Your people; and a little after Moses again said to the Lord, Show me Your glory. What means this then, that in everything which was done, as above said, God was thought to have appeared by His own substance; whence the Son of God has been believed by these miserable people to be visible not by the creature, but by Himself; and that Moses, entering into the cloud, appeared to have had this very object in entering, that a cloudy darkness indeed might be shown to the eyes of the people, but that Moses within might hear the words of God, as though he beheld His face; and, as it is said, And the Lord spoke unto Moses face to face, as a man speaks unto his friend; and yet, behold, the same Moses says, If I have found grace in Your sight, show me Yourself plainly? Assuredly he knew that he saw corporeally, and he sought the true sight of God spiritually. And that mode of speech accordingly which was wrought in words, was so modified, as if it were of a friend speaking to a friend. Yet who sees God the Father with the eyes of the body? And that Word, which was in the beginning, the Word which was with God, the Word which was God, by which all things were made, — who sees Him with the eyes of the body? And the spirit of wisdom, again, who sees with the eyes of the body? Yet what is, Show me now Yourself plainly, that I may see You, unless, Show me Your substance? But if Moses had not said this, we must indeed have borne with those foolish people as we could, who think that the substance of God was made visible to his eyes through those things which, as above mentioned, were said or done. But when it is here demonstrated most evidently that this was not granted to him, even though he desired it; who will dare to say, that by the like forms which had appeared visibly to him also, not the creature serving God, but that itself which is God, appeared to the eyes of a mortal man?

Consider also what the Lord later said to Moses: "You cannot see my face, for no man shall see my face and live." And the Lord said, "Look, there is a place near me, and you will stand on a rock. When my glory passes by, I will put you in a cleft of the rock and cover you with my hand while I pass by. Then I will take away my hand, and you will see my back, but my face will not be seen."

28. Add, too, that which the Lord afterward said to Moses, You can not see my face: for there shall no man see my face, and live. And the Lord said, Behold, there is a place by me, and you shall stand upon a rock: and it shall come to pass, while my glory passes by, that I will put you into a watchtower of the rock, and will cover you with my hand while I pass by: and I will take away my hand, and you shall see my back parts; but my face shall not be seen.

It's commonly understood that this prefigures our Lord Jesus Christ: His back parts are taken to mean His flesh, in which He was born of the Virgin, died, and rose again. They are called back parts either because mortality came later, or because He chose to take on flesh near the end of the world, at a late period. But His face was that form of God, in which He thought it not robbery to be equal with God, which no one can certainly see and live. This is either because after this life, in which we are absent from the Lord and where the corruptible body weighs down the soul, we shall see face to face, as the apostle says—for it is said in the Psalms about this life, "Verily every man living is altogether vanity," and again, "For in Your sight shall no man living be justified," and also in this life, according to John, "It does not yet appear what we shall be, but we know that when He shall appear, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is," which he certainly meant to be understood as after this life, when we have paid the debt of death and received the promise of the resurrection. Or it may be that even now, to whatever degree we spiritually understand the wisdom of God, by which all things were made, to that same degree we die to carnal affections, so that considering this world dead to us, we also die to this world, and say what the apostle says: "The world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world." For it was of this death that he also says, "Wherefore, if you be dead with Christ, why as though living in the world are you subject to ordinances?" Not without cause, then, will no one be able to see the face, that is, the manifestation itself of the wisdom of God, and live. For it is this very appearance that everyone sighs for who strives to love God with all his heart, soul, and mind, and for whose contemplation he who loves his neighbor as himself also builds up his neighbor as much as he can. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. This is also signified in Moses himself. For when he said, because of the love of God with which he was specially inflamed, "If I have found grace in your sight, show me now Yourself plainly, that I may find grace in Your sight," he immediately added, because of the love also of his neighbor, "And that I may know that this nation is Your people." It is therefore that appearance which draws every rational soul with desire for it, and more ardently the purer that soul is. It is more pure the more it rises to spiritual things, and it rises more to spiritual things the more it dies to carnal things. But while we are absent from the Lord and walk by faith, not by sight, we ought to see the back parts of Christ, that is His flesh, by that very faith, standing on the solid foundation of faith, which the rock signifies, and beholding it from such a safe watchtower, namely in the Catholic Church, of which it is said, "And upon this rock I will build my Church." For the more certainly we love that face of Christ, which we earnestly desire to see, the more we recognize in His back parts how much Christ first loved us.

Not unfitly is it commonly understood to be prefigured from the person of our Lord Jesus Christ, that His back parts are to be taken to be His flesh, in which He was born of the Virgin, and died, and rose again; whether they are called back parts on account of the posteriority of mortality, or because it was almost in the end of the world, that is, at a late period, that He deigned to take it: but that His face was that form of God, in which He thought it not robbery to be equal with God, which no one certainly can see and live; whether because after this life, in which we are absent from the Lord, and where the corruptible body presses down the soul, we shall see face to face, as the apostle says — (for it is said in the Psalms, of this life, Verily every man living is altogether vanity; and again, For in Your sight shall no man living be justified; and in this life also, according to John, It does not yet appear what we shall be, but we know, he says, that when He shall appear, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is, which he certainly intended to be understood as after this life, when we shall have paid the debt of death, and shall have received the promise of the resurrection);– or whether that even now, in whatever degree we spiritually understand the wisdom of God, by which all things were made, in that same degree we die to carnal affections, so that, considering this world dead to us, we also ourselves die to this world, and say what the apostle says, The world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world. For it was of this death that he also says, Wherefore, if you be dead with Christ, why as though living in the world are you subject to ordinances? Not therefore without cause will no one be able to see the face, that is, the manifestation itself of the wisdom of God, and live. For it is this very appearance, for the contemplation of which every one sighs who strives to love God with all his heart, and with all his soul, and with all his mind; to the contemplation of which, he who loves his neighbor, too, as himself builds up his neighbor also as far as he may; on which two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. And this is signified also in Moses himself. For when he had said, on account of the love of God with which he was specially inflamed, If I have found grace in your sight, show me now Yourself plainly, that I may find grace in Your sight; he immediately subjoined, on account of the love also of his neighbor, And that I may know that this nation is Your people. It is therefore that appearance which hurries away every rational soul with the desire of it, and the more ardently the more pure that soul is; and it is the more pure the more it rises to spiritual things; and it rises the more to spiritual things the more it dies to carnal things. But while we are absent from the Lord, and walk by faith, not by sight, we ought to see the back parts of Christ, that is His flesh, by that very faith, that is, standing on the solid foundation of faith, which the rock signifies, and beholding it from such a safe watchtower, namely in the Catholic Church, of which it is said, And upon this rock I will build my Church. For so much the more certainly we love that face of Christ, which we earnestly desire to see, as we recognize in His back parts how much first Christ loved us.

But in the flesh itself, faith in His resurrection saves and justifies us. For scripture says, "If you believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved," and again, "He was delivered for our offenses and was raised again for our justification." So the reward of our faith is the resurrection of the body of our Lord. For even His enemies believe that His flesh died on the cross of His passion, but they do not believe it rose again. We believe this most firmly and gaze upon it as if from the solid footing of a rock. From this position we wait with certain hope for the adoption, that is, the redemption of our body, because we hope for in the members of Christ—that is, in ourselves—what we acknowledge by sound faith to be already perfect in Him as in our Head. This is why He would not allow His back parts to be seen except as He passed by, so that His resurrection may be believed. For what is Pascha in Hebrew is translated Passover. This is also why the Evangelist John says, "Before the feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that His hour had come that He should pass out of this world unto the Father."

29. But in the flesh itself, the faith in His resurrection saves and justifies us. For, If you shall believe, he says, in your heart, that God has raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved; and again, Who was delivered, he says, for our offenses, and was raised again for our justification. So that the reward of our faith is the resurrection of the body of our Lord. For even His enemies believe that that flesh died on the cross of His passion, but they do not believe it to have risen again. Which we believing most firmly, gaze upon it as from the solidity of a rock: whence we wait with certain hope for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body; because we hope for that in the members of Christ, that is, in ourselves, which by a sound faith we acknowledge to be perfect in Him as in our Head. Thence it is that He would not have His back parts seen, unless as He passed by, that His resurrection may be believed. For that which is Pascha in Hebrew, is translated Passover. Whence John the Evangelist also says, Before the feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that His hour had come, that He should pass out of this world unto the Father.

However, those who believe this but do not believe it within the Catholic Church—instead believing it in some schism or heresy—do not see the back parts of the Lord from the place that is by Him. For what does the Lord mean when He says, "Behold, there is a place by me, and you shall stand upon a rock"? What earthly place is by the Lord, unless it is that which touches Him spiritually? For what place is not by the Lord, who reaches from one end to another mightily and sweetly orders all things, and of whom it is said, "Heaven is His throne, and earth is His footstool," and who said, "Where is the house that you build unto me, and where is the place of my rest? For has not my hand made all those things?" But clearly the Catholic Church itself is understood to be the place by Him, in which one stands upon a rock, where he healthfully sees the Pascha Domini, that is, the Passing by of the Lord, and His back parts, that is, His body, who believes in His resurrection. And He says, "You shall stand upon a rock while my glory passes by." For in reality, immediately after the majesty of the Lord had passed by in the glorification of the Lord—in which He rose again and ascended to the Father—we stood firm upon the rock. And Peter himself then stood firm, so that he preached Him with confidence, whom before he stood firm he had three times denied out of fear. Yet indeed he was already placed beforehand in predestination upon the watchtower of the rock, but with the hand of the Lord still held over him so that he might not yet see. For he was to see His back parts, and the Lord had not yet passed by—namely, from death to life—He had not yet been glorified by the resurrection.

30. But they who believe this, but believe it not in the Catholic Church, but in some schism or in heresy, do not see the back parts of the Lord from the place that is by Him. For what does that mean which the Lord says, Behold, there is a place by me, and you shall stand upon a rock? What earthly place is by the Lord, unless that is by Him which touches Him spiritually? For what place is not by the Lord, who reaches from one end to another mightily, and sweetly does order all things, and of whom it is said, Heaven is His throne, and earth is His footstool; and who said, Where is the house that you build unto me, and where is the place of my rest? For has not my hand made all those things? But manifestly the Catholic Church itself is understood to be the place by Him, wherein one stands upon a rock, where he healthfully sees the Pascha Domini, that is, the Passing by of the Lord, and His back parts, that is, His body, who believes in His resurrection. And you shall stand, He says, upon a rock while my glory passes by. For in reality, immediately after the majesty of the Lord had passed by in the glorification of the Lord, in which He rose again and ascended to the Father, we stood firm upon the rock. And Peter himself then stood firm, so that he preached Him with confidence, whom, before he stood firm, he had thrice from fear denied; although, indeed, already before placed in predestination upon the watchtower of the rock, but with the hand of the Lord still held over him that he might not see. For he was to see His back parts, and the Lord had not yet passed by, namely, from death to life; He had not yet been glorified by the resurrection.

For as to what follows in Exodus, "I will cover you with my hand while I pass by, and I will take away my hand and you shall see my back parts," many Israelites, of whom Moses was then a symbolic figure, believed in the Lord after His resurrection, as if His hand had been removed from their eyes and they now saw His back parts. This is why the evangelist also mentions that prophecy of Isaiah: "Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes." Finally, in the Psalm, what is said can reasonably be understood as spoken in their person: "For day and night Your hand was heavy upon me." By day, perhaps, when He performed obvious miracles yet was not recognized by them; but by night, when He died in suffering, when they thought even more certainly that, like any ordinary man, He was cut off and brought to an end. But since, when He had already passed by so that His back parts were seen, upon the Apostle Peter's preaching to them that it was necessary for Christ to suffer and rise again, they were pierced in their hearts with the grief of repentance, so that what is said at the beginning of that Psalm might come true among the baptized: "Blessed are they whose transgressions are forgiven, and whose sins are covered." Therefore, after it had been said, "Your hand is heavy upon me," the Lord, as it were passing by so that now He removed His hand and His back parts were seen, there follows the voice of one who grieves and confesses and receives forgiveness of sins by faith in the resurrection of the Lord: "My moisture," he says, "is turned into the drought of summer. I acknowledged my sin unto You, and mine iniquity have I not hidden. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord, and You forgave the iniquity of my sin." For we ought not to be so wrapped up in the darkness of the flesh as to think that the face of God is indeed invisible, but His back visible, since both appeared visibly in the form of a servant. But far be it from us to think anything of the kind in the form of God. Far be it from us to think that the Word of God and the Wisdom of God has a face on one side and a back on the other, as a human body does, or is at all changed either in place or time by any appearance or motion.

31. For as to that, too, which follows in Exodus, I will cover you with mine hand while I pass by, and I will take away my hand and you shall see my back parts; many Israelites, of whom Moses was then a figure, believed in the Lord after His resurrection, as if His hand had been taken off from their eyes, and they now saw His back parts. And hence the evangelist also mentions that prophesy of Isaiah, Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes. Lastly, in the Psalm, that is not unreasonably understood to be said in their person, For day and night Your hand was heavy upon me. By day, perhaps, when He performed manifest miracles, yet was not acknowledged by them; but by night, when He died in suffering, when they thought still more certainly that, like any one among men, He was cut off and brought to an end. But since, when He had already passed by, so that His back parts were seen, upon the preaching to them by the Apostle Peter that it behooved Christ to suffer and rise again, they were pricked in their hearts with the grief of repentance, that that might come to pass among the baptized which is said in the beginning of that Psalm, Blessed are they whose transgressions are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; therefore, after it had been said, Your hand is heavy upon me, the Lord, as it were, passing by, so that now He removed His hand, and His back parts were seen, there follows the voice of one who grieves and confesses and receives remission of sins by faith in the resurrection of the Lord: My moisture, he says, is turned into the drought of summer. I acknowledged my sin unto You, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord, and You forgave the iniquity of my sin. For we ought not to be so wrapped up in the darkness of the flesh, as to think the face indeed of God to be invisible, but His back visible, since both appeared visibly in the form of a servant; but far be it from us to think anything of the kind in the form of God; far be it from us to think that the Word of God and the Wisdom of God has a face on one side, and on the other a back, as a human body has, or is at all changed either in place or time by any appearance or motion.

Therefore, if the Lord Jesus Christ was revealed in those words spoken in Exodus and in all those physical appearances, or if in some cases Christ was revealed (as examination of this passage convinces us) and in others the Holy Spirit (as what we said above indicates), it does not necessarily follow that God the Father never appeared in any such form to the Fathers. Many such appearances occurred in those times without the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit being explicitly named and identified in them, yet with certain indications given through quite plausible interpretations. Thus it would be too hasty to say that God the Father never appeared through any visible forms to the fathers or the prophets. This opinion arose among those who were unable to understand, regarding the unity of the Trinity, texts such as "Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God" and "Whom no man has seen, nor can see." These texts are understood by sound faith as referring to that very substance—the highest and most supremely divine and unchangeable—by which the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is the one and only God. However, those visions were produced through the changeable creation, which is subject to the unchangeable God, and they did not reveal God properly as He is in Himself, but through signs suited to the particular circumstances and times of each event.

32. Wherefore, if in those words which were spoken in Exodus, and in all those corporeal appearances, the Lord Jesus Christ was manifested; or if in some cases Christ was manifested, as the consideration of this passage persuades us, in others the Holy Spirit, as that which we have said above admonishes us; at any rate no such result follows, as that God the Father never appeared in any such form to the Fathers. For many such appearances happened in those times, without either the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit being expressly named and designated in them; but yet with some intimations given through certain very probable interpretations, so that it would be too rash to say that God the Father never appeared by any visible forms to the fathers or the prophets. For they gave birth to this opinion who were not able to understand in respect to the unity of the Trinity such texts as, Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God; and, Whom no man has seen, nor can see. Which texts are understood by a sound faith in that substance itself, the highest, and in the highest degree divine and unchangeable, whereby both the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit is the one and only God. But those visions were wrought through the changeable creature, made subject to the unchangeable God, and did not manifest God properly as He is, but by intimations such as suited the causes and times of the several circumstances.

I do not know how these men understand that the Ancient of Days appeared to Daniel, from whom the Son of man—which He chose to become for our sake—is understood to have received the kingdom; that is, from Him who says to Him in the Psalms, "You are my Son; this day have I begotten You; ask of me, and I shall give You the heathen for Your inheritance," and who has put all things under His feet. However, if both the Father giving the kingdom and the Son receiving it appeared to Daniel in bodily form, how can those men say that the Father never appeared to the prophets, and therefore that He alone ought to be understood to be invisible whom no man has seen, nor can see? For Daniel has told us this: "I beheld," he says, "till the thrones were set, and the Ancient of Days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of His head like the pure wool: His throne was like the fiery flame, and His wheels as burning fire; a fiery stream issued and came forth from before Him: thousand thousands ministered unto Him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before Him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened," and so on. And a little later, "I saw," he says, "in the night visions, and behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of Days, and they brought Him near before Him. And there was given Him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him: His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and His kingdom that which shall not be destroyed." Here we see the Father giving and the Son receiving an eternal kingdom, and both are in the sight of the one who prophesies, in a visible form. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to believe that God the Father also customarily appeared in that manner to mortals.

33. I do not know in what manner these men understand that the Ancient of Days appeared to Daniel, from whom the Son of man, which He deigned to be for our sakes, is understood to have received the kingdom; namely, from Him who says to Him in the Psalms, You are my Son; this day have I begotten You; ask of me, and I shall give You the heathen for Your inheritance; and who has put all things under His feet. If, however, both the Father giving the kingdom, and the Son receiving it, appeared to Daniel in bodily form, how can those men say that the Father never appeared to the prophets, and, therefore, that He only ought to be understood to be invisible whom no man has seen, nor can see? For Daniel has told us thus: I beheld, he says, till the thrones were set, and the Ancient of Days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of His head like the pure wool: His throne was like the fiery flame, and His wheels as burning fire; a fiery stream issued and came forth from before Him: thousand thousands ministered unto Him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before Him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened, etc. And a little after, I saw, he says, in the night visions, and behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of Days, and they brought Him near before Him. And there was given Him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him: His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and His kingdom that which shall not be destroyed. Behold the Father giving, and the Son receiving, an eternal kingdom; and both are in the sight of him who prophesies, in a visible form. It is not, therefore, unsuitably believed that God the Father also was wont to appear in that manner to mortals.

