On the Trinity — Book XV

Desiring to train the reader in the things that are made, so that he may know Him by whom they are made, we have now advanced as far as His image, which is man, in that wherein he excels the other animals—that is, in reason or intelligence, and whatever else can be said of the rational or intellectual soul that pertains to what is called the mind. For by this name some Latin writers, according to their own particular way of speaking, distinguish what excels in man and is not in the beast from the soul, which is in the beast as well. If, then, we seek anything that is above this nature, and seek truly, it is God—namely, a nature not created but creating. And whether this is the Trinity, it is now our task to demonstrate not only to believers by the authority of divine Scripture, but also to those who understand by some kind of reason, if we can. And why I say "if we can," the thing itself will show better when we have begun to argue about it in our inquiry.

1. Desiring to exercise the reader in the things that are made, in order that he may know Him by whom they are made, we have now advanced so far as to His image, which is man, in that wherein he excels the other animals, i.e. in reason or intelligence, and whatever else can be said of the rational or intellectual soul that pertains to what is called the mind. For by this name some Latin writers, after their own peculiar mode of speech, distinguish that which excels in man, and is not in the beast, from the soul, which is in the beast as well. If, then, we seek anything that is above this nature, and seek truly, it is God — namely, a nature not created, but creating. And whether this is the Trinity, it is now our business to demonstrate not only to believers, by authority of divine Scripture, but also to such as understand, by some kind of reason, if we can. And why I say, if we can, the thing itself will show better when we have begun to argue about it in our inquiry.

God Himself, whom we seek, will, I hope, help our efforts so they will not be fruitless, and so we may understand what is said in the holy Psalm: Let the heart of them rejoice that seek the Lord. Seek the Lord, and be strengthened: seek His face evermore. For what is always being sought seems as though it is never found. How then will the heart of those who seek rejoice, and not rather be made sad, if they cannot find what they seek? For it does not say, The heart shall rejoice of those who find, but of those who seek, the Lord. And yet the prophet Isaiah testifies that the Lord God can be found when He is sought, saying: Seek the Lord, and as soon as you have found Him, call upon Him, and when He has drawn near to you, let the wicked man forsake his ways, and the unrighteous man his thoughts. If, then, when sought, He can be found, why is it said, Seek His face evermore? Is He perhaps to be sought even when found? For things incomprehensible must be investigated in such a way that no one may think he has found nothing when he has been able to find how incomprehensible that is which he was seeking. Why then does he continue seeking, if he comprehends that what he seeks is incomprehensible, unless it is because he may not stop seeking so long as he makes progress in the inquiry itself into incomprehensible things, and becomes ever better and better while seeking so great a good, which is both sought in order to be found, and found in order to be sought? For it is both sought in order that it may be found more sweetly, and found in order that it may be sought more eagerly. The words of Wisdom in the book of Ecclesiasticus may be understood in this way: They who eat me shall still be hungry, and they who drink me shall still be thirsty. For they eat and drink because they find, and they still continue seeking because they are hungry and thirsty. Faith seeks, understanding finds. This is why the prophet says, Unless you believe, you shall not understand. And yet, again, understanding still seeks Him whom it finds, for God looked down upon the sons of men, as it is sung in the holy Psalm, to see if there were any that would understand, and seek after God. And therefore man ought to have understanding for this purpose: that he may seek after God.

2. For God Himself, whom we seek, will, as I hope, help our labors, that they may not be unfruitful, and that we may understand how it is said in the holy Psalm, Let the heart of them rejoice that seek the Lord. Seek the Lord, and be strengthened: seek His face evermore. For that which is always being sought seems as though it were never found; and how then will the heart of them that seek rejoice, and not rather be made sad, if they cannot find what they seek? For it is not said, The heart shall rejoice of them that find, but of them that seek, the Lord. And yet the prophet Isaiah testifies, that the Lord God can be found when He is sought, when he says: Seek the Lord; and as soon as you have found Him, call upon Him: and when He has drawn near to you, let the wicked man forsake his ways, and the unrighteous man his thoughts. If, then, when sought, He can be found, why is it said, Seek ye His face evermore? Is He perhaps to be sought even when found? For things incomprehensible must so be investigated, as that no one may think he has found nothing, when he has been able to find how incomprehensible that is which he was seeking. Why then does he so seek, if he comprehends that which he seeks to be incomprehensible, unless because he may not give over seeking so long as he makes progress in the inquiry itself into things incomprehensible, and becomes ever better and better while seeking so great a good, which is both sought in order to be found, and found in order to be sought? For it is both sought in order that it may be found more sweetly, and found in order that it may be sought more eagerly. The words of Wisdom in the book of Ecclesiasticus may be taken in this meaning: They who eat me shall still be hungry, and they who drink me shall still be thirsty. For they eat and drink because they find; and they still continue seeking because they are hungry and thirst. Faith seeks, understanding finds; whence the prophet says, Unless ye believe, you shall not understand. And yet, again, understanding still seeks Him, whom it finds; for God looked down upon the sons of men, as it is sung in the holy Psalm, to see if there were any that would understand, and seek after God. And man, therefore, ought for this purpose to have understanding, that he may seek after God.

We have spent enough time among the things God has made so that through them we may come to know Him who made them. For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made. And for this reason they are rebuked in the book of Wisdom who could not know Him that is from the good things that are seen, and who did not acknowledge the workmaster by considering the works. Instead they thought that the gods governing the world were either fire, or wind, or the swift air, or the circle of the stars, or the violent water, or the lights of heaven. If they were delighted with the beauty of these things and took them to be gods, let them know how much better the Lord of them is, for the first Author of beauty has created them. But if they were amazed at their power and virtue, let them understand by them how much mightier He is that made them. For by the greatness and beauty of the creatures, the Maker of them is seen proportionally. I have quoted these words from the book of Wisdom for this reason: so that no one of the faithful may think I have searched vainly and emptily for traces of that highest Trinity which we seek when we seek God by first looking in the creature, step by step through certain trinities, each of their own appropriate kind, until I came at last to the mind of man.

3. We shall have tarried then long enough among those things that God has made, in order that by them He Himself may be known that made them. For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made. And hence they are rebuked in the book of Wisdom, who could not out of the good things that are seen know Him that is: neither by considering the works did they acknowledge the workmaster; but deemed either fire, or wind, or the swift air or the circle of the stars, or the violent water, or the lights of heaven, to be the gods which govern the world: with whose beauty if they, being delighted, took them to be gods, let them know how much better the Lord of them is; for the first Author of beauty has created them. But if they were astonished at their power and virtue, let them understand by them how much mightier He is that made them. For by the greatness and beauty of the creatures proportionably the Maker of them is seen. I have quoted these words from the book of Wisdom for this reason, that no one of the faithful may think me vainly and emptily to have sought first in the creature, step by step through certain trinities, each of their own appropriate kind, until I came at last to the mind of man, traces of that highest Trinity which we seek when we seek God.

Since the requirements of our discussion and argument have forced us to say many things over the course of fourteen books, which we cannot see all at once in a single glance so that we can quickly bring them to mind in relation to what we want to understand, I will try, with God's help and to the best of my ability, to briefly gather together—without arguing—whatever I have established through argument in each book as something known, and to place it, so to speak, under one mental view. This will present not the way we have been convinced of each point, but the points themselves of which we have been convinced. My purpose is to prevent what follows from being so far removed from what precedes that reading the later material produces forgetfulness of the earlier material. Or if such forgetfulness has already occurred, what has slipped from memory can be quickly recovered by reading again.

4. But since the necessities of our discussion and argument have compelled us to say a great many things in the course of fourteen books, which we cannot view at once in one glance, so as to be able to refer them quickly in thought to that which we desire to grasp, I will attempt, by the help of God, to the best of my power, to put briefly together, without arguing, whatever I have established in the several books by argument as known, and to place, as it were, under one mental view, not the way in which we have been convinced of each point, but the points themselves of which we have been convinced; in order that what follows may not be so far separated from that which precedes, as that the perusal of the former shall produce forgetfulness of the latter; or at any rate, if it have produced such forgetfulness, that what has escaped the memory may be speedily recalled by re-perusal.

In the first book, the unity and equality of the highest Trinity is shown from Holy Scripture. In the second, third, and fourth books, the same point is made. But a careful handling of the question about the sending of the Son and of the Holy Spirit has resulted in three books. We have demonstrated that He who is sent is not therefore less than He who sends, simply because one sent and the other was sent. The Trinity, which is equal in all things and equally unchangeable, invisible, and present everywhere in its own nature, works indivisibly. In the fifth book, we address those who think the substance of the Father and of the Son is not the same because they suppose everything predicated of God is predicated according to substance. They therefore argue that to beget and to be begotten, or to be begotten and unbegotten, being different, are different substances. We demonstrate that not everything predicated of God is predicated according to substance, as He is called good and great according to substance, or anything else predicated of Him in respect to Himself. But some things are also predicated relatively—that is, not in respect to Himself, but in respect to something which is not Himself. For example, He is called the Father in respect to the Son, or the Lord in respect to the creature that serves Him. And when anything predicated relatively, that is, predicated in respect to something that is not Himself, is also predicated in time—as when it is said, "Lord, You have become our refuge"—nothing happens to Him that works a change in Him. He continues altogether unchangeable in His own nature or essence. In the sixth book, the question of how Christ is called by the apostle the power of God and the wisdom of God is argued to the point where more careful handling of that question is deferred. Namely, whether He from whom Christ is begotten is not wisdom Himself, but only the father of His own wisdom, or whether wisdom begot wisdom. But whichever it may be, the equality of the Trinity became apparent in this book also, and that God was not triple, but a Trinity. And the Father and the Son are not, as it were, a double as opposed to the single Holy Spirit, for in this Trinity three are not anything more than one. We also considered how to understand the words of Bishop Hilary: Eternity in the Father, form in the Image, use in the Gift. In the seventh book, the question that had been deferred is explained: in what way God who begot the Son is not only Father of His own power and wisdom, but is Himself also power and wisdom. So too the Holy Spirit. And yet they are not three powers or three wisdoms, but one power and one wisdom, as one God and one essence. It was next inquired in what way they are called one essence, three persons, or by some Greeks one essence, three substances. We found that these words were used because of the needs of speech, so that there might be one term by which to answer when it is asked what the three are, whom we truly confess to be three, namely Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit. In the eighth book, it is made plain by reason also to those who understand, that not only is the Father not greater than the Son in the substance of truth, but that both together are not anything greater than the Holy Spirit alone. Nor are any two at all in the same Trinity anything greater than one, nor all three together anything greater than each separately. Next, I have pointed out that by means of the truth, which is beheld by the understanding, and by means of the highest good, from which is all good, and by means of the righteousness for which a righteous mind is loved even by a mind not yet righteous, we might understand, so far as it is possible to understand, that not only incorporeal but also unchangeable nature which is God. And by means, too, of love, which in the Holy Scriptures is called God, those who have understanding begin also, however feebly, to discern the Trinity: namely, one that loves, and that which is loved, and love. In the ninth book, the argument advances as far as to the image of God, namely man in respect to his mind. In this we found a kind of trinity, that is, the mind, and the knowledge whereby the mind knows itself, and the love whereby it loves both itself and its knowledge of itself. And these three are shown to be mutually equal and of one essence. In the tenth book, the same subject is more carefully and subtly handled and is brought to this point: we found in the mind a still more manifest trinity of the mind, namely in memory, and understanding, and will. But since it turned out also that the mind could never be in such a case as not to remember, understand, and love itself, although it did not always think of itself—and that when it did think of itself, it did not in the same act of thought distinguish itself from things corporeal—the argument concerning the Trinity, of which this is an image, was deferred, in order to find a trinity also in the things themselves that are seen with the body, and to exercise the reader's attention more distinctly in that. Accordingly, in the eleventh book, we chose the sense of sight, wherein what should have been found to hold good there might be recognized also in the other four bodily senses, although not expressly mentioned. And so a trinity of the outer man first showed itself in those things which are discerned from without, namely from the bodily object which is seen, and from the form which is thence impressed upon the eye of the beholder, and from the purpose of the will combining the two. But these three things, as was evident, were not mutually equal and of one substance. Next, we found yet another trinity in the mind itself, introduced into it, as it were, by the things perceived from without. Here the same three things, as it appeared, were of one substance: the image of the bodily object which is in the memory, and the form thence impressed when the mind's eye of the thinker is turned to it, and the purpose of the will combining the two. But we found this trinity to pertain to the outer man, because it was introduced into the mind from bodily objects which are perceived from without. In the twelfth book, we thought good to distinguish wisdom from knowledge, and to seek first, as being the lower of the two, a kind of appropriate and special trinity in that which is specially called knowledge. But although we have now in this reached something pertaining to the inner man, yet it is not yet to be either called or thought an image of God. And this is discussed in the thirteenth book by the commendation of Christian faith. In the fourteenth book we discuss the true wisdom of man, namely that which is granted him by God's gift in the partaking of that very God Himself, which is distinct from knowledge. The discussion reached this point, that a trinity is discovered in the image of God, which is man in respect to his mind, which mind is renewed in the knowledge of God, after the image of Him that created man after His own image, and so obtains wisdom, wherein is the contemplation of things eternal.

