On the Trinity — Book II

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.