Unless, perhaps, someone might say that the Father is not visible because He appeared in a vision to someone who was dreaming, but that the Son and the Holy Spirit are visible because Moses saw all those things while awake. As if Moses actually saw the Word and Wisdom of God with physical eyes! Or as if even the human spirit that gives life to the flesh can be seen, or even that physical thing called wind—how much less can the Spirit of God be seen, who surpasses the minds of all people and angels by the ineffable excellence of the divine substance? Or can anyone fall into such error as to dare say that the Son and the Holy Spirit are visible even to people who are awake, but that the Father is visible only to those who dream? How, then, would they understand that statement about the Father alone: "Whom no man has seen, nor can see"? When people sleep, are they suddenly not human? Or cannot He who can create the likeness of a body to represent Himself through the visions of dreamers also create that same bodily form to represent Himself to the eyes of those who are awake? His own very substance, by which He Himself is what He is, cannot be shown by any bodily likeness to one who sleeps or by any bodily appearance to one who is awake—and this applies not only to the Father, but also to the Son and to the Holy Spirit. And certainly, as for those who are persuaded by the visions of waking people to believe that not the Father, but only the Son or the Holy Spirit, appeared to the physical sight of human beings—setting aside the great extent of the sacred writings and their many interpretations, which mean that no one of sound reason should claim that the person of the Father was never shown to the eyes of waking people by any bodily appearance—but, as I said, setting this aside, what do they say about our father Abraham, who was certainly awake and serving when, after Scripture had stated, "The Lord appeared unto Abraham," not one or two, but three men appeared to him? None of these is said to have stood out above the others, none to have shone with greater glory than the others, or to have acted more authoritatively.

34. Unless, perhaps, some one shall say, that the Father is therefore not visible, because He appeared within the sight of one who was dreaming; but that therefore the Son and the Holy Spirit are visible, because Moses saw all those things being awake; as if, forsooth, Moses saw the Word and the Wisdom of God with fleshly eyes, or that even the human spirit which quickens that flesh can be seen, or even that corporeal thing which is called wind — how much less can that Spirit of God be seen, who transcends the minds of all men, and of angels, by the ineffable excellence of the divine substance? Or can any one fall headlong into such an error as to dare to say, that the Son and the Holy Spirit are visible also to men who are awake, but that the Father is not visible except to those who dream? How, then, do they understand that of the Father alone, Whom no man has seen, nor can see.? When men sleep, are they then not men? Or cannot He, who can fashion the likeness of a body to signify Himself through the visions of dreamers, also fashion that same bodily creature to signify Himself to the eyes of those who are awake? Whereas His own very substance, whereby He Himself is that which He is, cannot be shown by any bodily likeness to one who sleeps, or by any bodily appearance to one who is awake; but this not of the Father only, but also of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. And certainly, as to those who are moved by the visions of waking men to believe that not the Father, but only the Son, or the Holy Spirit, appeared to the corporeal sight of men — to omit the great extent of the sacred pages, and their manifold interpretation, such that no one of sound reason ought to affirm that the person of the Father was nowhere shown to the eyes of waking men by any corporeal appearance — but, as I said, to omit this, what do they say of our father Abraham, who was certainly awake and ministering, when, after Scripture had premised, The Lord appeared unto Abraham, not one, or two, but three men appeared to him; no one of whom is said to have stood prominently above the others, no one more than the others to have shone with greater glory, or to have acted more authoritatively?

Since we set out in our three-part investigation to examine whether it was the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit, or whether sometimes the Father, sometimes the Son, sometimes the Holy Spirit, or whether—without any distinction of persons—the one and only God (that is, the Trinity itself) who appeared to the fathers through those created forms, we have now examined as many passages of Holy Scripture as seemed sufficient. A modest and cautious consideration of divine mysteries leads us, as far as I can tell, to this conclusion: we must not rashly declare which person of the Trinity appeared to any particular father or prophet in some bodily form or bodily likeness, unless the context of the narrative provides some clear indication on the matter. For the nature itself, or substance, or essence, or whatever other name we should use for that very thing which is God, cannot be seen with bodily eyes. However, we must believe that through the creature subject to Him, not only the Son or the Holy Spirit, but also the Father, may have revealed Himself to mortal senses through a bodily form or likeness. Since this is how things stand, let us consider what remains in the books that follow, so that this second book does not grow to an excessive length.

35. Wherefore, since in that our threefold division we determined to inquire, first, whether the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit; or whether sometimes the Father, sometimes the Son, sometimes the Holy Spirit; or whether, without any distinction of persons, as it is said, the one and only God, that is, the Trinity itself, appeared to the fathers through those forms of the creature: now that we have examined, so far as appeared to be sufficient what places of the Holy Scriptures we could, a modest and cautious consideration of divine mysteries leads, as far as I can judge, to no other conclusion, unless that we may not rashly affirm which person of the Trinity appeared to this or that of the fathers or the prophets in some body or likeness of body, unless when the context attaches to the narrative some probable intimations on the subject. For the nature itself, or substance, or essence, or by whatever other name that very thing, which is God, whatever it be, is to be called, cannot be seen corporeally: but we must believe that by means of the creature made subject to Him, not only the Son, or the Holy Spirit, but also the Father, may have given intimations of Himself to mortal senses by a corporeal form or likeness. And since the case stands thus, that this second book may not extend to an immoderate length, let us consider what remains in those which follow.

In the Retractations (ii. 15) Augustine describes this work in the following way:

In the Retractations (ii. 15) Augustine speaks of this work in the following terms:–

I spent several years writing fifteen books about the Trinity, which is God. However, when I had not yet finished the thirteenth book, some people who were extremely eager to have the work were being made to wait longer than they could endure, and it was stolen from me in a less polished state than it either could have been or would have been if it had been published when I intended. As soon as I discovered this, since I had other copies of it, I had initially decided not to publish it myself, but instead to mention what had happened in some other work. However, at the urgent request of fellow believers whom I could not refuse, I corrected it as much as I thought appropriate, and finished and published it, adding at the beginning a letter that I had written to the venerable Aurelius, Bishop of Carthage, in which I explained, by way of introduction, what had happened, what I had originally intended to do, and what the love of my fellow believers had compelled me to do.

I spent some years in writing fifteen books concerning the Trinity, which is God . When, however, I had not yet finished the thirteenth Book, and some who were exceedingly anxious to have the work were kept waiting longer than they could bear, it was stolen from me in a less correct state than it either could or would have been had it appeared when I intended. And as soon as I discovered this, having other copies of it, I had determined at first not to publish it myself, but to mention what had happened in the matter in some other work; but at the urgent request of brethren, whom I could not refuse, I corrected it as much as I thought fit, and finished and published it, with the addition, at the beginning, of a letter that I had written to the venerable Aurelius, Bishop of Carthage , in which I set forth, in the way of prologue, what had happened, what I had intended to do of myself, and what love of my brethren had forced me to do.

The letter he refers to here is as follows:

The letter to which he here alludes is the following:–

To the most blessed Lord, whom he respects with entirely genuine love, to his holy brother and fellow priest, Pope Aurelius, Augustine sends greetings in the Lord. I began as a very young man, and have published in my old age, some books concerning the Trinity, who is the supreme and true God. I had actually set the work aside when I discovered that it had been prematurely, or rather secretly, stolen from me before I had completed it and before I had revised and finished it as I had planned. I had not intended to publish the books one by one, but all at once, since the development of the investigation led me to add the later books to the ones that came before them. When these people prevented the fulfillment of my plan (because some of them had gained access to the work before I intended), I had stopped dictating it, intending to make my complaint public in some other work I might write, so that whoever could might know that the books had not been published by me but had been taken from my possession before they were in my own judgment ready for publication. However, compelled by the urgent requests of many of my brothers, and especially by your command, I have taken the trouble, with God's help, to complete the work, laborious as it is. As now corrected (not as I wished, but as I could, so that the books would not differ too greatly from those that had secretly gotten into people's hands), I have sent them to your Reverence through my very dear son and fellow deacon, and have allowed them to be heard, copied, and read by anyone who wishes. Certainly, if I could have carried out my original plan, although they would have contained the same ideas, they would have been worked out much more thoroughly and clearly, as far as the difficulty of explaining so profound a subject, and as far as my own abilities, might have permitted. There are some people, however, who have the first four, or rather five, books without the prefaces, and the twelfth with a considerable part of its later chapters missing. But these people, if they wish and are able, will correct the whole if they become familiar with the present edition. In any case, I must ask that you order this letter to be placed separately, but at the beginning of the books. Farewell. Pray for me.

To the most blessed Lord, whom he reveres with most sincere love , to his holy brother and fellow priest , Pope Aurelius, Augustine sends health in the Lord. I began as a very young man, and have published in my old age, some books concerning the Trinity, who is the supreme and true God. I had in truth laid the work aside, upon discovering that it had been prematurely, or rather surreptitiously, stolen from me before I had completed it, and before I had revised and put the finishing touches to it, as had been my intention. For I had not designed to publish the Books one by one, but all together, inasmuch as the progress of the inquiry led me to add the later ones to those which precede them. When, therefore, these people had hindered the fulfillment of my purpose (in that some of them had obtained access to the work before I intended), I had given over dictating it, with the idea of making my complaint public in some other work that I might write, in order that whoever could might know that the Books had not been published by myself, but had been taken away from my possession before they were in my own judgment fit for publication. Compelled, however, by the eager demands of many of my brethren, and above all by your command, I have taken the pains, by God's help, to complete the work, laborious as it is; and as now corrected (not as I wished, but as I could, lest the Books should differ very widely from those which had surreptitiously got into people's hands), I have sent them to your Reverence by my very dear son and fellow deacon , and have allowed them to be heard, copied, and read by every one that pleases. Doubtless, if I could have fulfilled my original intention, although they would have contained the same sentiments, they would have been worked out much more thoroughly and clearly, so far as the difficulty of unfolding so profound a subject, and so far, too, as my own powers, might have allowed. There are some persons , however, who have the first four, or rather five, Books without the prefaces, and the twelfth with no small part of its later chapters omitted. But these, if they please and can, will amend the whole, if they become acquainted with the present edition. At any rate, I have to request that you will order this letter to be prefixed separately, but at the beginning of the Books. Farewell. Pray for me.

This discussion about the Trinity, as the reader should know, has been written to guard against the clever arguments of those who refuse to begin with faith and are misled by an immature and twisted love of reasoning. One group of such people tries to apply ideas they have formed about physical things—whether through bodily sense experience, natural human intelligence and careful observation, or through systematic study—to things that are incorporeal and spiritual. They try to measure and understand the latter by means of the former. A second group forms whatever thoughts they have about God based on the nature or experiences of the human mind, and because of this mistake, they guide their arguments about God using distorted and deceptive rules. A third group does try to rise above the entire created order, which is certainly changeable, in order to lift their thinking to the unchangeable substance, which is God. But they are weighed down by the burden of mortality, and while they seem to want to know what they do not know and cannot know what they want to know, they block themselves from the very path of understanding through an overly bold assertion of their own presumptuous judgments. They would rather not correct their opinion when it is wrong than change what they have already defended. This is actually the common problem of all three groups I have mentioned—those who think about God based on physical things, those who do so based on the spiritual creature such as the soul, and those who consider neither the body nor the spiritual creature yet still think falsely about God. These last are even further from the truth because nothing corresponding to their ideas can be found either in the body, in the made or created spirit, or in the Creator himself. For example, whoever thinks that God is white or red is wrong, even though these things are found in the body. Likewise, whoever thinks of God as sometimes forgetting and sometimes remembering, or anything similar, is equally wrong, even though these things are found in the mind. But whoever thinks that God is so powerful as to have generated himself is even more wrong, because not only does God not exist in this way, but neither does the spiritual nor the bodily creature—for there is nothing at all that generates its own existence.

1. The following dissertation concerning the Trinity, as the reader ought to be informed, has been written in order to guard against the sophistries of those who disdain to begin with faith , and are deceived by a crude and perverse love of reason. Now one class of such men endeavor to transfer to things incorporeal and spiritual the ideas they have formed, whether through experience of the bodily senses, or by natural human wit and diligent quickness, or by the aid of art, from things corporeal; so as to seek to measure and conceive of the former by the latter. Others, again, frame whatever sentiments they may have concerning God according to the nature or affections of the human mind; and through this error they govern their discourse, in disputing concerning God , by distorted and fallacious rules. While yet a third class strive indeed to transcend the whole creation, which doubtless is changeable, in order to raise their thought to the unchangeable substance, which is God ; but being weighed down by the burden of mortality, while they both would seem to know what they do not, and cannot know what they would, preclude themselves from entering the very path of understanding, by an over-bold affirmation of their own presumptuous judgments; choosing rather not to correct their own opinion when it is perverse, than to change that which they have once defended. And, indeed, this is the common disease of all the three classes which I have mentioned — viz. , both of those who frame their thoughts of God according to things corporeal, and of those who do so according to the spiritual creature, such as is the soul ; and of those who neither regard the body nor the spiritual creature, and yet think falsely about God ; and are indeed so much the further from the truth , that nothing can be found answering to their conceptions, either in the body, or in the made or created spirit, or in the Creator Himself. For he who thinks, for instance, that God is white or red, is in error ; and yet these things are found in the body. Again, he who thinks of God as now forgetting and now remembering, or anything of the same kind, is none the less in error ; and yet these things are found in the mind . But he who thinks that God is of such power as to have generated Himself, is so much the more in error , because not only does God not so exist, but neither does the spiritual nor the bodily creature; for there is nothing whatever that generates its own existence .

To purify the human mind from errors of this kind, Holy Scripture has adapted itself to those who are immature. It has not avoided using words drawn from any category of things that actually exist, through which, like food, our understanding might gradually rise to divine and transcendent realities. When speaking of God, Scripture has used words taken from physical things, as when it says, "Hide me under the shadow of Your wings." It has also borrowed many things from the spiritual creation to signify what is not literally true but must be expressed this way—for example, "I the Lord your God am a jealous God" and "It repents me that I have made man." However, Scripture has drawn no words at all, whether for figures of speech or mysterious sayings, from things that do not exist whatsoever. This is why those who are blocked from the truth by this third type of error are more harmfully and emptily foolish than others, since they imagine things about God that can be found neither in Him nor in any creature. Divine Scripture customarily creates, as it were, attractions for children from things found in creation, by which the affections of the weak may be moved, according to their capacity and as if by steps, to seek what is above and leave what is below. But this same Scripture rarely uses things that are spoken properly of God alone and are not found in any creature—for instance, what was said to Moses: "I am that I am" and "I Am has sent me to you." Since both body and soul are also said in some sense to be, Holy Scripture certainly would not express itself this way unless it meant to be understood in some special sense. Similarly, what the Apostle says: "Who only has immortality." Since the soul is also said to be, and is, in a certain manner immortal, Scripture would not say "only has" unless true immortality is unchangeableness, which no creature can possess since it belongs to the creator alone. Likewise James says, "Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of Lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning." And David says, "You shall change them, and they shall be changed; but You are the same."

2. In order, therefore, that the human mind might be purged from falsities of this kind, Holy Scripture , which suits itself to babes has not avoided words drawn from any class of things really existing, through which, as by nourishment, our understanding might rise gradually to things divine and transcendent. For, in speaking of God , it has both used words taken from things corporeal, as when it says, Hide me under the shadow of Your wings; and it has borrowed many things from the spiritual creature, whereby to signify that which indeed is not so, but must needs so be said: as, for instance, I the Lord your God am a jealous God ; and, It repents me that I have made man. But it has drawn no words whatever, whereby to frame either figures of speech or enigmatic sayings, from things which do not exist at all. And hence it is that they who are shut out from the truth by that third kind of error are more mischievously and emptily vain than their fellows; in that they surmise respecting God , what can neither be found in Himself nor in any creature. For divine Scripture is wont to frame, as it were, allurements for children from the things which are found in the creature; whereby, according to their measure, and as it were by steps, the affections of the weak may be moved to seek those things that are above, and to leave those things that are below. But the same Scripture rarely employs those things which are spoken properly of God , and are not found in any creature; as, for instance, that which was said to Moses , I am that I am; and, I Am has sent me to you. For since both body and soul also are said in some sense to be , Holy Scripture certainly would not so express itself unless it meant to be understood in some special sense of the term. So, too, that which the Apostle says, Who only has immortality . Since the soul also both is said to be, and is, in a certain manner immortal , Scripture would not say only has, unless because true immortality is unchangeableness; which no creature can possess, since it belongs to the creator alone. So also James says, Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of Lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning. So also David, You shall change them, and they shall be changed; but You are the same.

It is difficult to contemplate and fully grasp the substance of God, who fashions changeable things without any change in Himself, and creates temporal things without any temporal movement in Himself. Therefore, we must purge our minds to be able to see ineffably that which is ineffable. Since we have not yet reached this point, we need to be nourished by faith and led along paths better suited to our capacity, so that we may become fit and able to comprehend it. This is why the Apostle says that all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are indeed hidden in Christ. Yet he presented Christ to those who were babes in Christ—people already born again by His grace but still carnal and psychical—not through that divine virtue by which He is equal to the Father, but through that human weakness by which He was crucified. For Paul says, I determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ and Him crucified, and then continues, And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling. Shortly afterward he tells them, And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto you were not able to bear it, neither yet now are you able. Some people become angry at this kind of language and think it is meant to insult them. They mostly prefer to believe that those who speak this way have nothing to say, rather than accept that they themselves cannot understand what has been said. Sometimes we do present to them not the full explanation they seek in their inquiries about God—because neither can they receive it, nor can we perhaps fully grasp or express it ourselves—but rather an explanation that demonstrates to them how incapable and completely unfit they are to understand what they are asking of us. But because they do not hear what they want, they think we are either deceiving them to hide our own ignorance or speaking maliciously because we begrudge them knowledge. And so they leave angry and upset.