5. In the first book, the unity and equality of that highest Trinity is shown from Holy Scripture. In the second, and third, and fourth, the same: but a careful handling of the question respecting the sending of the Son and of the Holy Spirit has resulted in three books; and we have demonstrated, that He who is sent is not therefore less than He who sends because the one sent, the other was sent; since the Trinity, which is in all things equal, being also equally in its own nature unchangeable, and invisible, and everywhere present, works indivisibly. In the fifth — with a view to those who think that the substance of the Father and of the Son is therefore not the same, because they suppose everything that is predicated of God to be predicated according to substance, and therefore contend that to beget and to be begotten, or to be begotten and unbegotten, as being diverse, are diverse substances, — it is demonstrated that not everything that is predicated of God is predicated according to substance, as He is called good and great according to substance, or anything else that is predicated of Him in respect to Himself, but that some things also are predicated relatively, i.e. not in respect to Himself, but in respect to something which is not Himself; as He is called the Father in respect to the Son, or the Lord in respect to the creature that serves Him; and that here, if anything thus relatively predicated, i.e. predicated in respect to something that is not Himself, is predicated also as in time, as, e.g., Lord, You have become our refuge, then nothing happens to Him so as to work a change in Him, but He Himself continues altogether unchangeable in His own nature or essence. In the sixth, the question how Christ is called by the mouth of the apostle the power of God and the wisdom of God, is so far argued that the more careful handling of that question is deferred, viz. whether He from whom Christ is begotten is not wisdom Himself, but only the father of His own wisdom, or whether wisdom begot wisdom. But be it which it may, the equality of the Trinity became apparent in this book also, and that God was not triple, but a Trinity; and that the Father and the Son are not, as it were, a double as opposed to the single Holy Spirit: for therein three are not anything more than one. We considered, too, how to understand the words of Bishop Hilary, Eternity in the Father, form in the Image, use in the Gift. In the seventh, the question is explained which had been deferred: in what way that God who begot the Son is not only Father of His own power and wisdom, but is Himself also power and wisdom; so, too, the Holy Spirit; and yet that they are not three powers or three wisdoms, but one power and one wisdom, as one God and one essence. It was next inquired, in what way they are called one essence, three persons, or by some Greeks one essence, three substances; and we found that the words were so used through the needs of speech, that there might be one term by which to answer, when it is asked what the three are, whom we truly confess to be three, viz. Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit. In the eighth, it is made plain by reason also to those who understand, that not only the Father is not greater than the Son in the substance of truth, but that both together are not anything greater than the Holy Spirit alone, nor that any two at all in the same Trinity are anything greater than one, nor all three together anything greater than each severally. Next, I have pointed out, that by means of the truth, which is beheld by the understanding, and by means of the highest good, from which is all good, and by means of the righteousness for which a righteous mind is loved even by a mind not yet righteous, we might understand, so far as it is possible to understand, that not only incorporeal but also unchangeable nature which is God; and by means, too, of love, which in the Holy Scriptures is called God, by which, first of all, those who have understanding begin also, however feebly, to discern the Trinity, to wit, one that loves, and that which is loved, and love. In the ninth, the argument advances as far as to the image of God, viz. man in respect to his mind; and in this we found a kind of trinity, i.e. the mind, and the knowledge whereby the mind knows itself, and the love whereby it loves both itself and its knowledge of itself; and these three are shown to be mutually equal, and of one essence. In the tenth, the same subject is more carefully and subtly handled, and is brought to this point, that we found in the mind a still more manifest trinity of the mind, viz. in memory, and understanding, and will. But since it turned out also, that the mind could never be in such a case as not to remember, understand, and love itself, although it did not always think of itself; but that when it did think of itself, it did not in the same act of thought distinguish itself from things corporeal; the argument respecting the Trinity, of which this is an image, was deferred, in order to find a trinity also in the things themselves that are seen with the body, and to exercise the reader's attention more distinctly in that. Accordingly, in the eleventh, we chose the sense of sight, wherein that which should have been there found to hold good might be recognized also in the other four bodily senses, although not expressly mentioned; and so a trinity of the outer man first showed itself in those things which are discerned from without, to wit, from the bodily object which is seen, and from the form which is thence impressed upon the eye of the beholder, and from the purpose of the will combining the two. But these three things, as was patent, were not mutually equal and of one substance. Next, we found yet another trinity in the mind itself, introduced into it, as it were, by the things perceived from without; wherein the same three things, as it appeared, were of one substance: the image of the bodily object which is in the memory, and the form thence impressed when the mind's eye of the thinker is turned to it, and the purpose of the will combining the two. But we found this trinity to pertain to the outer man, on this account, that it was introduced into the mind from bodily objects which are perceived from without. In the twelfth, we thought good to distinguish wisdom from knowledge, and to seek first, as being the lower of the two, a kind of appropriate and special trinity in that which is specially called knowledge; but that although we have got now in this to something pertaining to the inner man, yet it is not yet to be either called or thought an image of God. And this is discussed in the thirteenth book by the commendation of Christian faith. In the fourteenth we discuss the true wisdom of man, viz. that which is granted him by God's gift in the partaking of that very God Himself, which is distinct from knowledge; and the discussion reached this point, that a trinity is discovered in the image of God, which is man in respect to his mind, which mind is renewed in the knowledge of God, after the image of Him that created man; after His own image; and so obtains wisdom, wherein is the contemplation of things eternal.

Let us now search for the Trinity who is God in those things that are eternal, incorporeal, and unchangeable. In the perfect contemplation of these, a blessed life is promised to us, which can only be eternal. Not only does the authority of the divine books declare that God exists, but the whole nature of the universe surrounding us—to which we also belong—proclaims that it has a most excellent Creator. This Creator has given us a mind and natural reason so that we can see certain truths: living things are to be preferred to non-living things; things with sensation to things without it; things with understanding to things without it; immortal things to mortal things; powerful things to powerless things; righteous things to unrighteous things; beautiful things to deformed things; good things to evil things; incorruptible things to corruptible things; unchangeable things to changeable things; invisible things to visible things; incorporeal things to corporeal things; blessed things to miserable things. Therefore, since we certainly place the Creator above created things, we must confess that the Creator lives in the highest sense, perceives and understands all things, cannot die or suffer decay or be changed, and is not a body but a spirit—the most powerful, most righteous, most beautiful, most good, and most blessed of all.

6. Let us, then, now seek the Trinity which is God, in the things themselves that are eternal, incorporeal, and unchangeable; in the perfect contemplation of which a blessed life is promised us, which cannot be other than eternal. For not only does the authority of the divine books declare that God is; but the whole nature of the universe itself which surrounds us, and to which we also belong, proclaims that it has a most excellent Creator, who has given to us a mind and natural reason, whereby to see that things living are to be preferred to things that are not living; things that have sense to things that have not; things that have understanding to things that have not; things immortal to things mortal; things powerful to things impotent; things righteous to things unrighteous; things beautiful to things deformed; things good to things evil; things incorruptible to things corruptible; things unchangeable to things changeable; things invisible to things visible; things incorporeal to things corporeal; things blessed to things miserable. And hence, since without doubt we place the Creator above things created, we must needs confess that the Creator both lives in the highest sense, and perceives and understands all things, and that He cannot die, or suffer decay, or be changed; and that He is not a body, but a spirit, of all the most powerful, most righteous, most beautiful, most good, most blessed.

But everything I have said, and whatever else seems to be worthily said of God in the manner of human speech, applies to the whole Trinity, which is one God, and to the individual Persons in that Trinity. For who would dare to say either of the one God, which is the Trinity itself, or of the Father, or Son, or Holy Spirit, that He is not living, or is without sense or intelligence? Or that, in that nature in which they are affirmed to be mutually equal, any one of them is mortal, or corruptible, or changeable, or corporeal? Or is there anyone who would deny that any one in the Trinity is most powerful, most righteous, most beautiful, most good, most blessed? If, then, these things and all others like them can be predicated both of the Trinity itself and of each individual one in that Trinity, where or how shall the Trinity show itself distinct? Let us therefore first reduce these numerous predicates to some limited number. For what is called life in God is itself His essence and nature. God, therefore, does not live unless by the life which He is to Himself. And this life is not like that which is in a tree, which has neither understanding nor sense, nor like that which is in a beast, for the life of a beast possesses the fivefold sense but has no understanding. But the life which is God perceives and understands all things, and perceives by mind, not by body, because God is a spirit. And God does not perceive through a body as animals do, which have bodies, for He does not consist of soul and body. And hence that single nature perceives as it understands, and understands as it perceives, and its sense and understanding are one and the same. Nor is it so that at any time He should either cease or begin to be, for He is immortal. And it is not said of Him in vain that He alone has immortality. For immortality is true immortality in His case whose nature admits no change. That is also true eternity by which God is unchangeable, without beginning, without end, and consequently also incorruptible. It is one and the same thing, therefore, to call God eternal, or immortal, or incorruptible, or unchangeable, and it is likewise one and the same thing to say that He is living and that He is intelligent, that is, truly wise. For He did not receive wisdom by which to be wise, but He is Himself wisdom. And this is life, and again is power or might, and yet again beauty, by which He is called powerful and beautiful. For what is more powerful and more beautiful than wisdom, which reaches from end to end mightily and sweetly disposes all things? Or do goodness and righteousness differ from each other in the nature of God as they differ in His works, as though they were two diverse qualities of God—goodness one and righteousness another? Certainly not. But that which is righteousness is also itself goodness, and that which is goodness is also itself blessedness. And God is therefore called incorporeal, that He may be believed and understood to be a spirit, not a body.

7. But all that I have said, and whatever else seems to be worthily said of God after the like fashion of human speech, applies to the whole Trinity, which is one God, and to the several Persons in that Trinity. For who would dare to say either of the one God, which is the Trinity itself, or of the Father, or Son, or Holy Spirit, either that He is not living, or is without sense or intelligence; or that, in that nature in which they are affirmed to be mutually equal, any one of them is mortal, or corruptible, or changeable, or corporeal? Or is there any one who would deny that any one in the Trinity is most powerful, most righteous, most beautiful, most good, most blessed? If, then, these things, and all others of the kind, can be predicated both of the Trinity itself, and of each several one in that Trinity, where or how shall the Trinity manifest itself? Let us therefore first reduce these numerous predicates to some limited number. For that which is called life in God, is itself His essence and nature. God, therefore, does not live, unless by the life which He is to Himself. And this life is not such as that which is in a tree, wherein is neither understanding nor sense; nor such as is in a beast, for the life of a beast possesses the fivefold sense, but has no understanding. But the life which is God perceives and understands all things, and perceives by mind, not by body, because God is a spirit. And God does not perceive through a body, as animals do, which have bodies, for He does not consist of soul and body. And hence that single nature perceives as it understands, and understands as it perceives, and its sense and understanding are one and the same. Nor yet so, that at any time He should either cease or begin to be; for He is immortal. And it is not said of Him in vain, that He only has immortality. For immortality is true immortality in His case whose nature admits no change. That is also true eternity by which God is unchangeable, without beginning, without end; consequently also incorruptible. It is one and the same thing, therefore, to call God eternal, or immortal, or incorruptible, or unchangeable; and it is likewise one and the same thing to say that He is living, and that He is intelligent, that is, in truth, wise. For He did not receive wisdom whereby to be wise, but He is Himself wisdom. And this is life, and again is power or might, and yet again beauty, whereby He is called powerful and beautiful. For what is more powerful and more beautiful than wisdom, which reaches from end to end mightily, and sweetly disposes all things? Or do goodness, again, and righteousness, differ from each other in the nature of God, as they differ in His works, as though they were two diverse qualities of God — goodness one, and righteousness another? Certainly not; but that which is righteousness is also itself goodness; and that which is goodness is also itself blessedness. And God is therefore called incorporeal, that He may be believed and understood to be a spirit, not a body.

Further, if we say eternal, immortal, incorruptible, unchangeable, living, wise, powerful, beautiful, righteous, good, blessed spirit, only the last item in this list seems to signify substance, while the rest seem to signify qualities of that substance. But this is not the case with that ineffable and simple nature. For whatever seems to be predicated of it according to quality must be understood according to substance or essence. We must reject the idea of predicating spirit of God according to substance and good according to quality. Rather, both are predicated according to substance. The same applies to all the other terms we have mentioned, which we have already discussed at length in the earlier books. Let us then choose one from the first four in our list, that is, eternal, immortal, incorruptible, unchangeable. Since these four have the same meaning, as I have already argued, choosing one will prevent our attention from being scattered across multiple objects. Let us take the first one, eternal. Let us follow the same approach with the next four: living, wise, powerful, beautiful. Life in some form also belongs to animals, which lack wisdom. The next two, wisdom and might, are compared to each other in the case of humans, as Scripture says, Better is he that is wise than he that is strong. Beauty is also commonly attributed to physical objects. From these four, let us choose wise. This is not because these four are unequal when speaking of God, for they are four names but one reality. Regarding the third and final set of four, although being righteous is the same thing in God as being good or blessed, and being a spirit is the same as being righteous, good, and blessed, there is a difference in human beings. In humans there can be a spirit that is not blessed, and there can be one who is both righteous and good but not yet blessed. However, whatever is blessed is certainly righteous, good, and a spirit. Therefore, let us choose the one that cannot exist even in humans without the other three, namely blessed.

8. Further, if we say, Eternal, immortal, incorruptible, unchangeable, living, wise, powerful, beautiful, righteous, good, blessed spirit; only the last of this list as it were seems to signify substance, but the rest to signify qualities of that substance; but it is not so in that ineffable and simple nature. For whatever seems to be predicated therein according to quality, is to be understood according to substance or essence. For far be it from us to predicate spirit of God according to substance, and good according to quality; but both according to substance. And so in like manner of all those we have mentioned, of which we have already spoken at length in the former books. Let us choose, then, one of the first four of those in our enumeration and arrangement, i.e. eternal, immortal, incorruptible, unchangeable; since these four, as I have argued already, have one meaning; in order that our aim may not be distracted by a multiplicity of objects. And let it be rather that which was placed first, viz. eternal. Let us follow the same course with the four that come next, viz. living, wise, powerful, beautiful. And since life of some sort belongs also to the beast, which has not wisdom; while the next two, viz. wisdom and might, are so compared to one another in the case of man, as that Scripture says, Better is he that is wise than he that is strong; and beauty, again, is commonly attributed to bodily objects also: out of these four that we have chosen, let Wise be the one we take. Although these four are not to be called unequal in speaking of God; for they are four names, but one thing. But of the third and last four — although it is the same thing in God to be righteous that it is to be good or to be blessed; and the same thing to be a spirit that it is to be righteous, and good, and blessed; yet, because in men there can be a spirit that is not blessed, and there can be one both righteous and good, but not yet blessed; but that which is blessed is doubtless both just, and good, and a spirit, — let us rather choose that one which cannot exist even in men without the three others, viz. blessed.

When we say God is eternal, wise, and blessed, are these three the Trinity that is called God? We have reduced those twelve to this small number of three; but perhaps we can go further and reduce these three to one of them. For if wisdom and might, or life and wisdom, can be one and the same thing in the physis of God, why cannot eternity and wisdom, or blessedness and wisdom, be one and the same thing in the physis of God? And so, just as it made no difference whether we spoke of those twelve or those three when we reduced the many to the small number, it makes no difference whether we speak of those three or of that one, to which we have shown that the other two of the three may be reduced. What form of argument, what possible force and power of understanding, what liveliness of reason, what sharp-sightedness of thought, will set forth how (to pass over the others for now) this one thing, that God is called wisdom, is a trinity? For God does not receive wisdom from anyone as we receive it from Him, but He is Himself His own wisdom; because His wisdom is not one thing and His ousia another, seeing that for Him to be wise is to be. Christ, indeed, is called in the Holy Scriptures the power of God and the wisdom of God. But we have discussed in the seventh book how this is to be understood, so that the Son may not seem to make the Father wise; and our explanation came to this: that the Son is wisdom of wisdom, in the same way as He is light of light, God of God. Nor could we find the Holy Spirit to be in any other way than that He Himself also is wisdom, and altogether one wisdom, as one God, one ousia. How, then, do we understand this wisdom, which is God, to be a trinity? I do not say, How do we believe this? For among the faithful this ought to admit no question. But supposing there is any way by which we can see with the understanding what we believe, what is that way?

9. When, then, we say, Eternal, wise, blessed, are these three the Trinity that is called God? We reduce, indeed, those twelve to this small number of three; but perhaps we can go further, and reduce these three also to one of them. For if wisdom and might, or life and wisdom, can be one and the same thing in the nature of God, why cannot eternity and wisdom, or blessedness and wisdom, be one and the same thing in the nature of God? And hence, as it made no difference whether we spoke of these twelve or of those three when we reduced the many to the small number; so does it make no difference whether we speak of those three, or of that one, to the singularity of which we have shown that the other two of the three may be reduced. What fashion, then, of argument, what possible force and might of understanding, what liveliness of reason, what sharp-sightedness of thought, will set forth how (to pass over now the others) this one thing, that God is called wisdom, is a trinity? For God does not receive wisdom from any one as we receive it from Him, but He is Himself His own wisdom; because His wisdom is not one thing, and His essence another, seeing that to Him to be wise is to be. Christ, indeed, is called in the Holy Scriptures, the power of God, and the wisdom of God. But we have discussed in the seventh book how this is to be understood, so that the Son may not seem to make the Father wise; and our explanation came to this, that the Son is wisdom of wisdom, in the same way as He is light of light, God of God. Nor could we find the Holy Spirit to be in any other way than that He Himself also is wisdom, and altogether one wisdom, as one God, one essence. How, then, do we understand this wisdom, which is God, to be a trinity? I do not say, How do we believe this? For among the faithful this ought to admit no question. But supposing there is any way by which we can see with the understanding what we believe, what is that way?

When we think back to where a trinity first began to reveal itself to our understanding in these books, the eighth book comes to mind. There we tried our best to direct the mind's attention toward understanding that most excellent and unchangeable nature, which our mind is not. We contemplated this nature as being not far from us and yet above us—not in physical location but through its own awe-inspiring and wonderful excellence—in such a way that it seemed to be with us by its own present light. Yet even there, no trinity was yet clear to us, because in that blaze of light we did not keep the mind's eye steadily fixed on seeking it. We only perceived in a general way that there was no physical mass in which we would have to think that the size of two or three is greater than that of one. But when we came to discuss love, which in the Holy Scriptures is called God, then a trinity began to appear to us faintly: one who loves, that which is loved, and love itself. But because that ineffable light pushed back our gaze, and it became somewhat clear that the weakness of our mind could not yet be adjusted to it, we turned back in the middle of the course we had begun. We decided to follow the more familiar consideration of our own mind, according to which man is made after the image of God, in order to relieve our overstrained attention. From the ninth to the fourteenth book we dwelt on the consideration of the creature that we are, so that we might be able to understand and see the invisible things of God through the things that are made. Now that we have exercised our understanding in lower things as much as was needed, or perhaps more than was needed, we wish to raise ourselves to see that highest Trinity which is God, but we lack the strength. We see absolutely certain trinities—whether those produced from outside by physical things, or when these same things are thought about after being perceived from outside; or when things that originate in the mind and do not relate to the body's senses, such as faith or the virtues that make up the art of living, are discerned by clear reason and held fast by knowledge; or when the mind itself, by which we know whatever we truly say we know, knows itself or thinks about itself; or when the mind sees something eternal and unchangeable that it itself is not. But do we see the Trinity that is God in the same way we see these absolutely certain trinities (because they are produced in us or are in us when we remember, observe, or desire these things)? Do we see the Trinity that is God because there too we perceive through understanding both Him as if speaking and His Word (that is, the Father and the Son), and then, following from there, the love common to both, namely the Holy Spirit? Do we actually see these trinities that belong to our senses or our mind, or do we rather believe them? And do we rather believe than see that God is a trinity? But if this is the case, then either we do not at all understand and see the invisible things of God through the things that are made, or if we see them at all, we do not see the Trinity in them. In this there is something to see and something we ought to believe, even if not seen. Just as the eighth book showed that we see the unchangeable good which we are not, so the fourteenth book reminded us of this when we discussed the wisdom that man has from God. Why then do we not recognize the Trinity in it? Does that wisdom which God is said to be not perceive itself and not love itself? Who would say this? Who does not see that where there is no knowledge, there is certainly no wisdom? Or are we really to think that the Wisdom which is God knows other things but does not know itself, or loves other things but does not love itself? But if this is a foolish and impious thing to say or believe, then look, we have a trinity: wisdom, the knowledge wisdom has of itself, and its love of itself. For we also find a trinity in man in the same way: mind, the knowledge by which the mind knows itself, and the love by which it loves itself.

10. For if we recall where it was in these books that a trinity first began to show itself to our understanding, the eighth book is that which occurs to us; since it was there that to the best of our power we tried to raise the aim of the mind to understand that most excellent and unchangeable nature, which our mind is not. And we so contemplated this nature as to think of it as not far from us, and as above us, not in place, but by its own awful and wonderful excellence, and in such wise that it appeared to be with us by its own present light. Yet in this no trinity was yet manifest to us, because in that blaze of light we did not keep the eye of the mind steadfastly bent upon seeking it; only we discerned it in a sense, because there was no bulk wherein we must needs think the magnitude of two or three to be more than that of one. But when we came to treat of love, which in the Holy Scriptures is called God, then a trinity began to dawn upon us a little, i.e. one that loves, and that which is loved, and love. But because that ineffable light beat back our gaze, and it became in some degree plain that the weakness of our mind could not as yet be tempered to it, we turned back in the midst of the course we had begun, and planned according to the (as it were) more familiar consideration of our own mind, according to which man is made after the image of God, in order to relieve our overstrained attention; and thereupon we dwelt from the ninth to the fourteenth book upon the consideration of the creature, which we are, that we might be able to understand and behold the invisible things of God by those things which are made. And now that we have exercised the understanding, as far as was needful, or perhaps more than was needful, in lower things, lo! We wish, but have not strength, to raise ourselves to behold that highest Trinity which is God. For in such manner as we see most undoubted trinities, whether those which are wrought from without by corporeal things, or when these same things are thought of which were perceived from without; or when those things which take their rise in the mind, and do not pertain to the senses of the body, as faith, or as the virtues which comprise the art of living, are discerned by manifest reason, and, held fast by knowledge; or when the mind itself, by which we know whatever we truly say that we know, is known to itself, or thinks of itself; or when that mind beholds anything eternal and unchangeable, which itself is not — in such way, then, I say, as we see in all these instances most undoubted trinities, because they are wrought in ourselves, or are in ourselves, when we remember, look at, or desire these things — do we, I say, in such manner also see the Trinity that is God; because there also, by the understanding, we behold both Him as it were speaking, and His Word, i.e. the Father and the Son; and then, proceeding thence, the love common to both, namely, the Holy Spirit? These trinities that pertain to our senses or to our mind, do we rather see than believe them, but rather believe than see that God is a trinity? But if this is so, then doubtless we either do not at all understand and behold the invisible things of God by those things that are made, or if we behold them at all, we do not behold the Trinity in them; and there is therein somewhat to behold, and somewhat also which we ought to believe, even though not beheld. And as the eighth book showed that we behold the unchangeable good which we are not, so the fourteenth reminded us thereof, when we spoke of the wisdom that man has from God. Why, then, do we not recognize the Trinity therein? Does that wisdom which God is said to be, not perceive itself, and not love itself? Who would say this? Or who is there that does not see, that where there is no knowledge, there in no way is there wisdom? Or are we, in truth, to think that the Wisdom which is God knows other things, and does not know itself; or loves other things, and does not love itself? But if this is a foolish and impious thing to say or believe, then behold we have a trinity — to wit, wisdom, and the knowledge wisdom has of itself, and its love of itself. For so, too, we find a trinity in man also, i.e. mind, and the knowledge wherewith mind knows itself, and the love wherewith it loves itself.