3. Further, it is difficult to contemplate and fully know the substance of God ; who fashions things changeable, yet without any change in Himself, and creates things temporal, yet without any temporal movement in Himself. And it is necessary, therefore, to purge our minds, in order to be able to see ineffably that which is ineffable; whereto not having yet attained, we are to be nourished by faith , and led by such ways as are more suited to our capacity, that we may be rendered apt and able to comprehend it. And hence the Apostle says, that in Christ indeed are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge ; and yet has commended Him to us, as to babes in Christ , who, although already born again by His grace , yet are still carnal and psychical, not by that divine virtue wherein He is equal to the Father , but by that human infirmity whereby He was crucified. For he says, I determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ and Him crucified; and then he continues, And I was with you in weakness, and in fear , and in much trembling. And a little after he says to them, And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ . I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto you were not able to bear it, neither yet now are you able. There are some who are angry at language of this kind, and think it is used in slight to themselves, and for the most part prefer rather to believe that they who so speak to them have nothing to say, than that they themselves cannot understand what they have said. And sometimes, indeed, we do allege to them, not certainly that account of the case which they seek in their inquiries about God — because neither can they themselves receive it, nor can we perhaps either apprehend or express it — but such an account of it as to demonstrate to them how incapable and utterly unfit they are to understand that which they require of us. But they, on their parts, because they do not hear what they desire, think that we are either playing them false in order to conceal our own ignorance , or speaking in malice because we grudge them knowledge ; and so go away indignant and perturbed.

With the Lord our God helping us, we will attempt to explain, as far as we are able, the very thing they so insistently demand: namely, that the Trinity is the one and only true God, and also how the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are rightly said, believed, and understood to be of one and the same substance or ousia, so that they cannot imagine we are putting them off with excuses, but may discover through actual experience both that the highest good is perceived only by the most purified minds, and that for this reason they themselves cannot perceive or understand it, because the eye of the human mind, being weak, is overwhelmed in such overwhelming light unless it is strengthened by the nourishment of the righteousness of faith. First, however, we must demonstrate according to the authority of the Holy Scriptures whether the faith is indeed so. Then, if God is willing and helps us, we may perhaps serve these talkative debaters—more prideful than capable, and therefore suffering from a more dangerous disease—well enough to enable them to find something they cannot doubt, so that when they cannot find the same clarity elsewhere, they may recognize the fault lies in their own minds rather than in the truth itself or in our arguments. In this way, if they have any love or fear of God in them, they may turn back and begin from faith in proper order, finally understanding how beneficial a remedy has been provided for the faithful in the holy Church, by which careful piety, healing the weakness of the mind, may make it able to perceive the unchangeable truth and prevent it from falling headlong through reckless disorder into destructive and false opinion. I myself will not shrink from investigation if I am uncertain about anything, nor be ashamed to learn if I am wrong about anything.

4. Wherefore, our Lord God helping, we will undertake to render, as far as we are able, that very account which they so importunately demand: viz ., that the Trinity is the one and only and true God , and also how the Father , the Son , and the Holy Spirit are rightly said, believed , understood, to be of one and the same substance or essence ; in such wise that they may not fancy themselves mocked by excuses on our part, but may find by actual trial, both that the highest good is that which is discerned by the most purified minds, and that for this reason it cannot be discerned or understood by themselves, because the eye of the human mind , being weak, is dazzled in that so transcendent light, unless it be invigorated by the nourishment of the righteousness of faith . First, however, we must demonstrate, according to the authority of the Holy Scriptures , whether the faith be so. Then, if God be willing and aid us, we may perhaps at least so far serve these talkative arguers — more puffed up than capable, and therefore laboring under the more dangerous disease — as to enable them to find something which they are not able to doubt , that so, in that case where they cannot find the like, they may be led to lay the fault to their own minds, rather than to the truth itself or to our reasonings; and thus, if there be anything in them of either love or fear towards God , they may return and begin from faith in due order: perceiving at length how healthful a medicine has been provided for the faithful in the holy Church, whereby a heedful piety , healing the feebleness of the mind , may render it able to perceive the unchangeable truth , and hinder it from falling headlong, through disorderly rashness, into pestilent and false opinion. Neither will I myself shrink from inquiry, if I am anywhere in doubt ; nor be ashamed to learn, if I am anywhere in error .

Further, let me ask my reader: wherever he is certain about something, as I am, let him continue with me; wherever he has doubts, as I do, let him join me in searching for answers; wherever he recognizes that he is wrong, let him come back to me; wherever he recognizes that I am wrong, let him call me back. In this way we may enter together upon the path of love and advance toward Him of whom it is said, Seek His face evermore. I would make this devout and safe agreement, in the presence of our Lord God, with all who read my writings—both in all other cases and especially in the case of those writings which investigate the unity of the Trinity, of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. In no other subject is error more dangerous, inquiry more difficult, or the discovery of truth more rewarding. If any reader should say, This is not well said, because I do not understand it, such a person is finding fault with my language, not with my faith. It might perhaps have been put more clearly, yet no one has ever spoken in such a way as to be understood in all things by all people. Therefore, let the reader who finds this fault with my writing see whether he can understand other authors who have handled similar subjects and questions, when he does not understand me. If he can, let him put down my book, or even, if he wishes, throw it away, and let him spend his effort and time instead on those whom he understands. Yet let him not think on that account that I ought to have been silent, just because I have not been able to express myself as smoothly and clearly to him as those authors do whom he understands. For not all things which all people have written come into the hands of all. It is possible that some who are capable of understanding even these writings of mine may not find those more readable works, and may come across mine only. For this reason it is useful that many people should write many books, differing in style but not in faith, concerning even the same questions, so that the subject matter itself may reach the greatest number of people—some in one way, some in another. But if the person who complains that he has not understood these things has never been able to comprehend any careful and precise reasonings at all upon such subjects, then in that case let him deal with himself through determination and study, so that he may know better—not with me through quarrels and disputes, demanding that I keep silent. Again, let the reader who says, when he reads my book, Certainly I understand what is said, but it is not true, assert, if he pleases, his own opinion, and refute mine if he is able. And if he does this with love and truth, and takes the trouble to make it known to me (if I am still alive), I shall then receive the most abundant fruit of this labor of mine. And if he cannot inform me myself, I would be most willing and glad if he would inform those whom he can. Yet, for my part, I meditate on the law of the Lord, if not day and night, at least for such brief times as I can, and I commit my meditations to writing lest they should escape me through forgetfulness. I hope by the mercy of God that He will make me hold firmly to all truths of which I feel certain; but if I am mistaken about anything, that He will Himself reveal even this to me, whether through secret inspiration and warning, or through His own plain words, or through the arguments of my brothers. This I pray for, and this hope and desire I commit to Him, who is fully able to keep those things which He has given me and to fulfill those things which He has promised.

5. Further let me ask of my reader, wherever, alike with myself, he is certain, there to go on with me; wherever, alike with myself, he hesitates, there to join with me in inquiring; wherever he recognizes himself to be in error , there to return to me; wherever he recognizes me to be so, there to call me back: so that we may enter together upon the path of charity, and advance towards Him of whom it is said, Seek His face evermore. And I would make this pious and safe agreement, in the presence of our Lord God , with all who read my writings, as well in all other cases as, above all, in the case of those which inquire into the unity of the Trinity, of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit ; because in no other subject is error more dangerous, or inquiry more laborious, or the discovery of truth more profitable. If, then, any reader shall say, This is not well said, because I do not understand it; such an one finds fault with my language, not with my faith : and it might perhaps in very truth have been put more clearly; yet no man ever so spoke as to be understood in all things by all men . Let him, therefore, who finds this fault with my discourse, see whether he can understand other men who have handled similar subjects and questions, when he does not understand me: and if he can, let him put down my book, or even, if he pleases, throw it away; and let him spend labor and time rather on those whom he understands. Yet let him not think on that account that I ought to have been silent, because I have not been able to express myself so smoothly and clearly to him as those do whom he understands. For neither do all things, which all men have written, come into the hands of all. And possibly some, who are capable of understanding even these our writings, may not find those more lucid works, and may meet with ours only. And therefore it is useful that many persons should write many books, differing in style but not in faith , concerning even the same questions, that the matter itself may reach the greatest number — some in one way, some in another. But if he who complains that he has not understood these things has never been able to comprehend any careful and exact reasonings at all upon such subjects, let him in that case deal with himself by resolution and study, that he may know better; not with me by quarrellings and wranglings, that I may hold my peace. Let him, again, who says, when he reads my book, Certainly I understand what is said, but it is not true , assert, if he pleases, his own opinion, and refute mine if he is able. And if he do this with charity and truth , and take the pains to make it known to me (if I am still alive), I shall then receive the most abundant fruit of this my labor. And if he cannot inform myself, most willing and glad should I be that he should inform those whom he can. Yet, for my part, I meditate in the law of the Lord, if not day and night, at least such short times as I can; and I commit my meditations to writing, lest they should escape me through forgetfulness; hoping by the mercy of God that He will make me hold steadfastly all truths of which I feel certain; but if in anything I be otherwise minded, that He will himself reveal even this to me, whether through secret inspiration and admonition, or through His own plain utterances, or through the reasonings of my brethren. This I pray for, and this my trust and desire I commit to Him, who is sufficiently able to keep those things which He has given me, and to render those which He has promised.

I do expect that some readers who are slower to understand will imagine that in certain parts of my books I have held opinions which I have not actually held, or have not held opinions which I actually have. But their error, as everyone knows, should not be blamed on me if they have strayed into false teaching by following my steps without understanding me, while I am forced to carefully navigate a difficult and unclear subject. After all, no one can rightly blame the holy testimonies of the divine books themselves for the many different errors of heretics, even though all heretics try to defend their own false and mistaken opinions from those same Scriptures. The law of Christ, which is charity, clearly teaches me and commands me with a gentle compulsion that when people think I have held some falsehood in my books which I have not held, and that same falsehood displeases one person and pleases another, I should prefer to be criticized by the one who condemns the falsehood rather than praised by the one who approves it. For although I, who never held the error, am not rightly blamed by the former person, the error itself is rightly condemned. Meanwhile, the latter person neither rightly praises me, since I am thought to have held what truth condemns, nor the opinion itself, which truth also condemns. Let us therefore undertake the work we have begun in the name of the Lord.

6. I expect, indeed, that some, who are more dull of understanding, will imagine that in some parts of my books I have held sentiments which I have not held, or have not held those which I have. But their error , as none can be ignorant , ought not to be attributed to me, if they have deviated into false doctrine through following my steps without apprehending me, while I am compelled to pick my way through a hard and obscure subject: seeing that neither can any one, in any way, rightly ascribe the numerous and various errors of heretics to the holy testimonies themselves of the divine books; although all of them endeavor to defend out of those same Scriptures their own false and erroneous opinions. The law of Christ , that is, charity, admonishes me clearly, and commands me with a sweet constraint, that when men think that I have held in my books something false which I have not held, and that same falsehood displeases one and pleases another, I should prefer to be blamed by him who reprehends the falsehood , rather than praised by him who praises it. For although I, who never held the error , am not rightly blamed by the former, yet the error itself is rightly censured; while by the latter neither am I rightly praised, who am thought to have held that which the truth censures, nor the sentiment itself, which the truth also censures. Let us therefore essay the work which we have undertaken in the name of the Lord.

All those Catholic interpreters of the divine Scriptures, both Old and New, whom I have been able to read, who have written before me concerning the Trinity, Who is God, have intended to teach, according to the Scriptures, this doctrine: that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit reveal a divine unity of one and the same ousia in an indivisible equality; and therefore they are not three Gods, but one God. Although the Father has begotten the Son, and so He who is the Father is not the Son; and the Son is begotten by the Father, and so He who is the Son is not the Father; and the Holy Spirit is neither the Father nor the Son, but only the Spirit of the Father and of the Son, Himself also co-equal with the Father and the Son, and belonging to the unity of the Trinity. Yet it was not this Trinity that was born of the Virgin Mary, and crucified under Pontius Pilate, and buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven, but only the Son. Nor, again, did this Trinity descend in the form of a dove upon Jesus when He was baptized; nor on the day of Pentecost, after the ascension of the Lord, when there came a sound from heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind, did the same Trinity sit upon each of them with cloven tongues like fire, but only the Holy Spirit. Nor yet did this Trinity say from heaven, You are my Son, whether when He was baptized by John, or when the three disciples were with Him on the mount, or when the voice sounded, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again; but it was a word of the Father only, spoken to the Son. Although the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, as they are indivisible, so work indivisibly. This is also my faith, since it is the Catholic faith.

7. All those Catholic expounders of the divine Scriptures , both Old and New, whom I have been able to read, who have written before me concerning the Trinity, Who is God , have purposed to teach, according to the Scriptures , this doctrine, that the Father , and the Son , and the Holy Spirit intimate a divine unity of one and the same substance in an indivisible equality; and therefore that they are not three Gods, but one God: although the Father has begotten the Son , and so He who is the Father is not the Son; and the Son is begotten by the Father , and so He who is the Son is not the Father; and the Holy Spirit is neither the Father nor the Son , but only the Spirit of the Father and of the Son , Himself also co-equal with the Father and the Son , and pertaining to the unity of the Trinity. Yet not that this Trinity was born of the Virgin Mary , and crucified under Pontius Pilate , and buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven, but only the Son. Nor, again, that this Trinity descended in the form of a dove upon Jesus when He was baptized ; nor that, on the day of Pentecost, after the ascension of the Lord, when there came a sound from heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind, the same Trinity sat upon each of them with cloven tongues like as of fire, but only the Holy Spirit . Nor yet that this Trinity said from heaven, You are my Son, whether when He was baptized by John, or when the three disciples were with Him in the mount, or when the voice sounded, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again; but that it was a word of the Father only, spoken to the Son; although the Father , and the Son , and the Holy Spirit , as they are indivisible, so work indivisibly. This is also my faith , since it is the Catholic faith .

Some people, however, find this faith difficult. When they hear that the Father is God, and the Son God, and the Holy Spirit God, and yet that this Trinity is not three Gods but one God, they ask how they are to understand this. This is especially true when it is said that the Trinity works indivisibly in everything that God does, and yet a certain voice of the Father spoke that is not the voice of the Son; that only the Son was born in the flesh, suffered, rose again, and ascended into heaven; and that only the Holy Spirit came in the form of a dove. They want to understand how the Trinity uttered that voice which belonged only to the Father, how the same Trinity created that flesh in which only the Son was born of the Virgin, and how this very same Trinity produced that form of a dove in which only the Holy Spirit appeared. Otherwise, they argue, the Trinity does not work indivisibly, but the Father does some things, the Son does other things, and the Holy Spirit does yet other things. Or if they do some things together and some things separately, then the Trinity is not indivisible. It is also difficult for them to understand in what manner the Holy Spirit exists in the Trinity, whom neither the Father nor the Son, nor both together, have begotten, although He is the Spirit of both the Father and the Son. Since people weary us by asking such questions, let us explain to them, as well as we are able, whatever wisdom God's gift has bestowed upon our weakness on this subject, and let us not proceed with consuming envy. If we said we are not accustomed to thinking about such things, it would not be true. But if we acknowledge that such subjects commonly occupy our thoughts, since we are carried away by the love of investigating the truth, then by the law of charity they require us to make known to them what we have been able to discover about this. Not that I have already attained or am already perfect (for if the Apostle Paul said this, how much more must I, who lie far beneath his feet, count myself as not having apprehended!). But according to my measure, if I forget what is behind and reach forward to what is ahead, and press toward the goal for the prize of the high calling, I am asked to reveal how much of the road I have already traveled and the point I have reached, from which the course still remains to bring me to the end. And those who make this request are people whom generous charity compels me to serve. It must be that God will grant that in providing them with material to read, I shall also profit myself, and that in seeking to reply to their inquiries, I shall likewise find what I was looking for. Accordingly, I have undertaken this task by the command and help of the Lord my God, not so much to speak with authority about things I already know, as to learn these things by discussing them devoutly.

8. Some persons , however, find a difficulty in this faith ; when they hear that the Father is God , and the Son God , and the Holy Spirit God , and yet that this Trinity is not three Gods, but one God ; and they ask how they are to understand this: especially when it is said that the Trinity works indivisibly in everything that God works, and yet that a certain voice of the Father spoke, which is not the voice of the Son; and that none except the Son was born in the flesh, and suffered, and rose again, and ascended into heaven; and that none except the Holy Spirit came in the form of a dove. They wish to understand how the Trinity uttered that voice which was only of the Father; and how the same Trinity created that flesh in which the Son only was born of the Virgin; and how the very same Trinity itself wrought that form of a dove, in which the Holy Spirit only appeared. Yet, otherwise, the Trinity does not work indivisibly, but the Father does some things, the Son other things, and the Holy Spirit yet others: or else, if they do some things together, some severally, then the Trinity is not indivisible. It is a difficulty, too, to them, in what manner the Holy Spirit is in the Trinity, whom neither the Father nor the Son , nor both, have begotten, although He is the Spirit both of the Father and of the Son. Since, then, men weary us with asking such questions, let us unfold to them, as we are able, whatever wisdom God's gift has bestowed upon our weakness on this subject; neither let us go on our way with consuming envy . Should we say that we are not accustomed to think about such things, it would not be true ; yet if we acknowledge that such subjects commonly dwell in our thoughts, carried away as we are by the love of investigating the truth , then they require of us, by the law of charity, to make known to them what we have herein been able to find out. Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect (for, if the Apostle Paul , how much more must I, who lie far beneath his feet, count myself not to have apprehended!); but, according to my measure, if I forget those things that are behind, and reach forth unto those things which are before, and press towards the mark for the prize of the high calling, I am requested to disclose so much of the road as I have already passed, and the point to which I have reached, whence the course yet remains to bring me to the end. And those make the request, whom a generous charity compels me to serve. Needs must too, and God will grant that, in supplying them with matter to read, I shall profit myself also; and that, in seeking to reply to their inquiries, I shall myself likewise find that for which I was inquiring. Accordingly I have undertaken the task, by the bidding and help of the Lord my God , not so much of discoursing with authority respecting things I know already, as of learning those things by piously discoursing of them.