But these three exist in a person in such a way that they are not themselves the person. For a human being, as the ancients defined it, is a rational mortal animal. These three things, therefore, are the chief things in a human being, but they are not the human being itself. And any one person, that is, each individual human being, has these three things in his mind. But if, again, we were to define a human being by saying that a human being is a rational substance consisting of mind and body, then without doubt a human being has a soul that is not body, and a body that is not soul. And so these three things are not the human being, but belong to the human being, or are in the human being. If, again, we set aside the body and think of the soul by itself, the mind is something belonging to the soul, as though its head, or eye, or face; but these things are not to be regarded as bodies. It is not then the soul, but that which is chief in the soul, that is called the mind. But can we say that the Trinity exists in God in such a way as to be something belonging to God, and not itself God? And so each individual human being, who is called the image of God, not according to all things that pertain to his nature, but according to his mind alone, is one person, and is an image of the Trinity in his mind. But that Trinity of which he is the image is nothing else in its totality than God, is nothing else in its totality than the Trinity. Nor does anything pertain to the nature of God so as not to pertain to that Trinity; and the Three Persons are of one essence, not as each individual human being is one person.

11. But these three are in such way in man, that they are not themselves man. For man, as the ancients defined him, is a rational mortal animal. These things, therefore, are the chief things in man, but are not man themselves. And any one person, i.e. each individual man, has these three things in his mind. But if, again, we were so to define man as to say, Man is a rational substance consisting of mind and body, then without doubt man has a soul that is not body, and a body that is not soul. And hence these three things are not man, but belong to man, or are in man. If, again, we put aside the body, and think of the soul by itself, the mind is somewhat belonging to the soul, as though its head, or eye, or countenance; but these things are not to be regarded as bodies. It is not then the soul, but that which is chief in the soul, that is called the mind. But can we say that the Trinity is in such way in God, as to be somewhat belonging to God, and not itself God? And hence each individual man, who is called the image of God, not according to all things that pertain to his nature, but according to his mind alone, is one person, and is an image of the Trinity in his mind. But that Trinity of which he is the image is nothing else in its totality than God, is nothing else in its totality than the Trinity. Nor does anything pertain to the nature of God so as not to pertain to that Trinity; and the Three Persons are of one essence, not as each individual man is one person.

There is also a significant difference in another respect: whether we speak of the mind in a human being along with its knowledge and love, or of memory, understanding, and will, we remember nothing of the mind except through memory, understand nothing except through understanding, and love nothing except through will. But in that Trinity, who would dare to say that the Father understands neither himself nor the Son nor the Holy Spirit except through the Son, or loves them except through the Holy Spirit, and that he remembers only through himself either himself or the Son or the Holy Spirit? And likewise, that the Son remembers neither himself nor the Father except through the Father, and loves them only through the Holy Spirit, but through himself only understands both the Father and Son and Holy Spirit? And similarly, that the Holy Spirit through the Father remembers both the Father and the Son and himself, and through the Son understands both the Father and the Son and himself, but through himself only loves both himself and the Father and the Son—as though the Father were both his own memory and that of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, the Son were the understanding of both himself and the Father and the Holy Spirit, but the Holy Spirit were the love both of himself and of the Father and of the Son? Who would dare to think or affirm this about that Trinity? For if in it the Son alone understands both for himself and for the Father and for the Holy Spirit, we have returned to the old absurdity that the Father is not wise from himself but from the Son, and that wisdom has not begotten wisdom, but that the Father is called wise by the wisdom which he begot. For where there is no understanding there can be no wisdom. Therefore, if the Father does not understand himself for himself, but the Son understands for the Father, then clearly the Son makes the Father wise. But if for God to be is to be wise, and essence is the same to him as wisdom, then it is not the Son who has his essence from the Father (which is the truth), but rather the Father from the Son (which is a completely absurd falsehood). We have certainly discussed, disproved, and rejected this absurdity in the seventh book. Therefore, God the Father is wise by that wisdom by which he is his own wisdom, and the Son is the wisdom of the Father from the wisdom which is the Father, from whom the Son is begotten. It follows that the Father also understands by that understanding by which he is his own understanding (for he could not be wise if he did not understand), and that the Son is the understanding of the Father, begotten of the understanding which is the Father. The same may also be appropriately said of memory. For how is someone wise who remembers nothing or does not remember himself? Accordingly, since the Father is wisdom and the Son is wisdom, therefore just as the Father remembers himself, so does the Son also remember himself. And just as the Father remembers both himself and the Son not by the memory of the Son but by his own, so does the Son remember both himself and the Father not by the memory of the Father but by his own. Again, where there is no love, who would say there is any wisdom? Therefore we must conclude that the Father is his own love in the same way that he is his own understanding and memory. Consequently, these three—memory, understanding, and love or will—in that highest and unchangeable essence which is God are not the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, but the Father alone. And because the Son too is wisdom begotten of wisdom, just as neither the Father nor the Holy Spirit understands for him but he understands for himself, so neither does the Father remember for him nor does the Holy Spirit love for him, but he remembers and loves for himself, for he is himself also his own memory, his own understanding, and his own love. But that he is so comes to him from the Father, from whom he is born. And because the Holy Spirit also is wisdom proceeding from wisdom, he too does not have the Father as a memory, the Son as an understanding, and himself as love. For he would not be wisdom if another remembered for him and yet another understood for him while he only loved for himself. Rather, he himself has all three things, and has them in such a way that they are himself. But that he is so comes to him from the source from which he proceeds.

12. There is, again, a wide difference in this point likewise, that whether we speak of the mind in a man, and of its knowledge and love; or of memory, understanding, will, — we remember nothing of the mind except by memory, nor understand anything except by understanding, nor love anything except by will. But in that Trinity, who would dare to say that the Father understands neither Himself, nor the Son, nor the Holy Spirit, except by the Son, or loves them except by the Holy Spirit; and that He remembers only by Himself either Himself, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit; and in the same way that the Son remembers neither Himself nor the Father, except by the Father, nor loves them except by the Holy Spirit; but that by Himself He only understands both the Father and Son and Holy Spirit: and in like manner, that the Holy Spirit by the Father remembers both the Father and the Son and Himself, and by the Son understands both the Father and the Son and Himself; but by Himself only loves both Himself and the Father and the Son;– as though the Father were both His own memory, and that of the Son and of the Holy Spirit; and the Son were the understanding of both Himself, and the Father and the Holy Spirit; but the Holy Spirit were the love both of Himself, and of the Father and of the Son? Who would presume to think or affirm this of that Trinity? For if therein the Son alone understands both for Himself and for the Father and for the Holy Spirit, we have returned to the old absurdity, that the Father is not wise from Himself, but from the Son, and that wisdom has not begotten wisdom, but that the Father is said to be wise by that wisdom which He begot. For where there is no understanding there can be no wisdom; and hence, if the Father does not understand Himself for Himself, but the Son understands for the Father, assuredly the Son makes the Father wise. But if to God to be is to be wise, and essence is to Him the same as wisdom, then it is not the Son that has His essence from the Father, which is the truth, but rather the Father from the Son, which is a most absurd falsehood. And this absurdity, beyond all doubt, we have discussed, disproved, and rejected, in the seventh book. Therefore God the Father is wise by that wisdom by which He is His own wisdom, and the Son is the wisdom of the Father from the wisdom which is the Father, from whom the Son is begotten; whence it follows that the Father understands also by that understanding by which He is His own understanding (for he could not be Wise that did not understand); and that the Son is the understanding of the Father, begotten of the understanding which is the Father. And this same may not be unfitly said of memory also. For how is he wise, that remembers nothing, or does not remember himself? Accordingly, since the Father is wisdom, and the Son is wisdom, therefore, as the Father remembers Himself, so does the Son also remember Himself; and as the Father remembers both Himself and the Son, not by the memory of the Son, but by His own, so does the Son remember both Himself and the Father, not by the memory of the Father, but by His own. Where, again, there is no love, who would say there was any wisdom? And hence we must infer that the Father is in such way His own love, as He is His own understanding and memory. And therefore these three, i.e. memory, understanding, love or will in that highest and unchangeable essence which is God, are, we see, not the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, but the Father alone. And because the Son too is wisdom begotten of wisdom, as neither the Father nor the Holy Spirit understands for Him, but He understands for Himself; so neither does the Father remember for Him, nor the Holy Spirit love for Him, but He remembers and loves for Himself: for He is Himself also His own memory, His own understanding, and His own love. But that He is so comes to Him from the Father, of whom He is born. And because the Holy Spirit also is wisdom proceeding from wisdom, He too has not the Father for a memory, and the Son for an understanding, and Himself for love: for He would not be wisdom if another remembered for Him, and yet another understood for Him, and He only loved for Himself; but Himself has all three things, and has them in such way that they are Himself. But that He is so comes to Him thence, whence He proceeds.

What person, then, can understand that wisdom by which God knows all things in such a way that neither what we call past things are past in it, nor what we call future things are awaited in it as though they were absent, but both past and future together with present things are all present? Nor are things thought about one at a time, so that thought moves from one thing to another, but all things are simultaneously present in one single act of seeing. What person, I ask, can understand this wisdom, and the equivalent prudence, and the equivalent knowledge, when even our own wisdom is beyond our understanding? For somehow we are able to perceive things that are present to our senses or to our understanding. But things that are absent, yet were once present, we know through memory, if we haven't forgotten them. We also make guesses—not about the past from the future, but about the future from the past—yet through entirely unstable knowledge. For there are some of our thoughts about future things that we look ahead to with greater clarity and certainty because they are very near. We do this by means of memory when we are able to, as much as we ever can, even though memory seems to relate not to the future but to the past. This can be tested with any words or songs whose proper sequence we are producing from memory. We certainly wouldn't speak each part in order unless we anticipated in thought what comes next. Yet it isn't foresight but memory that enables us to foresee it, because right up to the end of the words or song, nothing is spoken except as anticipated and looked forward to. Yet in doing this, we aren't said to speak or sing by foresight, but by memory. And if anyone is unusually capable of delivering many pieces this way, he is typically praised not for his foresight but for his memory. We know and are absolutely certain that all this happens in our mind or through our mind. But the more carefully we try to examine how it happens, the more both our very words fail and our purpose itself collapses when we try to reach some clarity through our understanding, if not our tongue. And do people like us think that in such great weakness of mind we can understand whether God's foresight is the same as His memory and His understanding—He who does not consider each individual thing in thought, but holds everything He knows in one eternal, unchangeable, and inexpressible vision? In this difficulty and tight place, then, we may well cry out to the living God: Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is too high, I cannot reach it. For I understand from my own experience how wonderful and incomprehensible is Your knowledge by which You made me, when I cannot even understand myself whom You have made! And yet, while I was meditating, the fire burned, so that I seek Your face always.

13. What man, then, is there who can comprehend that wisdom by which God knows all things, in such wise that neither what we call things past are past therein, nor what we call things future are therein waited for as coming, as though they were absent, but both past and future with things present are all present; nor yet are things thought severally, so that thought passes from one to another, but all things simultaneously are at hand in one glance — what man, I say, is there that comprehends that wisdom, and the like prudence, and the like knowledge, since in truth even our own wisdom is beyond our comprehension? For somehow we are able to behold the things that are present to our senses or to our understanding; but the things that are absent, and yet have once been present, we know by memory, if we have not forgotten them. And we conjecture, too, not the past from the future, but the future from the past, yet by all unstable knowledge. For there are some of our thoughts to which, although future, we, as it were, look onward with greater plainness and certainty as being very near; and we do this by the means of memory when we are able to do it, as much as we ever are able, although memory seems to belong not to the future, but to the past. And this may be tried in the case of any words or songs, the due order of which we are rendering by memory; for we certainly should not utter each in succession, unless we foresaw in thought what came next. And yet it is not foresight, but memory, that enables us to foresee it; for up to the very end of the words or the song, nothing is uttered except as foreseen and looked forward to. And yet in doing this, we are not said to speak or sing by foresight, but by memory; and if any one is more than commonly capable of uttering many pieces in this way, he is usually praised, not for his foresight, but for his memory. We know, and are absolutely certain, that all this takes place in our mind or by our mind; but how it takes place, the more attentively we desire to scrutinize, the more do both our very words break down, and our purpose itself fails, when by our understanding, if not our tongue, we would reach to something of clearness. And do such as we are, think, that in so great infirmity of mind we can comprehend whether the foresight of God is the same as His memory and His understanding, who does not regard in thought each several thing, but embraces all that He knows in one eternal and unchangeable and ineffable vision? In this difficulty, then, and strait, we may well cry out to the living God, Such knowledge is too wonderful for me: it is high, I cannot attain unto it. For I understand by myself how wonderful and incomprehensible is Your knowledge, by which You made me, when I cannot even comprehend myself whom You have made! And yet, while I was musing, the fire burned, so that I seek Your face evermore.

I know that wisdom is an incorporeal substance, and that it is the light by which things not seen by physical eyes are seen. Yet a man as great and spiritual as Paul says, We see now through a glass, in an enigma, but then face to face. If we ask what this glass is and what it is like, this surely comes to mind: that in a glass nothing is seen except an image. We have tried, then, to see in some way through this image that we are, the One by whom we were made, as through a glass. This is also indicated in the words of the same apostle: But we with unveiled face, beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are transformed into the same image, from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord. He says beholding as in a glass, meaning seeing by means of a glass, not looking from a watchtower—an ambiguity that does not exist in Greek, from which the apostolic letters have been translated into Latin. In Greek, a glass in which images of things are visible is completely distinct in sound from a watchtower, from whose height we can see farther. It is quite clear that the apostle, in using the word speculantes regarding the glory of the Lord, meant it to come from speculum and not from specula. But where he says, We are transformed into the same image, he certainly means the image of God. By calling it the same, he means that very image which we see in the glass, because that same image is also the glory of the Lord. As he says elsewhere, For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God—a text already discussed in the twelfth book. By We are transformed, he means we are changed from one form to another, and we pass from an obscure form to a bright form. The obscure form is also the image of God, and if an image, then certainly also glory, in which we are created as human beings, superior to other animals. For it is said of human nature itself, The man ought not to cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God. This nature, being the most excellent among created things, is transformed from a defaced form to a beautiful form when it is justified by its Creator from ungodliness. Even in ungodliness itself, the more the fault deserves condemnation, the more certainly the nature deserves praise. Therefore he has added, from glory to glory: from the glory of creation to the glory of justification. Although these words, from glory to glory, can also be understood in other ways—from the glory of faith to the glory of sight, from the glory by which we are sons of God to the glory by which we will be like Him, because we will see Him as He is. But in adding as from the Spirit of the Lord, he declares that the blessing of such a desirable transformation is given to us by the grace of God.

14. I know that wisdom is an incorporeal substance, and that it is the light by which those things are seen that are not seen by carnal eyes; and yet a man so great and so spiritual [as Paul] says, We see now through a glass, in an enigma, but then face to face. If we ask what and of what sort is this glass, this assuredly occurs to our minds, that in a glass nothing is discerned but an image. We have endeavored, then, so to do; in order that we might see in some way or other by this image which we are, Him by whom we are made, as by a glass. And this is intimated also in the words of the same apostle: But we with open face, beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are transformed into the same image, from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord. Beholding as in a glass, he has said, i.e. seeing by means of a glass, not looking from a watchtower: an ambiguity that does not exist in the Greek language, whence the apostolic epistles have been rendered into Latin. For in Greek, a glass, in which the images of things are visible, is wholly distinct in the sound of the word also from a watchtower, from the height of which we command a more distant view. And it is quite plain that the apostle, in using the word speculantes in respect to the glory of the Lord, meant it to come from speculum, not from specula. But where he says, We are transformed into the same image, he assuredly means to speak of the image of God; and by calling it the same, he means that very image which we see in the glass, because that same image is also the glory of the Lord; as he says elsewhere, For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God, — a text already discussed in the twelfth book. He means, then, by We are transformed, that we are changed from one form to another, and that we pass from a form that is obscure to a form that is bright: since the obscure form, too, is the image of God; and if an image, then assuredly also glory, in which we are created as men, being better than the other animals. For it is said of human nature in itself, The man ought not to cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God. And this nature, being the most excellent among things created, is transformed from a form that is defaced into a form that is beautiful, when it is justified by its own Creator from ungodliness. Since even in ungodliness itself, the more the faultiness is to be condemned, the more certainly is the nature to be praised. And therefore he has added, from glory to glory: from the glory of creation to the glory of justification. Although these words, from glory to glory, may be understood also in other ways — from the glory of faith to the glory of sight, from the glory whereby we are sons of God to the glory whereby we shall be like Him, because we shall see Him as He is. But in that he has added as from the Spirit of the Lord, he declares that the blessing of so desirable a transformation is conferred upon us by the grace of God.

What has been said relates to the apostle's words that we now see through a glass. But regarding his addition "in an enigma," the meaning of this phrase is unknown to anyone unfamiliar with the books that contain the teaching about those modes of speech that the Greeks call Tropes—a Greek word we also use in Latin. Just as we more commonly speak of schemata rather than figures, we more commonly speak of tropes rather than modes. It is very difficult and unusual to express the names of the various modes or tropes in Latin in a way that assigns the proper name to each one. Some Latin translators, unwilling to use a Greek word where the apostle says "Which things are an allegory," have rendered it through a roundabout expression: "Which things signify one thing by another." But there are several species of this kind of trope called allegory, and one of them is what is called enigma. Now the definition of the general term must necessarily include all its species. Therefore, just as every horse is an animal but not every animal is a horse, every enigma is an allegory, but not every allegory is an enigma. What then is an allegory except a trope in which one thing is understood from another? For example, in the Epistle to the Thessalonians: "Let us not therefore sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober: for they who sleep, sleep in the night; and they who are drunken, are drunken in the night: but let us who are of the day, be sober." This allegory is not an enigma, for here the meaning is clear to everyone except the very dull. But an enigma is, to explain briefly, an obscure allegory, such as "The horseleech had three daughters" and other similar instances. However, when the apostle spoke of an allegory, he does not find it in the words but in the fact, since he has shown that the two Testaments are to be understood through the two sons of Abraham—one by a bondmaid and the other by a free woman—which was something not merely said but actually done. Before this was explained, it was obscure, and accordingly such an allegory, which is the general name, could be specifically called an enigma.

15. What has been said relates to the words of the apostle, that we see now through a glass; but whereas he has added, in an enigma, the meaning of this addition is unknown to any who are unacquainted with the books that contain the doctrine of those modes of speech, which the Greeks call Tropes, which Greek word we also use in Latin. For as we more commonly speak of schemata than of figures, so we more commonly speak of tropes than of modes. And it is a very difficult and uncommon thing to express the names of the several modes or tropes in Latin, so as to refer its appropriate name to each. And hence some Latin translators, through unwillingness to employ a Greek word, where the apostle says, Which things are an allegory, have rendered it by a circumlocution — Which things signify one thing by another. But there are several species of this kind of trope that is called allegory, and one of them is that which is called enigma. Now the definition of the generic term must necessarily embrace also all its species; and hence, as every horse is an animal, but not every animal is a horse, so every enigma is an allegory, but every allegory is not an enigma. What then is an allegory, but a trope wherein one thing is understood from another? As in the Epistle to the Thessalonians, Let us not therefore sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober: for they who sleep, sleep in the night; and they who are drunken, are drunken in the night: but let us who are of the day, be sober. But this allegory is not an enigma. for here the meaning is patent to all but the very dull; but an enigma is, to explain it briefly, an obscure allegory, as, e.g., The horseleech had three daughters, and other like instances. But when the apostle spoke of an allegory, he does not find it in the words, but in the fact; since he has shown that the two Testaments are to be understood by the two sons of Abraham, one by a bondmaid, and the other by a free woman, which was a thing not said, but also done. And before this was explained, it was obscure; and accordingly such an allegory, which is the generic name, could be specifically called an enigma.

But it's not only those who are unfamiliar with books about tropes who want to know what the apostle meant when he said we now see in an enigma—even those who know about tropes still want to understand what that enigma is in which we now see. We need to find one unified meaning for both phrases: "we see now through a glass" and "in an enigma." These form one complete sentence when spoken together as "We see now through a glass in an enigma." As I understand it, just as the word "glass" signifies an image, so "enigma" signifies any kind of likeness you choose, but one that is obscure and difficult to perceive. Therefore, while the apostle's mention of glass and enigma can refer to any likenesses that help us understand God as far as He can be understood, nothing serves this purpose better than what is rightly called His image. No one should be surprised that we struggle to see in whatever way is granted to us in this life—that is, through a glass, in an enigma. We wouldn't be told about an enigma here if seeing were easy. And this is an even greater enigma: that we do not see what we cannot help but see. For who does not see his own thought? And yet who does see his own thought—I don't mean with physical eyes, but with inner sight itself? Who doesn't see it, and who does see it? Thought is a kind of seeing by the mind, whether it involves things that are also seen by bodily eyes or perceived by other senses, or things that are absent but whose likenesses are grasped by thought, or things that are neither bodily nor likenesses of bodily things (such as virtues and vices, or indeed thought itself), or things that are the subjects of instruction and the liberal sciences, or the higher causes and principles of all these things in the unchangeable nature, or even evil, vain, and false things we think about, whether our senses withhold consent or mistakenly give it.

16. But because it is not only those that are ignorant of the books that contain the doctrine of tropes, who inquire the apostle's meaning, when he said that we see now in an enigma, but those, too, who are acquainted with the doctrine, but yet desire to know what that enigma is in which we now see; we must find a single meaning for the two phrases, viz. for that which says, we see now through a glass, and for that which adds, in an enigma. For it makes but one sentence, when the whole is so uttered, We see now through a glass in an enigma. Accordingly, as far as my judgment goes, as by the word glass he meant to signify an image, so by that of enigma any likeness you will, but yet one obscure, and difficult to see through. While, therefore, any likenesses whatever may be understood as signified by the apostle when he speaks of a glass and an enigma, so that they are adapted to the understanding of God, in such way as He can be understood; yet nothing is better adapted to this purpose than that which is not vainly called His image. Let no one, then, wonder, that we labor to see in any way at all, even in that fashion of seeing which is granted to us in this life, viz. through a glass, in an enigma. For we should not hear of an enigma in this place if sight were easy. And this is a yet greater enigma, that we do not see what we cannot but see. For who does not see his own thought? And yet who does see his own thought, I do not say with the eye of the flesh, but with the inner sight itself? Who does not see it, and who does see it? Since thought is a kind of sight of the mind; whether those things are present which are seen also by the bodily eyes, or perceived by the other senses; or whether they are not present, but their likenesses are discerned by thought; or whether neither of these is the case, but things are thought of that are neither bodily things nor likenesses of bodily things, as the virtues and vices; or as, indeed, thought itself is thought of; or whether it be those things which are the subjects of instruction and of liberal sciences; or whether the higher causes and reasons themselves of all these things in the unchangeable nature are thought of; or whether it be even evil, and vain, and false things that we are thinking of, with either the sense not consenting, or erring in its consent.