Those who have said that our Lord Jesus Christ is not God, or not very God, or not the One and only God with the Father, or not truly immortal because he is changeable, are proven wrong by the clearest and most unified voice of divine testimonies. For instance: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." It is clear that we should understand the Word of God to be the only Son of God, of whom it is said later, "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us," referring to that birth of his incarnation, which took place in time from the Virgin. But this passage declares not only that he is God, but also that he is of the same ousia with the Father, because after saying "And the Word was God," it also says, "The same was in the beginning with God: all things were made by him, and without him was not anything made." Not simply all things, but only all things that were made—that is, the whole creation. From this it is evident that he himself was not made, since all things were made by him. And if he was not made, then he is not a creature. But if he is not a creature, then he is of the same ousia with the Father. For all ousia that is not God is creature, and all that is not creature is God. And if the Son is not of the same ousia with the Father, then he is an ousia that was made. And if he is an ousia that was made, then all things were not made by him. But all things were made by him, therefore he is of one and the same ousia with the Father. And so he is not only God, but also very God. And the same John most clearly affirms this in his epistle: "For we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us an understanding, that we may know the true God, and that we may be in his true Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life."

9. They who have said that our Lord Jesus Christ is not God , or not very God , or not with the Father the One and only God , or not truly immortal because changeable, are proved wrong by the most plain and unanimous voice of divine testimonies; as, for instance, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God , and the Word was God. For it is plain that we are to take the Word of God to be the only Son of God , of whom it is afterwards said, And the Word was made flesh , and dwelt among us, on account of that birth of His incarnation , which was wrought in time of the Virgin . But herein is declared, not only that He is God , but also that He is of the same substance with the Father; because, after saying, And the Word was God , it is said also, The same was in the beginning with God: all things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made. Not simply all things; but only all things that were made , that is; the whole creature. From which it appears clearly, that He Himself was not made, by whom all things were made. And if He was not made, then He is not a creature; but if He is not a creature, then He is of the same substance with the Father. For all substance that is not God is creature; and all that is not creature is God . And if the Son is not of the same substance with the Father , then He is a substance that was made: and if He is a substance that was made, then all things were not made by Him; but all things were made by Him, therefore He is of one and the same substance with the Father. And so He is not only God , but also very God. And the same John most expressly affirms this in his epistle: For we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us an understanding, that we may know the true God , and that we may be in His true Son Jesus Christ . This is the true God , and eternal life.

This means that when the Apostle Paul said "Who alone has immortality," he was not referring only to the Father, but to the One and only God, which is the Trinity itself. Whatever is itself eternal life cannot be mortal through any change. Therefore the Son of God, because He is Eternal Life, is also included with the Father when it says "Who only has immortality." We become partakers of this eternal life and become immortal in our own measure. But the eternal life itself, of which we become partakers, is one thing, while we ourselves, who will live eternally by partaking of it, are another. Even if Paul had said, "Whom in His own time the Father will show, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; who only has immortality," it would not necessarily mean that the Son is excluded. For the Son has not separated the Father from Himself, because He Himself, speaking elsewhere with the voice of wisdom (for He Himself is the Wisdom of God), says, "I alone compassed the circuit of heaven." Therefore it is even less necessary to understand the words "Who has immortality" as referring to the Father alone, excluding the Son, when they are stated like this: "That you keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ: whom in His own time He will show, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; who only has immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man has seen, nor can see: to whom be honor and power everlasting. Amen." In these words, neither the Father is specifically named, nor the Son, nor the Holy Spirit, but the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords—that is, the One and only and true God, the Trinity itself.

10. Hence also it follows by consequence, that the Apostle Paul did not say, Who alone has immortality , of the Father merely; but of the One and only God , which is the Trinity itself. For that which is itself eternal life is not mortal according to any changeableness; and hence the Son of God , because He is Eternal Life, is also Himself understood with the Father , where it is said, Who only has immortality . For we, too, are made partakers of this eternal life, and become, in our own measure, immortal . But the eternal life itself, of which we are made partakers, is one thing; we ourselves, who, by partaking of it, shall live eternally , are another. For if He had said, Whom in His own time the Father will show, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; who only has immortality ; not even so would it be necessarily understood that the Son is excluded. For neither has the Son separated the Father from Himself, because He Himself, speaking elsewhere with the voice of wisdom (for He Himself is the Wisdom of God), says, I alone compassed the circuit of heaven. And therefore so much the more is it not necessary that the words, Who has immortality , should be understood of the Father alone, omitting the Son; when they are said thus: That you keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ : whom in His own time He will show, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; who only has immortality , dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man has seen, nor can see: to whom be honor and power everlasting. Amen . In which words neither is the Father specially named, nor the Son , nor the Holy Spirit ; but the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; that is, the One and only and true God , the Trinity itself.

11. But perhaps what follows may interfere with this meaning, because it says, "Whom no man has seen, nor can see." However, this may also be understood as referring to Christ according to His divinity, which the Jews did not see, even though they saw and crucified Him in the flesh. His divinity cannot be seen by human sight in any way, but is seen with that kind of sight by which those who see are no longer merely human, but beyond human. Therefore, God Himself, the Trinity, is rightly understood to be the blessed and only Potentate, who shows the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in His own time. For the words "Who only has immortality" are said in the same way as it is said, "Who only does wondrous things." And I would like to know of whom they take these words to be said. If only of the Father, how then is that true which the Son Himself says: "For whatever things the Father does, these also the Son does likewise"? Is there any work, among wonderful works, more wonderful than to raise up and give life to the dead? Yet the same Son says, "As the Father raises up the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom He will." How, then, does the Father alone do wondrous things, when these words allow us to understand neither the Father only, nor the Son only, but assuredly the one only true God—that is, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit?

11. But perhaps what follows may interfere with this meaning; because it is said, Whom no man has seen, nor can see: although this may also be taken as belonging to Christ according to His divinity, which the Jews did not see, who yet saw and crucified Him in the flesh; whereas His divinity can in no way be seen by human sight, but is seen with that sight with which they who see are no longer men, but beyond men. Rightly, therefore, is God Himself, the Trinity, understood to be the blessed and only Potentate, who shows the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in His own time. For the words, Who only has immortality , are said in the same way as it is said, Who only does wondrous things. And I should be glad to know of whom they take these words to be said. If only of the Father , how then is that true which the Son Himself says, For whatever things the Father does, these also does the Son likewise? Is there any, among wonderful works , more wonderful than to raise up and quicken the dead? Yet the same Son says, As the Father raises up the dead, and quickens them, even so the Son quickens whom He will. How, then, does the Father alone do wondrous things, when these words allow us to understand neither the Father only, nor the Son only, but assuredly the one only true God , that is, the Father , and the Son , and the Holy Spirit ?

When the same apostle says, "But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by Him," who can doubt that he is speaking of all created things? This is the same as when John says, "All things were made by Him." I ask, therefore, about whom the apostle speaks in another place: "For of Him, and through Him, and in Him, are all things: to whom be glory forever. Amen." If this refers to the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, with each clause assigned to each person—"of Him" meaning of the Father, "through Him" meaning through the Son, "in Him" meaning in the Holy Spirit—then it is clear that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit is one God, since the words that follow remain in singular number: "To whom be glory forever." For at the beginning of the passage he does not say, "O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of the Father," or "of the Son," or "of the Holy Spirit," but "of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past finding out! For who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been His counsellor? Or who has first given to Him and it shall be repaid to him again? For of Him, and through Him, and in Him, are all things: to whom be glory forever. Amen." But if they insist this should be understood only of the Father, then how are all things by the Father, as is said here, and also all things by the Son, as is said to the Corinthians, "And one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things," and as in the Gospel of John, "All things were made by Him"? For if some things were made by the Father and some by the Son, then not all things were made by the Father, nor all things by the Son. But if all things were made by the Father, and all things by the Son, then the same things were made by the Father and by the Son. Therefore, the Son is equal with the Father, and the working of the Father and the Son is indivisible. For if the Father made even the Son—whom the Son Himself certainly did not make—then not all things were made by the Son. But all things were made by the Son. Therefore He Himself was not made, so that with the Father He might make all things that were made. And the apostle has not refrained from using the very word itself, but has said most expressly, "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God," using here the name of God specially for the Father, as elsewhere, "But the head of Christ is God."

12. Also, when the same apostle says, But to us there is but one God , the Father , of whom are all things, and we in Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ , by whom are all things, and we by Him, who can doubt that he speaks of all things which are created; as does John, when he says, All things were made by Him ? I ask, therefore, of whom he speaks in another place: For of Him, and through Him, and in Him, are all things: to whom be glory forever. Amen . For if of the Father , and the Son , and the Holy Spirit , so as to assign each clause severally to each person: of Him, that is to say, of the Father; through Him, that is to say, through the Son; in Him, that is to say, in the Holy Spirit — it is manifest that the Father , and the Son , and the Holy Spirit is one God , inasmuch as the words continue in the singular number, To whom be glory forever. For at the beginning of the passage he does not say, O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of the Father , or of the Son , or of the Holy Spirit , but of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past finding out! For who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been His counsellor? Or who has first given to Him and it shall be recompensed unto him again? For of Him, and through Him, and in Him, are all things: to whom be glory forever. Amen . But if they will have this to be understood only of the Father , then in what way are all things by the Father , as is said here; and all things by the Son , as where it is said to the Corinthians, And one Lord Jesus Christ , by whom are all things, and as in the Gospel of John , All things were made by Him? For if some things were made by the Father , and some by the Son , then all things were not made by the Father , nor all things by the Son; but if all things were made by the Father , and all things by the Son , then the same things were made by the Father and by the Son. The Son, therefore, is equal with the Father , and the working of the Father and the Son is indivisible. Because if the Father made even the Son , whom certainly the Son Himself did not make, then all things were not made by the Son; but all things were made by the Son: therefore He Himself was not made, that with the Father He might make all things that were made. And the apostle has not refrained from using the very word itself, but has said most expressly, Who, being in the form of God , thought it not robbery to be equal with God ; using here the name of God specially of the Father; as elsewhere, But the head of Christ is God .

Similar evidence has been gathered concerning the Holy Spirit. Earlier writers who have discussed this subject have made full use of this evidence to show that the Holy Spirit is also God, and not a creature. If He is not a creature, then He is not only God in the ordinary sense (since even human beings are sometimes called gods), but truly God. Therefore, He is absolutely equal with the Father and the Son, and within the unity of the Trinity He is consubstantial and coeternal with them. That the Holy Spirit is not a creature is made especially clear by the passage where we are commanded not to serve the creature but the Creator. This is not the kind of service we are commanded to show one another through love, which in Greek is douleuein, but the kind of service that belongs to God alone, which in Greek is latreuein. This is why those who give to images the service that is due to God are called idolaters. This is the service referred to when it says, "You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only shall you serve." This is found even more clearly in the Greek Scriptures, which use latreuein. Now if we are forbidden to serve the creature with this kind of service, since it is written, "You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only shall you serve"—and the apostle likewise condemns those who worship and serve the creature rather than the Creator—then certainly the Holy Spirit is not a creature, since all the saints offer Him this service. As the apostle says, "For we are the circumcision, which serve the Spirit of God," which in Greek is latreuontes. Most Latin copies also have it this way: "We who serve the Spirit of God." Nearly all Greek copies have it so. Although in some Latin copies we find not "We worship the Spirit of God" but "We worship God in the Spirit," let those who are mistaken on this point and refuse to yield to the stronger authority tell us whether they also find this text varied in the manuscripts: "Do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, which is in you, which you have from God?" What could be more foolish or more profane than for anyone to dare say that the members of Christ are the temple of one who, in their view, is a creature inferior to Christ? The apostle says elsewhere, "Your bodies are members of Christ." But if the members of Christ are also the temple of the Holy Spirit, then the Holy Spirit is not a creature, because we must owe to Him, whose temple our body is, that service which is to be given to God alone, which in Greek is called latreia. Accordingly the apostle says, "Therefore glorify God in your body."

13. Similar evidence has been collected also concerning the Holy Spirit , of which those who have discussed the subject before ourselves have most fully availed themselves, that He too is God , and not a creature. But if not a creature, then not only God (for men likewise are called gods ), but also very God ; and therefore absolutely equal with the Father and the Son , and in the unity of the Trinity consubstantial and co-eternal. But that the Holy Spirit is not a creature is made quite plain by that passage above all others, where we are commanded not to serve the creature, but the Creator; not in the sense in which we are commanded to serve one another by love , which is in Greek δουλεύειν , but in that in which God alone is served, which is in Greek λατρεύειν . From whence they are called idolaters who tender that service to images which is due to God . For it is this service concerning which it is said, You shall worship the Lord your God , and Him only shall you serve. For this is found also more distinctly in the Greek Scriptures, which have λατρεύσεις . Now if we are forbidden to serve the creature with such a service, seeing that it is written, You shall worship the Lord your God , and Him only shall you serve (and hence, too, the apostle repudiates those who worship and serve the creature more than the Creator), then assuredly the Holy Spirit is not a creature, to whom such a service is paid by all the saints ; as says the apostle, For we are the circumcision , which serve the Spirit of God , which is in the Greek λατρεύοντες . For even most Latin copies also have it thus, We who serve the Spirit of God ; but all Greek ones, or almost all, have it so. Although in some Latin copies we find, not We worship the Spirit of God , but, We worship God in the Spirit . But let those who err in this case, and refuse to give up to the more weighty authority, tell us whether they find this text also varied in the mss.: Do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost , which is in you, which you have of God? Yet what can be more senseless or more profane, than that any one should dare to say that the members of Christ are the temple of one who, in their opinion, is a creature inferior to Christ? For the apostle says in another place, Your bodies are members of Christ . But if the members of Christ are also the temple of the Holy Spirit , then the Holy Spirit is not a creature; because we must needs owe to Him, of whom our body is the temple, that service wherewith God only is to be served, which in Greek is called λατρεία . And accordingly the apostle says, Therefore glorify God in your body.

In these and similar testimonies from the divine Scriptures, which our predecessors freely used (as I have said) to refute the sophistries or errors of the heretics, the unity and equality of the Trinity are communicated to our faith. However, because many things are said in the sacred books in such a way as to signify, or even most clearly declare, the Father to be greater than the Son—due to the incarnation of the Word of God for accomplishing our salvation, so that the man Christ Jesus might be the Mediator between God and men—some people have made errors through failing to carefully examine or consider the whole scope of the Scriptures. They have tried to apply those things which are said of Jesus Christ according to the flesh to that substance of His which was eternal before the incarnation and is eternal. For instance, they say that the Son is less than the Father because it is written that the Lord Himself said, "My Father is greater than I." But the truth shows that in the same sense the Son is less also than Himself, for how was He not made less also than Himself, who emptied Himself and took upon Himself the form of a servant? For He did not take the form of a servant in such a way that He lost the form of God, in which He was equal to the Father. If, then, the form of a servant was taken without losing the form of God, since He Himself is the same only-begotten Son of God the Father both in the form of a servant and in the form of God—in the form of God equal to the Father, in the form of a servant the Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus—is there anyone who cannot understand that He Himself in the form of God is also greater than Himself, but likewise in the form of a servant less than Himself? And therefore Scripture rightly says both things: both that the Son is equal to the Father and that the Father is greater than the Son. For there is no confusion when the former is understood as referring to the form of God and the latter as referring to the form of a servant. In truth, this principle for resolving the question throughout all the sacred Scriptures is set forth in one chapter of an epistle of the Apostle Paul, where this distinction is clearly enough commended to us. For he says, "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but emptied Himself and took upon Him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men, and was found in fashion as a man." The Son of God, then, is equal to God the Father in nature, but less in fashion. For in the form of a servant which He took, He is less than the Father; but in the form of God, in which He also existed before He took the form of a servant, He is equal to the Father. In the form of God He is the Word, by whom all things are made; but in the form of a servant He was made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem those who were under the law. Similarly, in the form of God He made man; in the form of a servant He was made man. For if the Father alone had made man without the Son, it would not have been written, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness." Therefore, because the form of God took the form of a servant, both is God and both is man; but both God, on account of God who takes; and both man, on account of man who is taken. For neither by that taking is one of them turned and changed into the other: the Divinity is not changed into the creature so as to cease to be Divinity, nor the creature into Divinity so as to cease to be creature.

14. In these and like testimonies of the divine Scriptures , by free use of which, as I have said, our predecessors exploded such sophistries or errors of the heretics , the unity and equality of the Trinity are intimated to our faith . But because, on account of the incarnation of the Word of God for the working out of our salvation , that the man Christ Jesus might be the Mediator between God and men, many things are so said in the sacred books as to signify, or even most expressly declare, the Father to be greater than the Son; men have erred through a want of careful examination or consideration of the whole tenor of the Scriptures , and have endeavored to transfer those things which are said of Jesus Christ according to the flesh, to that substance of His which was eternal before the incarnation , and is eternal . They say, for instance, that the Son is less than the Father , because it is written that the Lord Himself said, My Father is greater than I. But the truth shows that after the same sense the Son is less also than Himself; for how was He not made less also than Himself, who emptied Himself, and took upon Him the form of a servant? For He did not so take the form of a servant as that He should lose the form of God , in which He was equal to the Father. If, then, the form of a servant was so taken that the form of God was not lost, since both in the form of a servant and in the form of God He Himself is the same only-begotten Son of God the Father , in the form of God equal to the Father , in the form of a servant the Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; is there any one who cannot perceive that He Himself in the form of God is also greater than Himself, but yet likewise in the form of a servant less than Himself? And not, therefore, without cause the Scripture says both the one and the other, both that the Son is equal to the Father , and that the Father is greater than the Son. For there is no confusion when the former is understood as on account of the form of God , and the latter as on account of the form of a servant. And, in truth , this rule for clearing the question through all the sacred Scriptures is set forth in one chapter of an epistle of the Apostle Paul , where this distinction is commended to us plainly enough. For he says, Who, being in the form of God , thought it not robbery to be equal with God ; but emptied Himself, and took upon Him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: and was found in fashion as a man . The Son of God , then, is equal to God the Father in nature, but less in fashion. For in the form of a servant which He took He is less than the Father; but in the form of God , in which also He was before He took the form of a servant, He is equal to the Father. In the form of God He is the Word, by whom all things are made; but in the form of a servant He was made of a woman , made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law. In like manner, in the form of God He made man; in the form of a servant He was made man. For if the Father alone had made man without the Son , it would not have been written, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. Therefore, because the form of God took the form of a servant, both is God and both is man; but both God , on account of God who takes; and both man, on account of man who is taken. For neither by that taking is the one of them turned and changed into the other: the Divinity is not changed into the creature, so as to cease to be Divinity; nor the creature into Divinity, so as to cease to be creature.

As for what the apostle says, "And when all things shall be subdued unto Him, then shall the Son also Himself be subject unto Him that put all things under Him": either the text has been expressed this way to prevent anyone from thinking that the form of Christ, which He took according to human nature, would later be transformed into the Divinity, or (to put it more precisely) into the Godhead itself, which is not a creature but is the unity of the Trinity—a nature incorporeal, unchangeable, consubstantial, and co-eternal with itself; or if anyone argues, as some have thought, that the text "Then shall the Son also Himself be subject unto Him that put all things under Him" is expressed this way so that one may believe that very subjection to be a future change and conversion of the creature into the substance or ousia itself of the Creator—that is, that what had been the substance of a creature shall become the substance of the Creator—such a person at least admits this, which truly cannot be doubted, that this had not yet happened when the Lord said, "My Father is greater than I." For He said this not only before He ascended into heaven, but also before He had suffered and risen from the dead. But those who think that the human nature in Him is to be changed and converted into the substance of the Godhead, and that it was said "Then shall the Son also Himself be subject unto Him that put all things under Him"—as if to say, Then also the Son of man Himself, and the human nature taken by the Word of God, shall be changed into the nature of Him who put all things under Him—must also think that this will happen when, after the day of judgment, He shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father. And therefore even still, according to this opinion, the Father is greater than that form of a servant which was taken from the Virgin. But if some claim even further that the man Christ Jesus has already been changed into the substance of God, at least they cannot deny that the human nature still remained when He said before His passion, "For my Father is greater than I"; so there is no question that it was said in this sense, that the Father is greater than the form of a servant, while in the form of God the Son is equal to Him. Nor should anyone, hearing what the apostle says, "But when He says all things are put under Him, it is manifest that He is excepted which did put all things under Him," think the words "that He has put all things under the Son" are to be understood of the Father in such a way that he should not think that the Son Himself put all things under Himself. For this the apostle plainly declares when he says to the Philippians, "For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like His glorious body, according to the working whereby He is able even to subdue all things unto Himself." For the working of the Father and of the Son is indivisible. Otherwise, neither has the Father Himself put all things under Himself, but the Son has put all things under Him, who delivers the kingdom to Him and puts down all rule and all authority and power. For these words are spoken of the Son: "When He shall have delivered up," says the apostle, "the kingdom to God, even the Father; when He shall have put down all rule, and all authority, and all power." For the same one who puts down also makes subject.

15. As for that which the apostle says, And when all things shall be subdued unto Him, then shall the Son also Himself be subject unto Him that put all things under Him: either the text has been so turned, lest any one should think that the fashion of Christ , which He took according to the human creature, was to be transformed hereafter into the Divinity, or (to express it more precisely) the Godhead itself, who is not a creature, but is the unity of the Trinity, — a nature incorporeal, and unchangeable, and consubstantial, and co-eternal with itself; or if any one contends, as some have thought, that the text, Then shall the Son also Himself be subject unto Him that put all things under Him, is so turned in order that one may believe that very subjection to be a change and conversion hereafter of the creature into the substance or essence itself of the Creator, that is, that that which had been the substance of a creature shall become the substance of the Creator;– such an one at any rate admits this, of which in truth there is no possible doubt , that this had not yet taken place, when the Lord said, My Father is greater than I. For He said this not only before He ascended into heaven, but also before He had suffered, and had risen from the dead. But they who think that the human nature in Him is to be changed and converted into the substance of the Godhead, and that it was so said, Then shall the Son also Himself be subject unto Him that put all things under Him, — as if to say, Then also the Son of man Himself, and the human nature taken by the Word of God , shall be changed into the nature of Him who put all things under Him — must also think that this will then take place, when, after the day of judgment, He shall have delivered up the kingdom to God , even the Father. And hence even still, according to this opinion, the Father is greater than that form of a servant which was taken of the Virgin . But if some affirm even further, that the man Christ Jesus has already been changed into the substance of God , at least they cannot deny that the human nature still remained, when He said before His passion , For my Father is greater than I; whence there is no question that it was said in this sense, that the Father is greater than the form of a servant, to whom in the form of God the Son is equal. Nor let any one, hearing what the apostle says, But when He says all things are put under Him, it is manifest that He is excepted which did put all things under Him, think the words, that He has put all things under the Son , to be so understood of the Father , as that He should not think that the Son Himself put all things under Himself. For this the apostle plainly declares, when he says to the Philippians, For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour , the Lord Jesus Christ : who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like His glorious body, according to the working whereby He is able even to subdue all things unto Himself. For the working of the Father and of the Son is indivisible. Otherwise, neither has the Father Himself put all things under Himself, but the Son has put all things under Him, who delivers the kingdom to Him, and puts down all rule and all authority and power. For these words are spoken of the Son: When He shall have delivered up, says the apostle, the kingdom to God , even the Father; when He shall have put down all rule, and all authority, and all power. For the same that puts down, also makes subject.

We should not think that Christ will hand over the kingdom to God the Father in such a way that He takes it away from Himself. Some foolish talkers have actually thought this. When it says "He shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father," He Himself is not excluded, because He is one God together with the Father. But the word "until" deceives those who read the divine Scriptures carelessly yet are eager for controversies. The text continues, "For He must reign, until He has put all enemies under His feet," as if when He had done so, He would no longer reign. They do not realize that this is said in the same way as that other text, "His heart is established: He shall not be afraid, until He see His desire upon His enemies." For He will not then be afraid when He has seen it. What then does "When He shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father" mean, as if God and the Father does not have the kingdom now? Because He is going to bring all the just—over whom the Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, now reigns as they live by faith—to that sight which the same apostle calls face to face, therefore the words "When He shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father" mean the same as "When He shall have brought believers to the contemplation of God, even the Father." For He says, "All things are delivered unto me of my Father, and no man knows the Son but the Father; neither knows any man the Father save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him." The Father will then be revealed by the Son when He shall have put down all rule, and all authority, and all power—that is, in such a way that there will no longer be any need for any economy of similitudes through angelic rulers, authorities, and powers. This is what is appropriately understood in what is said in the Song of Songs to the bride: "We will make you borders of gold, with studs of silver, while the King sits at His table"—that is, as long as Christ is in His secret place, since "your life is hid with Christ in God; when Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall you also appear with Him in glory." Before that time, "we see now through a glass, in an enigma"—that is, in similitudes—"but then face to face."

16. Neither may we think that Christ shall so give up the kingdom to God , even the Father , as that He shall take it away from Himself. For some vain talkers have thought even this. For when it is said, He shall have delivered up the kingdom to God , even the Father , He Himself is not excluded; because He is one God together with the Father. But that word until deceives those who are careless readers of the divine Scriptures , but eager for controversies. For the text continues, For He must reign, until He has put all enemies under His feet; as though, when He had so put them, He would no more reign. Neither do they perceive that this is said in the same way as that other text, His heart is established: He shall not be afraid, until He see His desire upon His enemies. For He will not then be afraid when He has seen it. What then means, When He shall have delivered up the kingdom to God , even the Father , as though God and the Father has not the kingdom now? But because He is hereafter to bring all the just, over whom now, living by faith , the Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, reigns, to that sight which the same apostle calls face to face; therefore the words, When He shall have delivered up the kingdom to God , even the Father , are as much as to say, When He shall have brought believers to the contemplation of God , even the Father. For He says, All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knows the Son , but the Father; neither knows any man the Father , save the Son , and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him. The Father will then be revealed by the Son , when He shall have put down all rule, and all authority, and all power; that is, in such wise that there shall be no more need of any economy of similitudes, by means of angelic rulers, and authorities, and powers. Of whom that is not unfitly understood, which is said in the Song of Songs to the bride, We will make you borders of gold, with studs of silver, while the King sits at His table; that is, as long as Christ is in His secret place: since your life is hid with Christ in God ; when Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall you also appear with Him in glory . Before which time, we see now through a glass, in an enigma, that is, in similitudes, but then face to face.

For this contemplation is presented to us as the goal of all our actions and the everlasting fullness of joy. For we are the sons of God, and it does not yet appear what we shall be, but we know that when He shall appear, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is. For what He said to His servant Moses—I am that I am, thus shall you say to the children of Israel, I Am has sent me to you—this is what we shall contemplate when we shall live in eternity. For so it is said, And this is life eternal, that they might know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom You have sent. This shall happen when the Lord shall have come and shall have brought to light the hidden things of darkness, when the darkness of this present mortality and corruption shall have passed away. Then will be our morning, which is spoken of in the Psalm, In the morning will I direct my prayer unto You, and will contemplate You. Of this contemplation I understand it to be said, When He shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father—that is, when He shall have brought the righteous, over whom now, living by faith, the Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus, reigns, to the contemplation of God, even the Father. If in this I am foolish, let him who knows better correct me; to me at least the case seems as I have said. For we shall not seek anything else when we shall have come to the contemplation of Him. But that contemplation is not yet, so long as our joy is in hope. For hope that is seen is not hope, for what a man sees, why does he yet hope for? But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it, as long as the King sits at His table. Then will take place that which is written, In Your presence is fullness of joy. Nothing more than that joy will be required, because there will be nothing more that can be required. For the Father will be revealed to us, and that will satisfy us. And this much Philip had well understood, so that he said to the Lord, Show us the Father, and it satisfies us. But he had not yet understood that he himself was able to say this very same thing in this way also: Lord, show Yourself to us, and it satisfies us. For, that he might understand this, the Lord replied to him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet have you not known me, Philip? He that has seen me has seen the Father. But because He intended him, before he could see this, to live by faith, He went on to say, Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? For while we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord, for we walk by faith, not by sight. For contemplation is the reward of faith, for which reward our hearts are purified by faith, as it is written, Purifying their hearts by faith. And that our hearts are to be purified for this contemplation is proved above all by this text, Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God. And that this is life eternal, God says in the Psalm, With long life will I satisfy him, and show him my salvation. Whether, therefore, we hear, Show us the Son, or whether we hear, Show us the Father, it is all the same, since neither can be revealed without the other. For they are one, as He also Himself says, My Father and I are one. Finally, on account of this very indivisibility, it is sufficient that sometimes the Father alone, or the Son alone, should be named, as hereafter to fill us with the joy of His countenance.

17. For this contemplation is held forth to us as the end of all actions, and the everlasting fullness of joy . For we are the sons of God ; and it does not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when He shall appear, we shall be like Him; for we shall see Him as He is. For that which He said to His servant Moses , I am that I am; thus shall you say to the children of Israel , I Am has sent me to you; this it is which we shall contemplate when we shall live in eternity . For so it is said, And this is life eternal , that they might know You, the only true God , and Jesus Christ , whom You have sent. This shall be when the Lord shall have come, and shall have brought to light the hidden things of darkness; when the darkness of this present mortality and corruption shall have passed away. Then will be our morning, which is spoken of in the Psalm, In the morning will I direct my prayer unto You, and will contemplate You. Of this contemplation I understand it to be said, When He shall have delivered up the kingdom to God , even the Father; that is, when He shall have brought the just, over whom now, living by faith , the Mediator between God and man , the man Christ Jesus, reigns, to the contemplation of God , even the Father. If herein I am foolish, let him who knows better correct me; to me at least the case seems as I have said. For we shall not seek anything else, when we shall have come to the contemplation of Him. But that contemplation is not yet, so long as our joy is in hope. For hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man sees, why does he yet hope for? But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it, viz . as long as the King sits at His table. Then will take place that which is written, In Your presence is fullness of joy . Nothing more than that joy will be required; because there will be nothing more than can be required. For the Father will be manifested to us, and that will suffice for us. And this much Philip had well understood, so that he said to the Lord, Show us the Father , and it suffices us. But he had not yet understood that he himself was able to say this very same thing in this way also: Lord, show Yourself to us, and it suffices us. For, that he might understand this, the Lord replied to him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet have you not known me, Philip? He that has seen me has seen the Father. But because He intended him, before he could see this, to live by faith , He went on to say, Do you not believe that I am in the Father , and the Father in me? For while we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: for we walk by faith , not by sight. For contemplation is the recompense of faith , for which recompense our hearts are purified by faith ; as it is written, Purifying their hearts by faith . And that our hearts are to be purified for this contemplation , is proved above all by this text, Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God. And that this is life eternal , God says in the Psalm, With long life will I satisfy him, and show him my salvation . Whether, therefore, we hear, Show us the Son; or whether we hear, Show us the Father; it is even all one, since neither can be manifested without the other. For they are one, as He also Himself says, My Father and I are one. Finally, on account of this very indivisibility, it suffices that sometimes the Father alone, or the Son alone, should be named, as hereafter to fill us with the joy of His countenance.

The Spirit of neither the Father nor the Son is excluded here—that is, the Holy Spirit who is specially called the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive. To enjoy God the Trinity, in whose image we are made, is truly the fullness of our joy, and there is no joy greater than this. For this reason, the Holy Spirit is sometimes spoken of as if He alone is enough for our blessedness. And He is indeed enough by Himself, because He cannot be separated from the Father and the Son. The Father alone is sufficient because He cannot be separated from the Son and the Holy Spirit. The Son alone is sufficient because He cannot be separated from the Father and the Holy Spirit. What does Christ mean when He says, "If you love me, keep my commandments; and I will pray the Father, and He shall give you another Comforter, that He may abide with you forever; even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive"—that is, whom the lovers of the world cannot receive? For the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God. But it might seem, furthermore, as if the words "And I will pray the Father, and He shall give you another Comforter" were spoken as if the Son alone were not sufficient. And that passage speaks of the Spirit as if He alone were completely sufficient: "When He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth." Tell me, then, is the Son excluded here, as if He did not teach all truth, or as if the Holy Spirit were to complete what the Son could not fully teach? Let them say, if they wish, that the Holy Spirit is greater than the Son, whom they usually call lesser. Or is it perhaps because the text does not say "He alone" or "No one else except Himself will guide you into all truth" that they allow that the Son also may be believed to teach together with Him? In that case, the apostle has excluded the Son from knowing the things of God where he says, "Even so the things of God knows no one, but the Spirit of God"—so that these misguided people might on this basis go on to say that only the Holy Spirit teaches even the Son the things of God, as the greater teaches the lesser. To this Holy Spirit the Son Himself gives so much importance that He says, "But because I have said these things to you, sorrow has filled your heart. Nevertheless I tell you the truth: it is expedient for you that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Comforter will not come to you."

18. Neither is the Spirit of either thence excluded, that is, the Spirit of the Father and of the Son; which Holy Spirit is specially called the Spirit of truth , whom the world cannot receive. For to have the fruition of God the Trinity, after whose image we are made, is indeed the fullness of our joy , than which there is no greater. On this account the Holy Spirit is sometimes spoken of as if He alone sufficed to our blessedness: and He does alone so suffice, because He cannot be divided from the Father and the Son ; as the Father alone is sufficient, because He cannot be divided from the Son and the Holy Spirit ; and the Son alone is sufficient because He cannot be divided from the Father and the Holy Spirit . For what does He mean by saying, If you love me, keep my commandments; and I will pray the Father , and He shall give you another Comforter, that He may abide with you for ever; even the Spirit of truth , whom the world cannot receive, that is, the lovers of the world? For the natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God . But it may perhaps seem, further, as if the words, And I will pray the Father , and He shall give you another Comforter, were so said as if the Son alone were not sufficient. And that place so speaks of the Spirit , as if He alone were altogether sufficient: When He, the Spirit of truth , has come, He will guide you into all truth . Pray, therefore, is the Son here excluded, as if He did not teach all truth , or as if the Holy Spirit were to fill up that which the Son could not fully teach? Let them say then, if it pleases them, that the Holy Spirit is greater than the Son , whom they are wont to call less. Or is it, forsooth, because it is not said, He alone — or, No one else except Himself — will guide you into all truth , that they allow that the Son also may be believed to teach together with Him? In that case the apostle has excluded the Son from knowing those things which are of God , where he says, Even so the things of God knows no one, but the Spirit of God : so that these perverse men might, upon this ground, go on to say that none but the Holy Spirit teaches even the Son the things of God , as the greater teaches the less; to whom the Son Himself ascribes so much as to say, But because I have said these things unto you, sorrow has filled your heart. Nevertheless I tell you the truth ; it is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you.

This is said not because the Word of God and the Holy Spirit are unequal, but because the presence of the Son of man with them would hinder the coming of the one who was not less—since he did not empty himself by taking the form of a servant as the Son did. It was necessary, then, for the form of a servant to be removed from their sight, because by gazing upon it they thought that what they saw was all that Christ was. This also explains what is said: "If you loved me, you would rejoice because I said, 'I go unto the Father; for my Father is greater than I.'" This means: it is necessary for me to go to the Father because, while you see me in this way, you consider me less than the Father through what you see. Being focused on the creature and the form I have taken upon myself, you do not perceive the equality I have with the Father. This also explains: "Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father." Touch, as it were, limits their understanding, and he did not want the thought of the heart directed toward him to be so limited that he would be considered only what he appeared to be. But the ascension to the Father meant appearing as he is equal to the Father, so that the limit of the sight that suffices us might be reached there. Sometimes it is also said of the Son alone that he himself suffices, and the whole reward of our love and longing is presented as the sight of him. For it is said: "He that has my commandments, and keeps them, he it is that loves me; and he that loves me shall be loved of my Father; and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him." Because he did not say here, "And I will show the Father also to him," has he therefore excluded the Father? On the contrary, because it is true that "I and my Father are one," when the Father is manifested, the Son also, who is in him, is manifested; and when the Son is manifested, the Father also, who is in him, is manifested. Therefore, just as when it is said, "And I will manifest myself to him," it is understood that he manifests the Father also, so likewise in what is said, "When He shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father," it is understood that he does not take it away from himself. For when he brings believers to the contemplation of God, even the Father, he will doubtless bring them to the contemplation of himself, since he has said, "And I will manifest myself to him." Consequently, when Judas said to him, "Lord, how is it that You will manifest Yourself unto us, and not unto the world?" Jesus answered and said to him, "If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him." See, he manifests not only himself to the one who loves him, because he comes to him together with the Father and abides with him.