But let us now speak of those things we think of as known and have in our knowledge even when we do not think of them. Whether they belong to contemplative knowledge, which, as I have argued, is properly called wisdom, or to active knowledge, which is properly called knowledge—both together belong to one mind and are one image of God. But when we treat the lower of the two distinctly and separately, it is not to be called an image of God, although even then some likeness of that Trinity may be found in it, as we showed in the thirteenth book. We speak now, therefore, of the entire knowledge of man altogether, in which whatever is known to us is known—that, at any rate, which is true. Otherwise it would not be known. For no one knows what is false, except when he knows it to be false, and if he knows this, then he knows what is true, for it is true that that is false. We treat, therefore, now of those things we think of as known and which are known to us even if they are not being thought of. But certainly, if we wish to express them in words, we can only do so by thinking them. For although no words are spoken, at any rate, he who thinks speaks in his heart. And hence that passage in the book of Wisdom: "They said within themselves, thinking not aright." For the words "They said within themselves" are explained by the addition of "thinking." A similar passage to this is that in the Gospel—when certain scribes heard the Lord's words to the paralytic man, "Be of good cheer, my son, your sins are forgiven you," they said within themselves, "This man blasphemes." For how did they say within themselves, except by thinking? Then follows, "And when Jesus saw their thoughts, He said, Why do you think evil in your thoughts?" So far Matthew. But Luke narrates the same thing thus: "The scribes and Pharisees began to think, saying, Who is this that speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins but God alone? But when Jesus perceived their thoughts, He, answering, said to them, What do you think in your hearts?" What in the book of Wisdom is "They said, thinking" is the same here with "They thought, saying." For both there and here it is declared that they spoke within themselves and in their own heart, that is, spoke by thinking. For they spoke within themselves, and it was said to them, "What do you think?" And the Lord Himself says of that rich man whose ground brought forth plentifully, "And he thought within himself, saying."

17. But let us now speak of those things of which we think as known, and have in our knowledge even if we do not think of them; whether they belong to the contemplative knowledge, which, as I have argued, is properly to be called wisdom, or to the active which is properly to be called knowledge. For both together belong to one mind, and are one image of God. But when we treat of the lower of the two distinctly and separately, then it is not to be called an image of God, although even then, too, some likeness of that Trinity may be found in it; as we showed in the thirteenth book. We speak now, therefore, of the entire knowledge of man altogether, in which whatever is known to us is known; that, at any rate, which is true; otherwise it would not be known. For no one knows what is false, except when he knows it to be false; and if he knows this, then he knows what is true: for it is true that that is false. We treat, therefore, now of those things which we think as known, and which are known to us even if they are not being thought of. But certainly, if we would utter them in words, we can only do so by thinking them. For although there were no words spoken, at any rate, he who thinks speaks in his heart. And hence that passage in the book of Wisdom: They said within themselves, thinking not aright. For the words, They said within themselves, are explained by the addition of thinking. A like passage to this is that in the Gospel — that certain scribes, when they heard the Lord's words to the paralytic man, Be of good cheer, my son, your sins are forgiven you, said within themselves, This man blasphemes. For how did they say within themselves, except by thinking? Then follows, And when Jesus saw their thoughts, He said, Why do you think evil in your thoughts? So far Matthew. But Luke narrates the same thing thus: The scribes and Pharisees began to think, saying, Who is this that speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins but God alone? But when Jesus perceived their thoughts, He, answering, said to them, What think ye in your hearts? That which in the book of Wisdom is, They said, thinking, is the same here with, They thought, saying. For both there and here it is declared, that they spoke within themselves, and in their own heart, i.e. spoke by thinking. For they spoke within themselves, and it was said to them, What do you think? And the Lord Himself says of that rich man whose ground brought forth plentifully, And he thought within himself, saying.

Some thoughts, then, are speeches of the heart, and here the Lord also shows that there is a mouth when He says, "Not that which enters into the mouth defiles a man, but that which proceeds out of the mouth, that defiles a man." In one sentence He has included two different mouths of the man—one of the body, one of the heart. For certainly, that from which they thought the man would be defiled enters into the mouth of the body, but that from which the Lord said the man was defiled proceeds out of the mouth of the heart. He Himself clearly explained what He had said. A little later, He also says to His disciples concerning the same thing: "Are you also yet without understanding? Do you not understand that whatever enters in at the mouth goes into the belly and is cast out into the draught?" Here He most certainly pointed to the mouth of the body. But in what follows He plainly speaks of the mouth of the heart, where He says, "But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart, and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts," and so on. What could be clearer than this explanation? Yet when we call thoughts speeches of the heart, it does not follow that they are not also acts of sight arising from the sight of knowledge when they are true. For when these things are done outwardly by means of the body, then speech and sight are different things. But when we think inwardly, the two are one—just as sight and hearing are two things mutually distinct in the bodily senses, but to see and to hear are the same thing in the mind. And so, while speech is not seen but rather heard outwardly, yet the inward speeches—that is, thoughts—are said by the holy Gospel to have been seen, not heard, by the Lord. "They said within themselves, 'This man blasphemes,'" says the Gospel, and then it adds, "And when Jesus saw their thoughts." Therefore He saw what they said, for by His own thought He saw their thoughts, which they supposed no one saw but themselves.

18. Some thoughts, then, are speeches of the heart, wherein the Lord also shows that there is a mouth, when He says, Not that which enters into the mouth defiles a man; but that which proceeds out of the mouth, that defiles a man. In one sentence He has comprised two diverse mouths of the man, one of the body, one of the heart. For assuredly, that from which they thought the man to be defiled, enters into the mouth of the body; but that from which the Lord said the man was defiled, proceeds out of the mouth of the heart. So certainly He Himself explained what He had said. For a little after, He says also to His disciples concerning the same thing: Are ye also yet without understanding? Do you not understand, that whatever enters in at the mouth goes into the belly, and is cast out into the draught? Here He most certainly pointed to the mouth of the body. But in that which follows He plainly speaks of the mouth of the heart, where He says, But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, etc. What is clearer than this explanation? And yet, when we call thoughts speeches of the heart, it does not follow that they are not also acts of sight, arising from the sight of knowledge, when they are true. For when these things are done outwardly by means of the body, then speech and sight are different things; but when we think inwardly, the two are one — just as sight and hearing are two things mutually distinct in the bodily senses, but to see and hear are the same thing in the mind; and hence, while speech is not seen but rather heard outwardly, yet the inward speeches, i.e. thoughts, are said by the holy Gospel to have been seen, not heard, by the Lord. They said within themselves, This man blasphemes, says the Gospel; and then subjoined, And when Jesus saw their thoughts. Therefore He saw, what they said. For by His own thought He saw their thoughts, which they supposed no one saw but themselves.

Anyone who can grasp what a word is, not only before it is spoken aloud, but even before the mental images of its sounds are contemplated in thought—for this belongs to no particular language, including those called the languages of nations, of which our Latin is one—anyone, I say, who can grasp this is now able to see through this glass and in this enigma some likeness of that Word about whom it is said, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." For necessarily, when we speak the truth, that is, when we speak what we know, a word is born from the very knowledge that the memory holds, and this word is entirely of the same kind as the knowledge from which it is born. The thought that is formed from the thing we know is the word we speak in our heart, and this word is neither Greek nor Latin nor of any other language. But when we need to communicate this to those we are speaking with, we adopt some sign to convey it. Usually a sound, sometimes a gesture, is presented—the former to the ears, the latter to the eyes—so that the word we carry in our mind may also become known through bodily signs to the bodily senses. For what is nodding or gesturing except a kind of speaking to the sight? Holy Scripture confirms this, for we read in the Gospel according to John: "Verily, verily, I say to you, that one of you will betray me. Then the disciples looked at one another, uncertain of whom he spoke. Now one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved, was reclining on Jesus' breast. Simon Peter therefore gestures to him and says to him, 'Who is it of whom he speaks?'" Here he spoke by gesturing what he did not dare to speak with sounds. But whereas we present these and similar bodily signs to the ears or eyes of people who are present when we speak, letters have been invented so that we might also communicate with those who are absent; but these are signs of words, just as words themselves are signs in our speech of the things we think.

19. Whoever, then, is able to understand a word, not only before it is uttered in sound, but also before the images of its sounds are considered in thought — for this it is which belongs to no tongue, to wit, of those which are called the tongues of nations, of which our Latin tongue is one — whoever, I say, is able to understand this, is able now to see through this glass and in this enigma some likeness of that Word of whom it is said, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. For of necessity, when we speak what is true, i.e. speak what we know, there is born from the knowledge itself which the memory retains, a word that is altogether of the same kind with that knowledge from which it is born. For the thought that is formed by the thing which we know, is the word which we speak in the heart: which word is neither Greek nor Latin, nor of any other tongue. But when it is needful to convey this to the knowledge of those to whom we speak, then some sign is assumed whereby to signify it. And generally a sound, sometimes a nod, is exhibited, the former to the ears, the latter to the eyes, that the word which we bear in our mind may become known also by bodily signs to the bodily senses. For what is to nod or beckon, except to speak in some way to the sight? And Holy Scripture gives its testimony to this; for we read in the Gospel according to John: Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me. Then the disciples looked one upon another, doubting of whom He spoke. Now there was leaning on Jesus' breast one of His disciples whom Jesus loved. Simon Peter therefore beckons to him, and says to him, Who is it of whom He speaks? Here he spoke by beckoning what he did not venture to speak by sounds. But whereas we exhibit these and the like bodily signs either to ears or eyes of persons present to whom we speak, letters have been invented that we might be able to converse also with the absent; but these are signs of words, as words themselves are signs in our conversation of those things which we think.

The word that sounds outwardly is a sign of the word that shines inwardly, and this inner word has a stronger claim to be called a word. What we speak with our physical mouth is simply the vocal sound of a word, and it's also called a word because of the inner word it assumes in order to manifest itself outwardly. Our word becomes a bodily vocal sound by taking on that sound through which it can be revealed to human senses, just as the Word of God became flesh by taking on flesh through which He could be revealed to human senses. And just as our word becomes a vocal sound yet isn't changed into one, so the Word of God became flesh—but we must reject any idea that He was changed into flesh. Our word became a vocal sound, and that other Word became flesh, by assuming it, not by being consumed or changed into it. Therefore, whoever wants to find some likeness, whatever kind it may be, to the Word of God—however unlike in many ways—must not focus on our word that sounds in the ears, either when spoken aloud or when silently thought. Words of all languages that are spoken aloud are also thought silently, and the mind runs through verses while the physical mouth is silent. Not only the number of syllables but also musical melodies, being physical and belonging to the bodily sense called hearing, are present through certain non-physical images in those who think about them and silently turn these things over in their minds. But we must pass beyond this to reach that word of man through whose likeness, whatever it may be, the Word of God can somehow be seen as in a riddle. Not the word that was spoken to this or that prophet, about which Scripture says "Now the word of God grew and multiplied," and again "Faith then comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ," and again "When you received the word of God which you heard from us, you received it not as the word of men but, as it truly is, the word of God"—and there are countless other similar scriptural references to the word of God, which is spread through the sounds of many different languages and through the hearts and mouths of people, and is called the word of God because the teaching delivered is divine, not human. Rather, we are now seeking to see, in whatever way we can through this likeness, that Word of God of whom it is said "The Word was God," of whom it is said "All things were made by Him," of whom it is said "The Word became flesh," of whom it is said "The Word of God on high is the fountain of wisdom." We must proceed to that word of man, the word of the rational creature, the word of that image of God which was not born of God but made by God. This word cannot be spoken in sound or thought of as resembling sound, as must happen with words in any language, but precedes all the signs by which it is expressed and is generated from the knowledge that remains in the mind when that same knowledge is spoken inwardly as it truly is. The vision of thinking is remarkably like the vision of knowledge. When knowledge is expressed through sound or any bodily sign, it isn't expressed as it truly is, but as it can be perceived by the physical senses. Therefore, when what is in the knowledge is also in the word, then there is a true word and truth of the kind expected from humans—where what is in the knowledge is also in the word, and what is not in the knowledge is also not in the word. Here we can recognize "Yes, yes; no, no." And so this likeness of the created image approaches as closely as possible to that likeness of the begotten image, by which God the Son is declared to be like the Father in all things regarding ousia. We must also notice in this riddle another likeness to the word of God: just as it is said of that Word "All things were made by Him," declaring that God made the universe through His only-begotten Son, so no human works exist that were not first spoken in the heart. Scripture says "A word is the beginning of every work." But only when the word is true is it the beginning of a good work. A word is true when it is generated from the knowledge of doing good works, so that "yes, yes; no, no" is preserved there too—so that whatever is in the knowledge by which we should live is also in the word by which we should act, and whatever is not in one is not in the other. Otherwise such a word will be a lie, not truth, and what comes from it will be sin, not a good work. There is yet another likeness of the Word of God in this likeness of our word: we can have a word with no work following it, but we cannot have any work unless a word precedes it, just as the Word of God could have existed even if no creature existed, but no creature could exist except through that Word by which all things are made. Therefore, not God the Father, not the Holy Spirit, not the Trinity itself, but the Son alone, who is the Word of God, became flesh, although the Trinity was the maker. This happened so that we might live rightly by our word following and imitating His example—that is, by having no lie in either the thought or the work of our word. But this perfection of this image is something to be achieved in the future. To attain this, the good teacher instructs us through Christian faith and holy teaching that, with faces unveiled from the veil of the law (which is the shadow of things to come), beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord—that is, gazing at it through a mirror—we may be transformed into the same image from glory to glory, as by the Spirit of the Lord, as we explained above.