But this is said, not on account of any inequality of the Word of God and of the Holy Spirit , but as though the presence of the Son of man with them would be a hindrance to the coming of Him, who was not less, because He did not empty Himself, taking upon Him the form of a servant, as the Son did. It was necessary, then, that the form of a servant should be taken away from their eyes, because, through gazing upon it, they thought that alone which they saw to be Christ. Hence also is that which is said, If you loved me, you would rejoice because I said, 'I go unto the Father; for my Father is greater than I:' that is, on that account it is necessary for me to go to the Father , because, while you see me thus, you hold me to be less than the Father through that which you see; and so, being taken up with the creature and the fashion which I have taken upon me, you do not perceive the equality which I have with the Father. Hence, too, is this: Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father. For touch, as it were, puts a limit to their conception, and He therefore would not have the thought of the heart, directed towards Himself, to be so limited as that He should be held to be only that which He seemed to be. But the ascension to the Father meant, so to appear as He is equal to the Father , that the limit of the sight which suffices us might be attained there. Sometimes also it is said of the Son alone, that He himself suffices, and the whole reward of our love and longing is held forth as in the sight of Him. For so it is said, He that has my commandments, and keeps them, he it is that loves me; and he that loves me shall be loved of my Father; and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him. Pray, because He has not here said, And I will show the Father also to him, has He therefore excluded the Father? On the contrary, because it is true , I and my Father are one, when the Father is manifested, the Son also, who is in Him, is manifested; and when the Son is manifested, the Father also, who is in Him, is manifested. As, therefore, when it is said, And I will manifest myself to him, it is understood that He manifests also the Father; so likewise in that which is said, When He shall have delivered up the kingdom to God , even the Father , it is understood that He does not take it away from Himself; since, when He shall bring believers to the contemplation of God , even the Father , doubtless He will bring them to the contemplation of Himself, who has said, And I will manifest myself to him. And so, consequently, when Judas had said to Him, Lord, how is it that You will manifest Yourself unto us, and not unto the world? Jesus answered and said to him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. Behold, that He manifests not only Himself to him by whom He is loved, because He comes to him together with the Father , and abides with him.

Perhaps someone might think that when the Father and the Son make their home with the person who loves them, the Holy Spirit is excluded from that home. But what about what is said earlier concerning the Holy Spirit: "Whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him, but you know Him; for He abides with you, and is in you"? He is therefore not excluded from that home, since it is said of Him, "He abides with you, and is in you"—unless perhaps someone is foolish enough to think that when the Father and the Son have come to make their home with the one who loves them, the Holy Spirit will leave and make room for those who are greater. But Scripture itself opposes this fleshly notion, for it says a little earlier: "I will pray the Father, and He shall give you another Comforter, that He may abide with you forever." He will not therefore leave when the Father and the Son come, but will be in the same home with them eternally, because He will not come without them, nor they without Him. But in order to indicate the Trinity, certain things are stated separately, with each Person being individually named; yet these are not to be understood as though the other Persons were excluded, because of the unity of the same Trinity and the one ousia and Godhead of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

19. Will it perhaps be thought, that when the Father and the Son make their abode with him who loves them, the Holy Spirit is excluded from that abode? What, then, is that which is said above of the Holy Spirit : Whom the world cannot receive, because it sees Him not: but you know Him; for He abides with you, and is in you ? He, therefore, is not excluded from that abode, of whom it is said, He abides with you, and is in you; unless, perhaps, any one be so senseless as to think, that when the Father and the Son have come that they may make their abode with him who loves them, the Holy Spirit will depart thence, and (as it were) give place to those who are greater. But the Scripture itself meets this carnal idea; for it says a little above: I will pray the Father , and He shall give you another Comforter, that He may abide with you forever. He will not therefore depart when the Father and the Son come, but will be in the same abode with them eternally ; because neither will He come without them, nor they without Him. But in order to intimate the Trinity, some things are separately affirmed, the Persons being also each severally named; and yet are not to be understood as though the other Persons were excluded, on account of the unity of the same Trinity and the One substance and Godhead of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit .

Our Lord Jesus Christ will therefore deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father, without excluding Himself or the Holy Spirit from it. He will do this when He brings believers to the contemplation of God, which is the goal of all good actions and represents everlasting rest and joy that will never be taken from us. He indicates this in His words: I will see you again, and your heart shall rejoice; and your joy no man takes from you. Mary, sitting at the Lord's feet and earnestly listening to His word, gave us a picture of this joy. She rested from all activity and focused on the truth in the way this present life allows, thereby prefiguring what will exist for eternity. While her sister Martha was busy with necessary tasks—good and useful though they were, but destined to pass away when rest comes—Mary herself was resting in the Lord's word. When Martha complained that her sister wasn't helping her, the Lord replied: Mary has chosen the best part, which shall not be taken away from her. He didn't say Martha was doing something bad, but rather that Mary had chosen the best part that will not be taken away. The part occupied with serving a need will be taken away when the need itself passes away, since the reward for good work that passes away is rest that will not pass away. In that contemplation, then, God will be all in all, because nothing else but Himself will be needed. It will be enough to be enlightened by and to enjoy Him alone. Therefore, the one in whom the Spirit makes intercession with groanings which cannot be uttered says: One thing have I desired of the Lord, that I will seek after; that I may dwell in the house of the Lord all the days of my life, to contemplate the beauty of the Lord. For we shall then contemplate God—the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit—when the Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father. At that point He will no longer make intercession for us as our Mediator and Priest, Son of God and Son of man. Instead, He Himself too, insofar as He is a Priest who took the form of a servant for us, shall be put under Him who has put all things under Him, and under whom He has put all things. This means that insofar as He is God, He with the Father will have put us under Himself; insofar as He is a Priest, He with us will be put under the Father. Therefore, since the incarnate Son is both God and man, it is more accurate to say that the manhood in the Son is another substance from the Son, than to say that the Son in the Father is another substance from the Father. This is similar to how the bodily nature of my soul is more another substance in relation to my soul itself, even though they exist in one and the same man, than the soul of another man is in relation to my soul.

20. Our Lord Jesus Christ , therefore, will so deliver up the kingdom to God , even the Father , Himself not being thence excluded, nor the Holy Spirit , when He shall bring believers to the contemplation of God , wherein is the end of all good actions, and everlasting rest, and joy which never will be taken from us. For He signifies this in that which He says: I will see you again, and your heart shall rejoice ; and your joy no man takes from you. Mary, sitting at the feet of the Lord, and earnestly listening to His word, foreshowed a similitude of this joy ; resting as she did from all business, and intent upon the truth , according to that manner of which this life is capable, by which, however, to prefigure that which shall be for eternity . For while Martha, her sister, was cumbered about necessary business, which, although good and useful, yet, when rest shall have succeeded, is to pass away, she herself was resting in the word of the Lord. And so the Lord replied to Martha, when she complained that her sister did not help her: Mary has chosen the best part, which shall not be taken away from her. He did not say that Martha was acting a bad part; but that best part that shall not be taken away. For that part which is occupied in the ministering to a need shall be taken away when the need itself has passed away. Since the reward of a good work that will pass away is rest that will not pass away. In that contemplation , therefore, God will be all in all; because nothing else but Himself will be required, but it will be sufficient to be enlightened by and to enjoy Him alone. And so he in whom the Spirit makes intercession with groanings which cannot be uttered, says, One thing have I desired of the Lord, that I will seek after; that I may dwell in the house of the Lord all the days of my life, to contemplate the beauty of the Lord. For we shall then contemplate God , the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit , when the Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, shall have delivered up the kingdom to God , even the Father , so as no longer to make intercession for us, as our Mediator and Priest, Son of God and Son of man ; but that He Himself too, in so far as He is a Priest that has taken the form of a servant for us, shall be put under Him who has put all things under Him, and under whom He has put all things: so that, in so far as He is God , He with Him will have put us under Himself; in so far as He is a Priest, He with us will be put under Him. And therefore as the [incarnate] Son is both God and man , it is rather to be said that the manhood in the Son is another substance [from the Son], than that the Son in the Father [is another substance from the Father]; just as the carnal nature of my soul is more another substance in relation to my soul itself, although in one and the same man, than the soul of another man is in relation to my soul .

When Christ delivers up the kingdom to God, even the Father—that is, when He brings those who believe and live by faith, for whom He now makes intercession as Mediator, to that contemplation for which we now long and groan, and when labor and groaning have passed away—then, since the kingdom will have been delivered up to God, even the Father, He will no longer make intercession for us. He indicates this when He says: "These things I have spoken to you in similitudes; but the time comes when I will no longer speak to you in similitudes, but I will declare to you plainly of the Father"—that is, they will no longer be similitudes when the sight is face to face. For this is what He means by "I will declare to you plainly of the Father," as if He said, "I will plainly show you the Father." He says "I will declare to you" because He is His Word. For He continues: "At that day you will ask in my name; and I do not say to you that I will pray the Father for you, for the Father Himself loves you, because you have loved me and have believed that I came out from God. I came forth from the Father and have come into the world; again, I leave the world and go to the Father." What does "I came forth from the Father" mean, except that I have not appeared in that form in which I am equal to the Father, but otherwise—that is, as less than the Father in the creature I have taken upon myself? And what does "I have come into the world" mean, except that I have revealed to the eyes even of sinners who love this world the form of a servant that I took, making myself of no reputation? And what does "Again, I leave the world" mean, except that I take away from the sight of the lovers of this world what they have seen? And what does "I go to the Father" mean, except that I teach those who are my faithful ones to understand me in that being in which I am equal to the Father? Those who believe this will be counted worthy of being brought by faith to sight—that is, to that very sight, in bringing them to which He is said to deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father. For His faithful ones, whom He has redeemed with His blood, are called His kingdom, for whom He now intercedes; but then, making them to abide in Himself there where He is equal to the Father, He will no longer pray the Father for them. For He says, "the Father Himself loves you." Indeed, He prays insofar as He is less than the Father, but as He is equal with the Father, He grants with the Father. Therefore He certainly does not exclude Himself from what He says, "The Father Himself loves you," but He means it to be understood in the manner I have spoken of above and sufficiently indicated—namely, that for the most part each Person of the Trinity is so named that the other Persons are also to be understood. Accordingly, "For the Father Himself loves you" is said in such a way that consequently both the Son and the Holy Spirit are also to be understood. This does not mean He does not love us now, since He spared not His own Son but delivered Him up for us all. But God loves us as we shall be, not as we are, for those whom He loves are such as those whom He keeps eternally, which will be the case when He who now makes intercession for us will have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father, so as no longer to ask the Father, because the Father Himself loves us. But for what merit, except that of faith, by which we believe before we see what is promised? For by this faith we will arrive at sight, so that He may love us, being such as He loves us in order that we may become—and not such as He hates us because we are, and exhorts and enables us to wish not to be always.

21. When, therefore, He shall have delivered up the kingdom to God , even the Father , — that is, when He shall have brought those who believe and live by faith , for whom now as Mediator He makes intercession, to that contemplation , for the obtaining of which we sigh and groan, and when labor and groaning shall have passed away — then, since the kingdom will have been delivered up to God , even the Father , He will no more make intercession for us. And this He signifies, when He says: These things have I spoken unto you in similitudes; but the time comes when I shall no more speak unto you in similitudes, but I shall declare to you plainly of the Father: that is, they will not then be similitudes, when the sight shall be face to face. For this it is which He says, But I will declare to you plainly of the Father; as if He said I will plainly show you the Father. For He says, I will declare to you, because He is His word. For He goes on to say, At that day you shall ask in my name; and I say not unto you, that I will pray the Father for you: for the Father Himself loves you, because you have loved me, and have believed that I came out from God . I came forth from the Father , and have come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father. What is meant by I came forth from the Father , unless this, that I have not appeared in that form in which I am equal to the Father , but otherwise, that is, as less than the Father , in the creature which I have taken upon me? And what is meant by I have come into the world, unless this, that I have manifested to the eyes even of sinners who love this world, the form of a servant which I took, making myself of no reputation ? And what is meant by Again, I leave the world, unless this, that I take away from the sight of the lovers of this world that which they have seen? And what is meant by I go to the Father , unless this, that I teach those who are my faithful ones to understand me in that being in which I am equal to the Father? Those who believe this will be thought worthy of being brought by faith to sight, that is, to that very sight, in bringing them to which He is said to deliver up the kingdom to God , even the Father. For His faithful ones, whom He has redeemed with His blood, are called His kingdom, for whom He now intercedes; but then, making them to abide in Himself there, where He is equal to the Father , He will no longer pray the Father for them. For, He says, the Father Himself loves you. For indeed He prays , in so far as He is less than the Father; but as He is equal with the Father , He with the Father grants. Wherefore He certainly does not exclude Himself from that which He says, The Father Himself loves you; but He means it to be understood after that manner which I have above spoken of, and sufficiently intimated — namely, that for the most part each Person of the Trinity is so named, that the other Persons also may be understood. Accordingly, For the Father Himself loves you, is so said that by consequence both the Son and the Holy Spirit also may be understood: not that He does not now love us, who spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all; but God loves us, such as we shall be, not such as we are, for such as they are whom He loves, such are they whom He keeps eternally ; which shall then be, when He who now makes intercession for us shall have delivered up the kingdom to God , even the Father , so as no longer to ask the Father , because the Father Himself loves us. But for what deserving, except of faith , by which we believe before we see that which is promised? For by this faith we shall arrive at sight; so that He may love us, being such, as He loves us in order that we may become; and not such, as He hates us because we are, and exhorts and enables us to wish not to be always.

Therefore, once we have mastered this rule for interpreting the Scriptures concerning the Son of God—that we must distinguish what relates to the form of God, in which He is equal to the Father, and what relates to the form of a servant which He took, in which He is less than the Father—we will not be troubled by apparently contradictory and conflicting statements in the sacred books. For both the Son and the Holy Spirit, according to the form of God, are equal to the Father, because neither of them is a creature, as we have already shown. But according to the form of a servant, He is less than the Father, because He Himself said, "My Father is greater than I." And He is less than Himself, because it is said of Him, "He emptied Himself." And He is less than the Holy Spirit, because He Himself says, "Whoever speaks a word against the Son of man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven." And in the Spirit He also worked miracles, saying, "But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you." And in Isaiah He says—in the passage which He Himself read in the synagogue and showed without any doubt to be fulfilled concerning Himself—"The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me, because He has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives," and so on. He declares that He was sent to do these things because the Spirit of God is upon Him. According to the form of God, all things were made by Him. According to the form of a servant, He was Himself made of a woman, made under the law. According to the form of God, He and the Father are one. According to the form of a servant, He came not to do His own will, but the will of Him who sent Him. According to the form of God, "As the Father has life in Himself, so He has given to the Son to have life in Himself." According to the form of a servant, His soul is sorrowful even to death, and He says, "O my Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me." According to the form of God, He is the true God and eternal life. According to the form of a servant, He became obedient to death, even death on a cross. According to the form of God, all things that the Father has are His, and He says, "All that is mine is Yours, and Yours is mine." According to the form of a servant, the teaching is not His own, but belongs to Him who sent Him.

22. Wherefore, having mastered this rule for interpreting the Scriptures concerning the Son of God , that we are to distinguish in them what relates to the form of God , in which He is equal to the Father , and what to the form of a servant which He took, in which He is less than the Father; we shall not be disquieted by apparently contrary and mutually repugnant sayings of the sacred books. For both the Son and the Holy Spirit , according to the form of God , are equal to the Father , because neither of them is a creature, as we have already shown: but according to the form of a servant He is less than the Father , because He Himself has said, My Father is greater than I; and He is less than Himself, because it is said of Him, He emptied Himself; and He is less than the Holy Spirit , because He Himself says, Whosoever speaks a word against the Son of man , it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever speaks against the Holy Ghost , it shall not be forgiven Him. And in the Spirit too He wrought miracles , saying: But if I with the Spirit of God cast out devils, no doubt the kingdom of God has come upon you. And in Isaiah He says — in the lesson which He Himself read in the synagogue , and showed without a scruple of doubt to be fulfilled concerning Himself — The Spirit of the Lord God , He says, is upon me: because He has anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives, etc.: for the doing of which things He therefore declares Himself to be sent, because the Spirit of God is upon Him. According to the form of God , all things were made by Him; according to the form of a servant, He was Himself made of a woman , made under the law. According to the form of God , He and the Father are one; according to the form of a servant, He came not to do His own will, but the will of Him that sent Him. According to the form of God , As the Father has life in Himself, so has He given to the Son to have life in Himself; according to the form of a servant, His soul is sorrowful even unto death; and, O my Father, He says, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me. According to the form of God , He is the True God , and eternal life; according to the form of a servant, He became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. — 23. According to the form of God , all things that the Father has are His, and All mine, He says, are Yours, and Yours are mine; according to the form of a servant, the doctrine is not His own, but His that sent Him.

Again, "Of that day and that hour knows no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven; neither the Son, but the Father." For He is ignorant of this in the sense of making others ignorant—that is, He did not know it in such a way as to reveal it to His disciples at that time. This is similar to what was said to Abraham, "Now I know that you fear God," which means "now I have caused you to know it," because Abraham, being tested in that trial, came to know this about himself. For Christ was certainly going to tell His disciples this same thing at the proper time. Speaking of this future event as if it were already past, He says, "From now on I call you not servants, but friends; for the servant does not know what his Lord does, but I have called you friends, for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known to you." He had not yet done this, but spoke as though He had already done it, because He certainly would do it. For He says to the disciples themselves, "I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now." Among these things is to be understood also the matter of the day and hour. For the apostle Paul also says, "I determined not to know anything among you, except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified," because he was speaking to those who were not able to receive higher teachings concerning the Godhead of Christ. To them he also says a little later, "I could not speak to you as to spiritual people, but as to fleshly." He was ignorant, therefore, among them of what they were not able to learn from him. And he said he knew only what it was fitting for them to know from him. In short, he knew among the mature what he did not know among infants, for he says there, "We speak wisdom among those who are mature." For a man is said not to know what he conceals, according to that kind of speech by which a ditch is called blind when it is hidden. For the Scriptures do not use any other kind of speech than may be found in use among people, because they speak to people.

Again, Of that day and that hour knows no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven; neither the Son , but the Father. For He is ignorant of this, as making others ignorant ; that is, in that He did not so know as at that time to show His disciples : as it was said to Abraham , Now I know that you fear God , that is, now I have caused you to know it; because he himself, being tried in that temptation , became known to himself. For He was certainly going to tell this same thing to His disciples at the fitting time; speaking of which yet future as if past, He says, Henceforth I call you not servants, but friends; for the servant knows not what his Lord does: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you; which He had not yet done, but spoke as though He had already done it, because He certainly would do it. For He says to the disciples themselves, I have yet many things to say unto you; but you cannot bear them now. Among which is to be understood also, Of the day and hour. For the apostle also says, I determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ , and Him crucified; because he was speaking to those who were not able to receive higher things concerning the Godhead of Christ . To whom also a little while after he says, I could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal. He was ignorant , therefore, among them of that which they were not able to know from him. And that only he said that he knew , which it was fitting that they should know from him. In short, he knew among the perfect what he knew not among babes; for he there says: We speak wisdom among them that are perfect. For a man is said not to know what he hides, after that kind of speech, after which a ditch is called blind which is hidden. For the Scriptures do not use any other kind of speech than may be found in use among men , because they speak to men.

According to the form of God, it is said "Before all the hills He begot me," that is, before all the heights of created things, and "Before the dawn I begot You," that is, before all times and temporal things. But according to the form of a servant, it is said "The Lord created me in the beginning of His ways." Because, according to the form of God, He said "I am the truth," and according to the form of a servant, "I am the way." Since He Himself, being the first-begotten of the dead, made a passage to the kingdom of God and to eternal life for His Church, to which He is the Head in such a way as to make the body also immortal, therefore He was created in the beginning of the ways of God in His work. For according to the form of God, He is the beginning who also speaks to us, in which beginning God created the heaven and the earth. But according to the form of a servant, He is a bridegroom coming out of His chamber. According to the form of God, He is the first-born of every creature, and He is before all things and by Him all things hold together. According to the form of a servant, He is the head of the body, the Church. According to the form of God, He is the Lord of glory. From this it is clear that He Himself glorifies His saints, for "Whom He predestined, them He also called; and whom He called, them He also justified; and whom He justified, them He also glorified." Accordingly, it is said of Him that He justifies the ungodly. Of Him it is said that He is just and a justifier. If, therefore, He has also glorified those whom He has justified, then He who justifies also Himself glorifies. He is, as I have said, the Lord of glory. Yet according to the form of a servant, He replied to His disciples when they were inquiring about their own glorification: "To sit on my right hand and on my left is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared by my Father."

24. According to the form of God , it is said Before all the hills He begot me, that is, before all the loftinesses of things created and, Before the dawn I begot You, that is, before all times and temporal things: but according to the form of a servant, it is said, The Lord created me in the beginning of His ways. Because, according to the form of God , He said, I am the truth ; and according to the form of a servant, I am the way. For, because He Himself, being the first-begotten of the dead, made a passage to the kingdom of God to life eternal for His Church, to which He is so the Head as to make the body also immortal , therefore He was created in the beginning of the ways of God in His work. For, according to the form of God , He is the beginning, that also speaks unto us, in which beginning God created the heaven and the earth; but according to the form of a servant, He is a bridegroom coming out of His chamber. According to the form of God , He is the first-born of every creature, and He is before all things and by him all things consist; according to the form of a servant, He is the head of the body, the Church . According to the form of God , He is the Lord of glory . From which it is evident that He Himself glorifies His saints : for, Whom He did predestinate , them He also called; and whom He called, them He also justified; and whom He justified, them He also glorified . Of Him accordingly it is said, that He justifies the ungodly; of Him it is said, that He is just and a justifier. If, therefore, He has also glorified those whom He has justified, He who justifies, Himself also glorifies; who is, as I have said, the Lord of glory . Yet, according to the form of a servant, He replied to His disciples , when inquiring about their own glorification: To sit on my right hand and on my left is not mine to give, but [it shall be given to them] for whom it is prepared by my Father.

According to the form of God, He and the Father are one, so what the Father prepares is also prepared by the Son Himself. We have already shown through many passages in the divine Scriptures that in this Trinity, what is said of each person is also said of all, because of the indivisible working of one and the same substance. For example, Christ says of the Holy Spirit, "If I depart, I will send Him unto you." He did not say "We will send," but spoke as if the Son alone would send Him, not the Father. Yet in another place He says, "These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you; but the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, He shall teach you all things." Here again He speaks as if the Son would not send Him, but only the Father. Therefore, just as in these texts, so also when He says, "But for them for whom it is prepared by my Father," He means us to understand that He Himself, together with the Father, prepares seats of glory for those for whom He will. But someone may object: In the passages about the Holy Spirit, He says He will send Him without denying the Father will send Him, and says the Father will send Him without denying He will do so Himself; but here He explicitly says, "It is not mine to give," and then says these things are prepared by the Father. However, this is exactly what we have already established as being said according to the form of a servant: namely, that we should understand "It is not mine to give" as if He said, "This is not in the power of man to give," so that He may be understood to give it through that wherein He is God equal to the Father. "It is not mine," He says, "to give"—that is, I do not give these things by human power, but to those for whom it is prepared by my Father; but understand also that if all things which the Father has are mine, then this certainly is mine also, and I together with the Father have prepared these things.

25. But that which is prepared by His Father is prepared also by the Son Himself, because He and the Father are one. For we have already shown, by many modes of speech in the divine Scriptures , that, in this Trinity, what is said of each is also said of all, on account of the indivisible working of the one and same substance. As He also says of the Holy Spirit , If I depart, I will send Him unto you. He did not say, We will send; but in such way as if the Son only should send Him, and not the Father; while yet He says in another place, These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you; but the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost , whom the Father will send in my name, He shall teach you all things. Here again it is so said as if the Son also would not send Him, but the Father only. As therefore in these texts, so also where He says, But for them for whom it is prepared by my Father, He meant it to be understood that He Himself, with the Father , prepares seats of glory for those for whom He will. But some one may say: There, when He spoke of the Holy Spirit , He so says that He Himself will send Him, as not to deny that the Father will send Him; and in the other place, He so says that the Father will send Him, as not to deny that He will do so Himself; but here He expressly says, It is not mine to give, and so goes on to say that these things are prepared by the Father. But this is the very thing which we have already laid down to be said according to the form of a servant: viz. , that we are so to understand It is not mine to give, as if it were said, This is not in the power of man to give; that so He may be understood to give it through that wherein He is God equal to the Father. It is not mine, He says, to give; that is, I do not give these things by human power, but to those for whom it is prepared by my Father; but then take care you understand also, that if all things which the Father has are mine, then this certainly is mine also, and I with the Father have prepared these things.

26. I ask again, in what sense is it said, "If any man does not hear my words, I will not judge him"? Perhaps He said "I will not judge him" here in the same sense as He said elsewhere "It is not mine to give." But what follows here? "I came not," He says, "to judge the world, but to save the world"; and then He adds, "He that rejects me and does not receive my words has one that judges him." Now here we would naturally understand this to mean the Father, except that He added, "The word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day." Well then, will neither the Son judge, because He says "I will not judge him," nor the Father, but rather the word which the Son has spoken? No, but hear what follows next: "For I," He says, "have not spoken of myself; but the Father who sent me, He gave me a commandment, what I should say and what I should speak; and I know that His commandment is life everlasting: therefore whatever I speak, even as the Father said to me, so I speak." If therefore the Son does not judge, but the word which the Son has spoken does; and the word which the Son has spoken judges because the Son has not spoken of Himself, but the Father who sent Him gave Him a commandment what He should say and what He should speak: then certainly the Father judges, whose word it is that the Son has spoken; and this same Son Himself is the very Word of the Father. For the commandment of the Father is not one thing and the word of the Father another; for He has called it both a word and a commandment. Let us see, therefore, whether perhaps when He says "I have not spoken of myself," He meant to be understood thus: "I am not born of myself." For if He speaks the word of the Father, then He speaks Himself, because He is Himself the Word of the Father. Ordinarily when He says "The Father gave to me," He means it to be understood that the Father begot Him—not that He gave something to Him who already existed and did not possess it, but that the very meaning of "To have given that He might have" is "To have begotten that He might be." For it is not with the Son of God—before the incarnation and before He took upon Him our flesh, the Only-begotten by whom all things were made—as it is with the creature: that He is one thing and has another. Rather He is in such a way as to be what He has. And this is said more plainly, if anyone is able to receive it, in that place where He says: "For as the Father has life in Himself, so has He given to the Son to have life in Himself." For He did not give to Him—already existing and not having life—that He should have life in Himself; rather, in that He is, He is life. Therefore "He gave to the Son to have life in Himself" means He begot the Son to be unchangeable life, which is life eternal. Since, therefore, the Word of God is the Son of God, and the Son of God is the true God and eternal life, as John says in his Epistle, what else are we to acknowledge here when the Lord says "The word which I have spoken, the same shall judge him at the last day," and calls that very word the word of the Father and the commandment of the Father, and that very commandment everlasting life? And "I know," He says, "that His commandment is life everlasting."

26. For I ask again, in what manner this is said, If any man hear not my words, I will not judge him? For perhaps He has said here, I will not judge him, in the same sense as there, It is not mine to give. But what follows here? I came not, He says, to judge the world, but to save the world; and then He adds, He that rejects me, and receives not my words, has one that judges him. Now here we should understand the Father , unless He had added, The word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. Well, then, will neither the Son judge, because He says, I will not judge him, nor the Father , but the word which the Son has spoken? Nay, but hear what yet follows: For I, He says, have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, He gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak; and I know that His commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said to me, so I speak. If therefore the Son judges not, but the word which the Son has spoken; and the word which the Son has spoken therefore judges, because the Son has not spoken of Himself, but the Father who sent Him gave Him a commandment what He should say, and what He should speak: then the Father assuredly judges, whose word it is which the Son has spoken; and the same Son Himself is the very Word of the Father. For the commandment of the Father is not one thing, and the word of the Father another; for He has called it both a word and a commandment. Let us see, therefore, whether perchance, when He says, I have not spoken of myself, He meant to be understood thus — I am not born of myself. For if He speaks the word of the Father , then He speaks Himself, because He is Himself the Word of the Father. For ordinarily He says, The Father gave to me; by which He means it to be understood that the Father begot Him: not that He gave anything to Him, already existing and not possessing it; but that the very meaning of, To have given that He might have, is, To have begotten that He might be. For it is not, as with the creature so with the Son of God before the incarnation and before He took upon Him our flesh, the Only-begotten by whom all things were made; that He is one thing, and has another: but He is in such way as to be what He has . And this is said more plainly, if any one is fit to receive it, in that place where He says: For as the Father has life in Himself, so has He given to the Son to have life in Himself. For He did not give to Him, already existing and not having life, that He should have life in Himself; inasmuch as, in that He is , He is life. Therefore He gave to the Son to have life in Himself means, He begot the Son to be unchangeable life, which is life eternal . Since, therefore, the Word of God is the Son of God , and the Son of God is the true God and eternal life, as John says in his Epistle; so here, what else are we to acknowledge when the Lord says, The word which I have spoken, the same shall judge him at the last day, and calls that very word the word of the Father and the commandment of the Father , and that very commandment everlasting life? And I know , He says, that His commandment is life everlasting.

I'm asking, then, how we should understand "I will not judge him; but the Word which I have spoken shall judge him." From what follows, this seems to be said as if He meant, "I will not judge, but the Word of the Father will judge." But the Word of the Father is the Son of God Himself. Should we understand it this way: "I will not judge, but I will judge"? How can this be true unless we take it like this: I will not judge by human power, because I am the Son of man; but I will judge by the power of the Word, because I am the Son of God? Or if it still seems contradictory and inconsistent to say "I will not judge, but I will judge," what should we say about that passage where He says, "My doctrine is not mine"? How is it His when it is not His? He didn't say "This doctrine is not mine," but "My doctrine is not mine." What He called His own, He also called not His own. How can this be true unless He called it His own in one respect and not His own in another? According to the form of God, it is His own; according to the form of a servant, it is not His own. When He says "It is not mine, but His that sent me," He directs us back to the Word itself. For the doctrine of the Father is the Word of the Father, which is the Only Son. And what does this mean: "He that believes in me, believes not on me"? How can someone believe in Him yet not believe in Him? How can such an opposite and inconsistent thing be understood—"Whoever believes in me," He says, "believes not on me, but on Him that sent me"—unless you understand it this way: whoever believes in me believes not in what he sees, so that our hope won't rest in the creature, but in Him who took the creature in order to appear to human eyes and so cleanse our hearts by faith to see Himself as equal to the Father? So when He directs the attention of believers to the Father and says "believes not on me, but on Him that sent me," He certainly didn't mean to separate Himself from the Father, that is, from Him that sent Him. Rather, He meant that people should believe in Himself in the same way they believe in the Father, to whom He is equal. He says this explicitly in another place: "You believe in God, believe also in me"—that is, in the same way as you believe in God, so also believe in me, because I and the Father are One God. Therefore, just as here He has, in a sense, withdrawn people's faith from Himself and transferred it to the Father by saying "believes not on me, but on Him that sent me"—from whom He certainly didn't separate Himself—so also when He says "It is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared by my Father," it's clear, I think, in what respect both should be taken. That other statement is of the same kind: "I will not judge," whereas He Himself shall judge the living and the dead. But because He will not do so by human power, He therefore, returning to the Godhead, lifts people's hearts upward—hearts which He Himself came down to raise up.

27. I ask, therefore, how we are to understand, I will not judge him; but the Word which I have spoken shall judge him: which appears from what follows to be so said, as if He would say, I will not judge; but the Word of the Father will judge. But the Word of the Father is the Son of God Himself. Is it to be so understood: I will not judge, but I will judge? How can this be true , unless in this way: viz ., I will not judge by human power, because I am the Son of man ; but I will judge by the power of the Word, because I am the Son of God ? Or if it still seems contradictory and inconsistent to say, I will not judge, but I will judge; what shall we say of that place where He says, My doctrine is not mine? How mine, when not mine? For He did not say, This doctrine is not mine, but My doctrine is not mine: that which He called His own, the same He called not His own. How can this be true , unless He has called it His own in one relation; not His own, in another? According to the form of God , His own; according to the form of a servant, not His own. For when He says, It is not mine, but His that sent me, He makes us recur to the Word itself. For the doctrine of the Father is the Word of the Father , which is the Only Son. And what, too, does that mean, He that believes in me, believes not on me? How believe in Him, yet not believe in Him? How can so opposite and inconsistent a thing be understood — Whoever believes in me, He says, believes not on me, but on Him that sent me; — unless you so understand it, Whoever believes in me believes not on that which he sees, lest our hope should be in the creature; but on Him who took the creature, whereby He might appear to human eyes, and so might cleanse our hearts by faith , to contemplate Himself as equal to the Father? So that in turning the attention of believers to the Father , and saying, Believes not on me, but on Him that sent me, He certainly did not mean Himself to be separated from the Father , that is, from Him that sent Him; but that men might so believe in Himself, as they believe in the Father , to whom He is equal. And this He says in express terms in another place, You believe in God , believe also in me: that is, in the same way as you believe in God , so also believe in me; because I and the Father are One God. As therefore, here, He has as it were withdrawn the faith of men from Himself, and transferred it to the Father , by saying, Believes not on me, but on Him that sent me, from whom nevertheless He certainly did not separate Himself; so also, when He says, It is not mine to give, but [it shall be given to them] for whom it is prepared by my Father, it is I think plain in what relation both are to be taken. For that other also is of the same kind, I will not judge; whereas He Himself shall judge the quick and dead. But because He will not do so by human power, therefore, reverting to the Godhead, He raises the hearts of men upwards; which to lift up, He Himself came down.

Yet unless the very same person were the Son of man because of the form of a servant which He took, who is the Son of God because of the form of God in which He exists, the apostle Paul would not say of the rulers of this world, "For had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." For He was crucified according to the form of a servant, and yet the Lord of glory was crucified. For that taking was such that it made God man, and man God. Yet what is said because of what, and what is said according to what, the thoughtful, diligent, and pious reader discerns for himself, with the Lord's help. For instance, we have said that He glorifies His own as being God, and certainly then as being the Lord of glory; and yet the Lord of glory was crucified, because even God is rightly said to have been crucified, not according to the power of the divinity, but according to the weakness of the flesh. Just as we say that He judges as God, that is, by divine power, not by human power; and yet the man Himself will judge, just as the Lord of glory was crucified. For so He expressly says, "When the Son of man shall come in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, and before Him shall be gathered all nations," and the rest that is foretold of the future judgment in that passage even to the last sentence. And the Jews, inasmuch as they will be punished in that judgment for persisting in their wickedness, as it is written elsewhere, shall look upon Him whom they have pierced. For whereas both good and bad shall see the Judge of the living and dead, without doubt the bad will not be able to see Him except according to the form in which He is the Son of man; but yet in the glory in which He will judge, not in the lowliness in which He was judged. But the ungodly without doubt will not see that form of God in which He is equal to the Father. For they are not pure in heart, and "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God." And that sight is face to face, the very sight that is promised as the highest reward to the righteous, and which will then take place when He shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father. And in this kingdom He means the sight of His own form also to be understood, the whole creation being made subject to God, including that wherein the Son of God was made the Son of man. Because, according to this creation, "The Son also Himself shall be subject unto Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all." Otherwise, if the Son of God, judging in the form in which He is equal to the Father, shall appear when He judges to the ungodly also, what becomes of that which He promises, as some great thing, to him who loves Him, saying, "And I will love him, and will manifest myself to him"? Therefore He will judge as the Son of man, yet not by human power, but by that whereby He is the Son of God; and on the other hand, He will judge as the Son of God, yet not appearing in that form in which He is God equal to the Father, but in that form in which He is the Son of man.