20. Accordingly, the word that sounds outwardly is the sign of the word that gives light inwardly; which latter has the greater claim to be called a word. For that which is uttered with the mouth of the flesh, is the articulate sound of a word; and is itself also called a word, on account of that to make which outwardly apparent it is itself assumed. For our word is so made in some way into an articulate sound of the body, by assuming that articulate sound by which it may be manifested to men's senses, as the Word of God was made flesh, by assuming that flesh in which itself also might be manifested to men's senses. And as our word becomes an articulate sound, yet is not changed into one; so the Word of God became flesh, but far be it from us to say He was changed into flesh. For both that word of ours became an articulate sound, and that other Word became flesh, by assuming it, not by consuming itself so as to be changed into it. And therefore whoever desires to arrive at any likeness, be it of what sort it may, of the Word of God, however in many respects unlike, must not regard the word of ours that sounds in the ears, either when it is uttered in an articulate sound or when it is silently thought. For the words of all tongues that are uttered in sound are also silently thought, and the mind runs over verses while the bodily mouth is silent. And not only the numbers of syllables, but the tunes also of songs, since they are corporeal, and pertain to that sense of the body which is called hearing, are at hand by certain incorporeal images appropriate to them, to those who think of them, and who silently revolve all these things. But we must pass by this, in order to arrive at that word of man, by the likeness of which, be it of what sort it may, the Word of God may be somehow seen as in an enigma. Not that word which was spoken to this or that prophet, and of which it is said, Now the word of God grew and multiplied; and again, Faith then comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ; and again, When ye received the word of God which you heard of us, you received it not as the word of men but, as it is in truth, the word of God (and there are countless other like sayings in the Scriptures respecting the word of God, which is disseminated in the sounds of many and diverse languages through the hearts and mouths of men; and which is therefore called the word of God, because the doctrine that is delivered is not human, but divine);– but we are now seeking to see, in whatsoever way we can, by means of this likeness, that Word of God of which it is said, The Word was God; of which it is said, All things were made by Him; of which it is said, The Word became flesh; of which it is said The Word of God on high is the fountain of wisdom. We must go on, then, to that word of man, to the word of the rational animal, to the word of that image of God, that is not born of God, but made by God; which is neither utterable in sound nor capable of being thought under the likeness of sound such as must needs be with the word of any tongue; but which precedes all the signs by which it is signified, and is begotten from the knowledge that continues in the mind, when that same knowledge is spoken inwardly according as it really is. For the sight of thinking is exceedingly like the sight of knowledge. For when it is uttered by sound, or by any bodily sign, it is not uttered according as it really is, but as it can be seen or heard by the body. When, therefore, that is in the word which is in the knowledge, then there is a true word, and truth, such as is looked for from man; such that what is in the knowledge is also in the word, and what is not in the knowledge is also not in the word. Here may be recognized, Yea, yea; nay, nay. And so this likeness of the image that is made, approaches as nearly as is possible to that likeness of the image that is born, by which God the Son is declared to be in all things like in substance to the Father. We must notice in this enigma also another likeness of the word of God; viz. that, as it is said of that Word, All things were made by Him, where God is declared to have made the universe by His only-begotten Son, so there are no works of man that are not first spoken in his heart: whence it is written, A word is the beginning of every work. But here also, it is when the word is true, that then it is the beginning of a good work. And a word is true when it is begotten from the knowledge of working good works, so that there too may be preserved the yea yea, nay nay; in order that whatever is in that knowledge by which we are to live, may be also in the word by which we are to work, and whatever is not in the one may not be in the other. Otherwise such a word will be a lie, not truth; and what comes thence will be a sin, and not a good work. There is yet this other likeness of the Word of God in this likeness of our word, that there can be a word of ours with no work following it, but there cannot be any work unless a word precedes; just as the Word of God could have existed though no creature existed, but no creature could exist unless by that Word by which all things are made. And therefore not God the Father, not the Holy Spirit, not the Trinity itself, but the Son only, which is the Word of God, was made flesh; although the Trinity was the maker: in order that we might live rightly through our word following and imitating His example, i.e. by having no lie in either the thought or the work of our word. But this perfection of this image is one to be at some time hereafter. In order to attain this it is that the good master teaches us by Christian faith, and by pious doctrine, that with face unveiled from the veil of the law, which is the shadow of things to come, beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, i.e. gazing at it through a glass, we may be transformed into the same image from glory to glory, as by the Spirit of the Lord; as we explained above.

When this image has been perfectly renewed through this transformation, we will be like God because we will see Him not through a glass but as He is. This is what the Apostle Paul means by "face to face." But for now, who can explain how great the unlikeness also is in this glass, in this enigma, in this likeness such as it is? Yet I will touch on some points as I am able, in order to show it.

21. When, therefore, this image shall have been renewed to perfection by this transformation, then we shall be like God, because we shall see Him, not through a glass, but as He is; which the Apostle Paul expresses by face to face. But now, who can explain how great is the unlikeness also, in this glass, in this enigma, in this likeness such as it is? Yet I will touch upon some points, as I can, by which to indicate it.

First, what kind of knowledge can a person attain, no matter how skilled and learned, by which our thinking is formed with truth when we speak what we know? Setting aside those things that come into the mind from the bodily senses–among which so many things are different from how they appear that anyone who is too much influenced by their resemblance to truth thinks himself sane but really is not (which is why the Academic philosophy has become so dominant that it is even more wretchedly insane by doubting everything)–setting aside, then, those things that come into the mind through the bodily senses, how much is left of things that we know in the same way we know that we live? About this, indeed, we have absolutely no fear that we might be deceived by some resemblance of truth, since it is certain that whoever is deceived is still alive. And this knowledge is not counted among those visual objects that are presented from outside, where the eye might be deceived–such as when an oar in water looks bent, towers seem to move as you sail past them, and a thousand other things that are different from how they appear. This is not something discerned by the physical eye. The knowledge by which we know that we live is the most inward of all knowledge, against which even the Academic cannot suggest: Perhaps you are asleep and don't know it, and you see things in your dreams. For who doesn't know that what people see in dreams looks exactly like what they see when awake? But the person who is certain of the knowledge of his own life does not say, I know I am awake, but rather, I know I am alive. Therefore, whether he is asleep or awake, he is alive. Nor can he be deceived in that knowledge by dreams, since both sleeping and seeing things in sleep belong to a living person. Nor can the Academic say in refutation of this knowledge: Perhaps you are mad and don't know it–for what mad people see looks exactly like what sane people see; but whoever is mad is alive. He does not answer the Academic by saying, I know I am not mad, but rather, I know I am alive. Therefore, whoever says he knows he is alive can neither be deceived nor lie. Let a thousand kinds of deceptive visual objects be presented to someone who says, I know I am alive–he will fear none of them, for whoever is deceived is still alive. But if only such things belong to human knowledge, they are very few indeed–unless they can be so multiplied in each kind as not only to be many, but to reach infinity as a result. For whoever says, I know I am alive, says he knows one single thing. Furthermore, if he says, I know that I know I am alive, now there are two things; and that he knows these two is a third thing to know. And so he can add a fourth and a fifth, and countless others, if he continues. But since he cannot comprehend an infinite number by adding units one by one, or say something an infinite number of times, he does at least comprehend this with perfect certainty: that this is both true and so infinite that he cannot truly comprehend and state its infinite number. This same thing can be noticed also in the case of a certain act of will. For it would be an impudent answer to make to anyone who says, I will to be happy, that perhaps you are deceived. And if he says, I know that I will this, and I know that I know it, he can add yet a third to these two–namely, that he knows these two; and a fourth, that he knows that he knows these two; and so on to infinity. Likewise, if anyone says, I do not will to be mistaken, will it not be true, whether he is mistaken or not, that nevertheless he does will not to be mistaken? Would it not be most impudent to say to him, Perhaps you are deceived? When beyond doubt, in whatever way he may be deceived, he is nevertheless not deceived in thinking that he wills not to be deceived. And if he says he knows this, he can add any number of things known that he chooses, and perceives that number to be infinite. For whoever says, I do not will to be deceived, and I know that I do not will this, and I know that I know it, is now able to set forth an infinite number here also, however awkward the expression of it may be. And other things too can be found capable of refuting the Academics, who contend that a person can know nothing. But we must restrain ourselves, especially since this is not the subject we have undertaken in the present work. There are three books of ours on that subject, written early in our conversion, which anyone who can and will read, and who understands them, will doubtless not be much troubled by any of the many arguments they have devised against the discovery of truth. For since there are two kinds of knowable things–one, of those things which the mind perceives through the bodily senses; the other, of those things which it perceives by itself–these philosophers have babbled much against the bodily senses, but have never been able to cast doubt upon those most certain perceptions of true things that the mind knows by itself, such as the one I have mentioned, I know that I am alive. But far be it from us to doubt the truth of what we have learned through the bodily senses, since through them we have learned to know the heaven and the earth, and those things in them that are known to us, insofar as He who created both us and them has willed them to be within our knowledge. Far be it from us too to deny that we know what we have learned by the testimony of others: otherwise we do not know that there is an ocean; we do not know that the lands and cities exist which abundant reports tell us about; we do not know that those men existed, and their works, which we have learned by reading history; we do not know the news that is daily brought to us from various places and confirmed by consistent and agreeing evidence; lastly, we do not know at what place or from whom we were born, since in all these things we have believed the testimony of others. And if it is most absurd to say this, then we must confess that not only our own senses, but those of other people as well, have added very much indeed to our knowledge.