28. Yet unless the very same were the Son of man on account of the form of a servant which He took, who is the Son of God on account of the form of God in which He is; Paul the apostle would not say of the princes of this world, For had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory . For He was crucified after the form of a servant, and yet the Lord of glory was crucified. For that taking was such as to make God man, and man God. Yet what is said on account of what, and what according to what, the thoughtful, diligent, and pious reader discerns for himself, the Lord being his helper. For instance, we have said that He glorifies His own, as being God , and certainly then as being the Lord of glory ; and yet the Lord of glory was crucified, because even God is rightly said to have been crucified, not after the power of the divinity, but after the weakness of the flesh: just as we say, that He judges as God , that is, by divine power, not by human ; and yet the man Himself will judge, just as the Lord of glory was crucified: for so He expressly says, When the Son of man shall come in His glory , and all the holy angels with Him, and before Him shall be gathered all nations; and the rest that is foretold of the future judgment in that place even to the last sentence. And the Jews , inasmuch as they will be punished in that judgment for persisting in their wickedness , as it is elsewhere written, shall look upon Him whom they have pierced. For whereas both good and bad shall see the Judge of the quick and dead, without doubt the bad will not be able to see Him, except after the form in which He is the Son of man ; but yet in the glory wherein He will judge, not in the lowliness wherein He was judged. But the ungodly without doubt will not see that form of God in which He is equal to the Father. For they are not pure in heart; and Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God. And that sight is face to face, the very sight that is promised as the highest reward to the just, and which will then take place when He shall have delivered up the kingdom to God , even the Father; and in this kingdom He means the sight of His own form also to be understood, the whole creature being made subject to God , including that wherein the Son of God was made the Son of man . Because, according to this creature, The Son also Himself shall be subject unto Him, that put all things under Him, that God may be all in all. Otherwise if the Son of God , judging in the form in which He is equal to the Father , shall appear when He judges to the ungodly also; what becomes of that which He promises, as some great thing, to him who loves Him, saying, And I will love him, and will manifest myself to him? Wherefore He will judge as the Son of man , yet not by human power, but by that whereby He is the Son of God ; and on the other hand, He will judge as the Son of God , yet not appearing in that [unincarnate] form in which He is God equal to the Father , but in that [incarnate form] in which He is the Son of man .

Therefore we can speak both ways: the Son of man will judge, and the Son of man will not judge. The Son of man will judge, so that the text "When the Son of man shall come, then before Him shall be gathered all nations" may be true. And the Son of man will not judge, so that the texts "I will not judge him" and "I seek not my own glory: there is One that seeks and judges" may be true. For in the judgment, it is not the form of God but the form of the Son of man that will appear, and in this respect the Father Himself will not judge. For according to this it is said, "For the Father judges no man, but has committed all judgment unto the Son." This statement is made either according to that mode of speech we mentioned above, where it says "So has He given to the Son to have life in Himself," which signifies that in this way He begot the Son, or according to what the apostle says: "Wherefore God also has highly exalted Him, and given Him a name which is above every name." This is said of the Son of man, in respect to whom the Son of God was raised from the dead, since He, being in the form of God equal to the Father, from which He emptied Himself by taking the form of a servant, both acts and suffers and receives in that same form of a servant what the apostle continues to mention: "He humbled Himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross; wherefore God also has highly exalted Him, and given Him a name which is above every name; that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, in the Glory of God the Father." Whether then the words "He has committed all judgment unto the Son" are said according to this or that mode of speech, it is sufficiently clear from this passage that if they were said according to the sense in which it says "He has given to the Son to have life in Himself," it certainly would not be said "The Father judges no man." For in respect to this, that the Father has begotten the Son equal to Himself, He judges with Him. Therefore it is in this respect that it is said that in the judgment, not the form of God but the form of the Son of man will appear. This does not mean He will not judge who has committed all judgment unto the Son, since the Son says of Him, "There is One that seeks and judges." Rather, it is said "The Father judges no man, but has committed all judgment unto the Son" as if to say: No one will see the Father in the judgment of the quick and the dead, but all will see the Son, because He is also the Son of man, so that He can be seen even by the ungodly, since they too shall see Him whom they have pierced.

29. Therefore both ways of speaking may be used; the Son of man will judge, and, the Son of man will not judge: since the Son of man will judge, that the text may be true which says, When the Son of man shall come, then before Him shall be gathered all nations; and the Son of man will not judge, that the text may be true which says, I will not judge him; and, I seek not my own glory : there is One that seeks and judges. For in respect to this, that in the judgment, not the form of God , but the form of the Son of man will appear, the Father Himself will not judge; for according to this it is said, For the Father judges no man, but has committed all judgment unto the Son. Whether this is said after that mode of speech which we have mentioned above, where it is said, So has He given to the Son to have life in Himself, that it should signify that so He begot the Son; or, whether after that of which the apostle speaks, saying, Wherefore God also has highly exalted Him, and given Him a name which is above every name: — (For this is said of the Son of man , in respect to whom the Son of God was raised from the dead; since He, being in the form of God equal to the Father , wherefrom He emptied Himself by taking the form of a servant, both acts and suffers, and receives, in that same form of a servant, what the apostle goes on to mention: He humbled Himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross; wherefore God also has highly exalted Him, and given Him a name which is above every name; that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, in the Glory of God the Father: — whether then the words, He has committed all judgment unto the Son , are said according to this or that mode of speech; it sufficiently appears from this place, that if they were said according to that sense in which it is said, He has given to the Son to have life in Himself, it certainly would not be said, The Father judges no man. For in respect to this, that the Father has begotten the Son equal to Himself, He judges with Him. Therefore it is in respect to this that it is said, that in the judgment, not the form of God , but the form of the Son of man will appear. Not that He will not judge, who has committed all judgment unto the Son , since the Son says of Him, There is One that seeks and judges: but it is so said, The Father judges no man, but has committed all judgment unto the Son; as if it were said, No one will see the Father in the judgment of the quick and the dead, but all will see the Son: because He is also the Son of man , so that He can be seen even by the ungodly, since they too shall see Him whom they have pierced.

However, to avoid appearing to conjecture this rather than proving it clearly, let us present a certain and plain statement of the Lord Himself, by which we may show that this was the reason why He said, The Father judges no man, but has committed all judgment unto the Son—namely, because He will appear as Judge in the form of the Son of man, which is not the form of the Father but of the Son. Nor is it even that form of the Son in which He is equal to the Father, but that in which He is less than the Father, so that in the judgment He may be visible both to the good and to the bad. For a little while later He says, Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that hears my word, and believes in Him that sent me, has everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but shall pass from death unto life. Now this eternal life is that vision which does not belong to the bad. Then follows, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear shall live. And this applies to the godly, who hear of His incarnation in such a way as to believe that He is the Son of God—that is, who receive Him, made less than the Father for their sake in the form of a servant, while believing Him equal to the Father in the form of God. And then He continues, emphasizing this very point, For as the Father has life in Himself, so has He given to the Son to have life in Himself. And then He comes to the vision of His own glory, in which He shall come to judgment, which vision will be common to the ungodly and to the just. For He goes on to say, And has given Him authority to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of man. I think nothing can be more clear. For insofar as the Son of God is equal to the Father, He does not receive this power of executing judgment, but He has it with the Father in secret. But He receives it so that the good and the bad may see Him judging, insofar as He is the Son of man. Since the vision of the Son of man will be shown to the bad also, for the vision of the form of God will not be shown except to the pure in heart, for they shall see God—that is, to the godly only, to whose love He promises this very thing, that He will show Himself to them. And see accordingly what follows: Marvel not at this, He says. Why does He forbid us to marvel, unless it be that, in truth, everyone marvels who does not understand that He said the Father gave Him power also to execute judgment because He is the Son of man, whereas it might rather have been expected that He would say, since He is the Son of God? But because the wicked are not able to see the Son of God as He is in the form of God equal to the Father, and yet it is necessary that both the just and the wicked should see the Judge of the living and dead when they are judged in His presence—Marvel not at this, He says, for the hour is coming, in which all that are in the graves shall hear His voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation. For this purpose, then, it was necessary that He should receive that power because He is the Son of man, so that all in rising again might see Him in the form in which He can be seen by all, but by some to damnation, by others to eternal life. And what is eternal life, unless that vision which is not granted to the ungodly? That they might know You, He says, the One true God, and Jesus Christ, whom You have sent. And how are they to know Jesus Christ Himself also, unless as the One true God, who will show Himself to them—not as He will show Himself in the form of the Son of man to those also who shall be punished?

30. Lest, however, we may seem to conjecture this rather than to prove it clearly, let us produce a certain and plain sentence of the Lord Himself, by which we may show that this was the cause why He said, The Father judges no man, but has committed all judgment unto the Son , viz . because He will appear as Judge in the form of the Son of man , which is not the form of the Father , but of the Son; nor yet that form of the Son in which He is equal to the Father , but that in which He is less than the Father; in order that, in the judgment, He may be visible both to the good and to the bad. For a little while after He says, Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that hears my word, and believes in Him that sent me, has everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but shall pass from death unto life. Now this life eternal is that sight which does not belong to the bad. Then follows, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God , and they that hear shall live. And this is proper to the godly, who so hear of His incarnation , as to believe that He is the Son of God , that is, who so receive Him, as made for their sakes less than the Father , in the form of a servant, that they believe Him equal to the Father , in the form of God . And thereupon He continues, enforcing this very point, For as the Father has life in Himself, so has He given to the Son to have life in Himself. And then He comes to the sight of His own glory , in which He shall come to judgment; which sight will be common to the ungodly and to the just. For He goes on to say, And has given Him authority to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of man . I think nothing can be more clear. For inasmuch as the Son of God is equal to the Father , He does not receive this power of executing judgment, but He has it with the Father in secret; but He receives it, so that the good and the bad may see Him judging, inasmuch as He is the Son of man . Since the sight of the Son of man will be shown to the bad also: for the sight of the form of God will not be shown except to the pure in heart, for they shall see God ; that is, to the godly only, to whose love He promises this very thing, that He will show Himself to them. And see, accordingly, what follows: Marvel not at this, He says. Why does He forbid us to marvel, unless it be that, in truth , every one marvels who does not understand, that therefore He said the Father gave Him power also to execute judgment, because He is the Son of man ; whereas, it might rather have been anticipated that He would say, since He is the Son of God ? But because the wicked are not able to see the Son of God as He is in the form of God equal to the Father , but yet it is necessary that both the just and the wicked should see the Judge of the quick and dead, when they will be judged in His presence; Marvel not at this, He says, for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear His voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil , unto the resurrection of damnation. For this purpose, then, it was necessary that He should therefore receive that power, because He is the Son of man , in order that all in rising again might see Him in the form in which He can be seen by all, but by some to damnation, by others to life eternal . And what is life eternal , unless that sight which is not granted to the ungodly? That they might know You, He says, the One true God , and Jesus Christ , whom You have sent. And how are they to know Jesus Christ Himself also, unless as the One true God , who will show Himself to them; not as He will show Himself, in the form of the Son of man , to those also that shall be punished?

He is good according to that sight by which God appears to the pure in heart, for truly God is good to Israel, even to those who are clean in heart. But when the wicked see the Judge, He will not seem good to them, because they will not rejoice in their heart to see Him. Instead, all kindreds of the earth will wail because of Him, being counted among all the wicked and unbelievers. For this reason, He also replied to the man who had called Him Good Master, when seeking His advice on how to attain eternal life, Why do you ask me about good? There is none good but One, that is, God. And yet the Lord Himself, in another place, calls man good: A good man, He says, out of the good treasure of his heart, brings forth good things, and an evil man, out of the evil treasure of his heart, brings forth evil things. But because that man was seeking eternal life, and eternal life consists in that contemplation in which God is seen, not for punishment, but for everlasting joy, and because he did not understand with whom he was speaking, and thought Him to be only the Son of man, He says, Why do you ask me about good? That is, with respect to that form which you see, why do you ask about good, and call me, according to what you see, Good Master? This is the form of the Son of man, the form which has been taken, the form that will appear in judgment, not only to the righteous, but also to the ungodly, and the sight of this form will not be for good to those who are wicked. But there is a sight of that form of mine, in which when I was, I thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but in order to take this form I emptied myself. That one God, therefore, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, who will not appear except for joy which cannot be taken away from the just, for which future joy he sighs who says, One thing have I desired of the Lord, that will I seek after, that I may dwell in the house of the Lord all the days of my life, to behold the beauty of the Lord. That one God, therefore, Himself, I say, is alone good, for this reason, that no one sees Him for sorrow and wailing, but only for salvation and true joy. If you understand me according to this latter form, then I am good, but if according to that former only, then why do you ask me about good? If you are among those who shall look upon Him whom they have pierced, that very sight itself will be evil to them, because it will be penal. That the Lord said, Why do you ask me about good? There is none good but One, that is, God, with this meaning, is probable based on the proofs I have given, because that sight of God, by which we shall contemplate the ousia (substance) of God unchangeable and invisible to human eyes, which is promised to the saints alone, which the Apostle Paul speaks of as face to face, and of which the Apostle John says, We shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is, and of which it is said, One thing have I desired of the Lord, that I may behold the beauty of the Lord, and of which the Lord Himself says, I will both love him, and will manifest myself to him, and on account of which alone we cleanse our hearts by faith, that we may be those pure in heart who are blessed for they shall see God, and whatever else is spoken of that sight, which whosoever turns the eye of love to seek it may find most abundantly scattered through all the Scriptures, that sight alone, I say, is our chief good, for the attaining of which we are directed to do whatever we do rightly. But that sight of the Son of man which is foretold, when all nations shall be gathered before Him, and shall say to Him, Lord, when saw we You hungry, or thirsty, and so on, will neither be a good to the ungodly, who shall be sent into everlasting fire, nor the chief good to the righteous. For He still goes on to call these to the kingdom which has been prepared for them from the foundation of the world. For, as He will say to those, Depart into everlasting fire, so to these, Come, you blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you. And as those will go into everlasting burning, so the righteous will go into life eternal. But what is life eternal, except that they may know You, He says, the One true God, and Jesus Christ, whom You have sent, but know Him now in that glory of which He says to the Father, Which I had with You before the world was. For then He will deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father, that the good servant may enter into the joy of his Lord, and that He may hide those whom God keeps in the hiding of His countenance from the confusion of men, namely, of those men who shall then be confounded by hearing this sentence, of which evil hearing the righteous man shall not be afraid if only he be kept in the tabernacle, that is, in the true faith of the Catholic Church, from the strife of tongues, that is, from the sophistries of heretics. But if there is any other explanation of the Lord's words, where He says, Why do you ask me about good? There is none good, but One, that is, God, provided only that the ousia of the Father not therefore be believed to be of greater goodness than that of the Son, according to which He is the Word by whom all things were made, and if there is nothing in it contrary to sound doctrine, let us securely use it, and not one explanation only, but as many as we are able to find. For the more outlets are open for avoiding their snares, the more powerfully are the heretics proved wrong. But let us now start afresh, and address ourselves to the consideration of that which still remains.

31. He is good, according to that sight, according to which God appears to the pure in heart; for truly God is good unto Israel even to such as are of a clean heart. But when the wicked shall see the Judge, He will not seem good to them; because they will not rejoice in their heart to see Him, but all kindreds of the earth shall then wail because of Him, namely, as being reckoned in the number of all the wicked and unbelievers. On this account also He replied to him, who had called Him Good Master, when seeking advice of Him how he might attain eternal life, Why do you ask me about good? there is none good but One, that is, God. And yet the Lord Himself, in another place, calls man good: A good man, He says, out of the good treasure of his heart, brings forth good things: and an evil man, out of the evil treasure of his heart, brings forth evil things. But because that man was seeking eternal life, and eternal life consists in that contemplation in which God is seen, not for punishment, but for everlasting joy ; and because he did not understand with whom he was speaking, and thought Him to be only the Son of man : Why, He says, do you ask me about good? That is, with respect to that form which you see, why do you ask about good, and call me, according to what you see, Good Master? This is the form of the Son of man , the form which has been taken, the form that will appear in judgment, not only to the righteous, but also to the ungodly; and the sight of this form will not be for good to those who are wicked . But there is a sight of that form of mine, in which when I was, I thought it not robbery to be equal with God: but in order to take this form I emptied myself. That one God , therefore, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit , who will not appear, except for joy which cannot be taken away from the just; for which future joy he sighs, who says, One thing have I desired of the Lord, that will I seek after; that I may dwell in the house of the Lord all the days of my life, to behold the beauty of the Lord: that one God , therefore, Himself, I say, is alone good, for this reason, that no one sees Him for sorrow and wailing, but only for salvation and true joy . If you understand me after this latter form, then I am good; but if according to that former only, then why do you ask me about good? If you are among those who shall look upon Him whom they have pierced, that very sight itself will be evil to them, because it will be penal. That after this meaning, then, the Lord said, Why do you ask me about good? There is none good but One, that is, God , is probable upon those proofs which I have alleged, because that sight of God , whereby we shall contemplate the substance of God unchangeable and invisible to human eyes (which is promised to the saints alone; which the Apostle Paul speaks of, as face to face; and of which the Apostle John says, We shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is; and of which it is said, One thing have I desired of the Lord, that I may behold the beauty of the Lord, and of which the Lord Himself says, I will both love him, and will manifest myself to him; and on account of which alone we cleanse our hearts by faith , that we may be those pure in heart who are blessed for they shall see God: and whatever else is spoken of that sight: which whosoever turns the eye of love to seek it, may find most copiously scattered through all the Scriptures ) — that sight alone, I say, is our chief good, for the attaining of which we are directed to do whatever we do aright. But that sight of the Son of man which is foretold, when all nations shall be gathered before Him, and shall say to Him, Lord, when saw we You an hungered, or thirsty, etc.? will neither be a good to the ungodly, who shall be sent into everlasting fire , nor the chief good to the righteous. For He still goes on to call these to the kingdom which has been prepared for them from the foundation of the world. For, as He will say to those, Depart into everlasting fire ; so to these, Come, you blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you. And as those will go into everlasting burning; so the righteous will go into life eternal . But what is life eternal , except that they may know You, He says, the One true God , and Jesus Christ , whom You have sent? but know Him now in that glory of which He says to the Father , Which I had with You before the world was. For then He will deliver up the kingdom to God , even the Father , that the good servant may enter into the joy of his Lord, and that He may hide those whom God keeps in the hiding of His countenance from the confusion of men , namely, of those men who shall then be confounded by hearing this sentence; of which evil hearing the righteous man shall not be afraid if only he be kept in the tabernacle, that is, in the true faith of the Catholic Church , from the strife of tongues, that is, from the sophistries of heretics . But if there is any other explanation of the words of the Lord, where He says, Why do you ask me about good? There is none good, but One, that is, God ; provided only that the substance of the Father be not therefore believed to be of greater goodness than that of the Son , according to which He is the Word by whom all things were made; and if there is nothing in it abhorrent from sound doctrine; let us securely use it, and not one explanation only, but as many as we are able to find. For so much the more powerfully are the heretics proved wrong, the more outlets are open for avoiding their snares. But let us now start afresh, and address ourselves to the consideration of that which still remains.