First, of what sort and how great is the very knowledge itself that a man can attain, be he ever so skillful and learned, by which our thought is formed with truth, when we speak what we know? For to pass by those things that come into the mind from the bodily senses, among which so many are otherwise than they seem to be, that he who is overmuch pressed down by their resemblance to truth, seems sane to himself, but really is not sane — whence it is that the Academic philosophy has so prevailed as to be still more wretchedly insane by doubting all things — passing by, then, those things that come into the mind by the bodily senses, how large a proportion is left of things which we know in such manner as we know that we live? In regard to this, indeed, we are absolutely without any fear lest perchance we are being deceived by some resemblance of the truth; since it is certain, that he who is deceived, yet lives. And this again is not reckoned among those objects of sight that are presented from without, so that the eye may be deceived in it; in such way as it is when an oar in the water looks bent, and towers seem to move as you sail past them, and a thousand other things that are otherwise than they seem to be: for this is not a thing that is discerned by the eye of the flesh. The knowledge by which we know that we live is the most inward of all knowledge, of which even the Academic cannot insinuate: Perhaps you are asleep, and do not know it, and you see things in your sleep. For who does not know that what people see in dreams is precisely like what they see when awake? But he who is certain of the knowledge of his own life, does not therein say, I know I am awake, but, I know I am alive; therefore, whether he be asleep or awake, he is alive. Nor can he be deceived in that knowledge by dreams; since it belongs to a living man both to sleep and to see in sleep. Nor can the Academic again say, in confutation of this knowledge: Perhaps you are mad, and do not know it: for what madmen see is precisely like what they also see who are sane; but he who is mad is alive. Nor does he answer the Academic by saying, I know I am not mad, but, I know I am alive. Therefore he who says he knows he is alive, can neither be deceived nor lie. Let a thousand kinds, then, of deceitful objects of sight be presented to him who says, I know I am alive; yet he will fear none of them, for he who is deceived yet is alive. But if such things alone pertain to human knowledge, they are very few indeed; unless that they can be so multiplied in each kind, as not only not to be few, but to reach in the result to infinity. For he who says, I know I am alive, says that he knows one single thing. Further, if he says, I know that I know I am alive, now there are two; but that he knows these two is a third thing to know. And so he can add a fourth and a fifth, and innumerable others, if he holds out. But since he cannot either comprehend an innumerable number by additions of units, or say a thing innumerable times, he comprehends this at least, and with perfect certainty, viz. that this is both true and so innumerable that he cannot truly comprehend and say its infinite number. This same thing may be noticed also in the case of a will that is certain. For it would be an impudent answer to make to any one who should say, I will to be happy, that perhaps you are deceived. And if he should say, I know that I will this, and I know that I know it, he can add yet a third to these two, viz. that he knows these two; and a fourth, that he knows that he knows these two; and so on ad infinitum. Likewise, if any one were to say, I will not to be mistaken; will it not be true, whether he is mistaken or whether he is not, that nevertheless he does will not to be mistaken? Would it not be most impudent to say to him, Perhaps you are deceived? When beyond doubt, whereinsoever he may be deceived, he is nevertheless not deceived in thinking that he wills not to be deceived. And if he says he knows this, he adds any number he chooses of things known, and perceives that number to be infinite. For he who says, I will not to be deceived, and I know that I will not to be so, and I know that I know it, is able now to set forth an infinite number here also, however awkward may be the expression of it. And other things too are to be found capable of refuting the Academics, who contend that man can know nothing. But we must restrict ourselves, especially as this is not the subject we have undertaken in the present work. There are three books of ours on that subject, written in the early time of our conversion, which he who can and will read, and who understands them, will doubtless not be much moved by any of the many arguments which they have found out against the discovery of truth. For whereas there are two kinds of knowable things — one, of those things which the mind perceives by the bodily senses; the other, of those which it perceives by itself — these philosophers have babbled much against the bodily senses, but have never been able to throw doubt upon those most certain perceptions of things true, which the mind knows by itself, such as is that which I have mentioned, I know that I am alive. But far be it from us to doubt the truth of what we have learned by the bodily senses; since by them we have learned to know the heaven and the earth, and those things in them which are known to us, so far as He who created both us and them has willed them to be within our knowledge. Far be it from us too to deny, that we know what we have learned by the testimony of others: otherwise we know not that there is an ocean; we know not that the lands and cities exist which most copious report commends to us; we know not that those men were, and their works, which we have learned by reading history; we know not the news that is daily brought us from this quarter or that, and confirmed by consistent and conspiring evidence; lastly, we know not at what place or from whom we have been born: since in all these things we have believed the testimony of others. And if it is most absurd to say this, then we must confess, that not only our own senses, but those of other persons also, have added very much indeed to our knowledge.

All these things, then—both those which the human mind knows by itself, and those which it knows by the bodily senses, and those which it has received and knows by the testimony of others—are stored up and retained in the storehouse of the memory. From these is begotten a word that is true when we speak what we know, but a word that exists before all sound, before all thought of a sound. For the word is then most like to the thing known, from which its image is also begotten, since the sight of thinking arises from the sight of knowledge. This word belongs to no particular language but is a true word concerning a true thing, having nothing of its own, but wholly derived from that knowledge from which it is born. Nor does it matter when the person who speaks what he knows learned it, for sometimes he says it immediately upon learning it, provided only that the word is true—that is, sprung from things that are known.

22. All these things, then, both those which the human mind knows by itself, and those which it knows by the bodily senses, and those which it has received and knows by the testimony of others, are laid up and retained in the storehouse of the memory; and from these is begotten a word that is true when we speak what we know, but a word that is before all sound, before all thought of a sound. For the word is then most like to the thing known, from which also its image is begotten, since the sight of thinking arises from the sight of knowledge; when it is a word belonging to no tongue, but is a true word concerning a true thing, having nothing of its own, but wholly derived from that knowledge from which it is born. Nor does it signify when he learned it, who speaks what he knows; for sometimes he says it immediately upon learning it; provided only that the word is true, i.e. sprung from things that are known.

But is it the case that God the Father, from whom is born the Word that is God of God—is it the case that God the Father, regarding the wisdom which He is to Himself, has learned some things through bodily senses and others by Himself? Who could say this, whoever thinks of God not as a rational animal but as One above the rational soul? At least as far as He can be thought of by those who place Him above all animals and all souls, even though they see Him by conjecture through a glass and in a riddle, not yet face to face as He is. Is it that God the Father has learned those very things which He knows, not through the body (for He has none), but by Himself from somewhere else or from someone? Or has He needed messengers or witnesses in order to know them? Certainly not, since His own perfection enables Him to know all things that He knows. He does have messengers, namely the angels, but not to report to Him things He does not know, for there is nothing He does not know. Rather, their good consists in consulting the truth about their own works. This is what is meant by saying that they bring Him word of some things—not that He may learn from them, but that they may learn from Him through His word without bodily sound. They also bring Him word of what He wills, being sent by Him to whomever He wills, and hearing all from Him through that word of His, that is, finding in His truth what they themselves are to do: what, to whom, and when they are to bring word. For we too pray to Him, yet we do not inform Him what our needs are. For your Father knows, says His Word, what things you need before you ask Him. Nor did He become acquainted with them so as to know them at any particular time, but He knew beforehand, without any beginning, all things to come in time, and among them both what we would ask of Him and when, and to whom He would either listen or not listen, and about what matters. And with respect to all His creatures, both spiritual and bodily, He does not know them because they exist, but they exist because He knows them. For He was not ignorant of what He was about to create; therefore He created because He knew; He did not know because He created. Nor did He know them when created in any different way than He knew them when they were still to be created, for nothing was added to His wisdom from them; rather, that wisdom remained as it was, while they came into existence as was fitting and when it was fitting. So too it is written in the book of Ecclesiasticus: All things are known to Him before they were created, and likewise after they were perfected. So, he says, not otherwise—they were known to Him in the same way, both before they were created and after they were perfected. This knowledge, therefore, is completely unlike our knowledge. And the knowledge of God is itself also His wisdom, and His wisdom is itself His essence or substance. Because in the marvelous simplicity of that nature, it is not one thing to be wise and another to be, but to be wise is to be—as we have already said many times in the earlier books. But our knowledge is in most things capable both of being lost and of being recovered, because for us to be is not the same as to know or to be wise; since it is possible for us to be even though we do not know and are not wise in what we have learned from elsewhere. Therefore, just as our knowledge is unlike that knowledge of God, so is our word, which is born from our knowledge, unlike that Word of God which is born from the essence of the Father. And this is as if I should say, born from the Father's knowledge, from the Father's wisdom; or even more precisely, from the Father who is knowledge, from the Father who is wisdom.

But is it so, that God the Father, from whom is born the Word that is God of God — is it so, then, that God the Father, in respect to that wisdom which He is to Himself, has learned some things by His bodily senses, and others by Himself? Who could say this, who thinks of God, not as a rational animal, but as One above the rational soul? So far at least as He can be thought of, by those who place Him above all animals and all souls, although they see Him by conjecture through a glass and in an enigma, not yet face to face as He is. Is it that God the Father has learned those very things which He knows, not by the body, for He has none, but by Himself, from elsewhere from some one? Or has stood in need of messengers or witnesses that He might know them? Certainly not; since His own perfection enables Him to know all things that He knows. No doubt He has messengers, viz. the angels; but not to announce to Him things that He knows not, for there is nothing He does not know. But their good lies in consulting the truth about their own works. And this it is which is meant by saying that they bring Him word of some things, not that He may learn of them, but they of Him by His word without bodily sound. They bring Him word, too, of that which He wills, being sent by Him to whomever He wills, and hearing all from Him by that word of His, i.e. finding in His truth what themselves are to do: what, to whom, and when, they are to bring word. For we too pray to Him, yet do not inform Him what our necessities are. For your Father knows, says His Word, what things you have need of, before you ask Him. Nor did He become acquainted with them, so as to know them, at any definite time; but He knew beforehand, without any beginning, all things to come in time, and among them also both what we should ask of Him, and when; and to whom He would either listen or not listen, and on what subjects. And with respect to all His creatures, both spiritual and corporeal, He does not know them because they are, but they are because He knows them. For He was not ignorant of what He was about to create; therefore He created because He knew; He did not know because He created. Nor did He know them when created in any other way than He knew them when still to be created, for nothing accrued to His wisdom from them; but that wisdom remained as it was, while they came into existence as it was fitting and when it was fitting. So, too, it is written in the book of Ecclesiasticus: All things are known to Him ere ever they were created: so also after they were perfected. So, he says, not otherwise; so were they known to Him, both ere ever they were created, and after they were perfected. This knowledge, therefore, is far unlike our knowledge. And the knowledge of God is itself also His wisdom, and His wisdom is itself His essence or substance. Because in the marvellous simplicity of that nature, it is not one thing to be wise and another to be, but to be wise is to be; as we have often said already also in the earlier books. But our knowledge is in most things capable both of being lost and of being recovered, because to us to be is not the same as to know or to be wise; since it is possible for us to be, even although we know not, neither are wise in that which we have learned from elsewhere. Therefore, as our knowledge is unlike that knowledge of God, so is our word also, which is born from our knowledge, unlike that Word of God which is born from the essence of the Father. And this is as if I should say, born from the Father's knowledge, from the Father's wisdom; or still more exactly, from the Father who is knowledge, from the Father who is wisdom.

The Word of God, then, the only-begotten Son of the Father, in all things like and equal to the Father, God of God, Light of Light, Wisdom of Wisdom, Essence of Essence, is completely what the Father is, yet is not the Father, because one is Son and the other is Father. Therefore He knows everything the Father knows. But for Him, both knowing and being come from the Father, since knowing and being are one and the same there. Just as the Father's being does not come from the Son, neither does His knowing. Consequently, as if speaking Himself forth, the Father begot the Word equal to Himself in all things. For He would not have expressed Himself completely and perfectly if there were anything more or less in His Word than in Himself. Here we truly recognize the highest sense of "Yes, yes; no, no." This Word is therefore truly truth, since whatever exists in that knowledge from which it is born also exists in the Word itself, and whatever is not in that knowledge is not in the Word. This Word can never contain anything false, because it is unchangeable, just as the one from whom it comes is unchangeable. For the Son can do nothing by Himself, but only what He sees the Father do. This is not because He lacks the power to do otherwise—it is not weakness but strength by which truth cannot be false. Therefore God the Father knows all things in Himself and knows all things in the Son: in Himself as Himself, and in the Son as His own Word, which Word is spoken concerning all those things that are in Himself. Similarly, the Son knows all things: in Himself, as things born from what the Father knows in Himself, and in the Father, as those things from which what the Son knows in Himself is born. The Father and the Son know each other mutually, but one through begetting and the other through being begotten. Each of them sees simultaneously all things that are in their knowledge, in their wisdom, in their ousia (essence): not partially or one thing at a time, as if looking back and forth from this to that and from that to this, or from one object to another, so as to be unable to see some things without simultaneously not seeing others. Rather, as I said, He sees all things simultaneously, and there is not one thing that He does not always see.

23. The Word of God, then, the only-begotten Son of the Father, in all things like and equal to the Father, God of God, Light of Light, Wisdom of Wisdom, Essence of Essence, is altogether that which the Father is, yet is not the Father, because the one is Son, the other is Father. And hence He knows all that the Father knows; but to Him to know, as to be, is from the Father, for to know and to be is there one. And therefore, as to be is not to the Father from the Son, so neither is to know. Accordingly, as though uttering Himself, the Father begot the Word equal to Himself in all things; for He would not have uttered Himself wholly and perfectly, if there were in His Word anything more or less than in Himself. And here that is recognized in the highest sense, Yea, yea; nay, nay. And therefore this Word is truly truth, since whatever is in that knowledge from which it is born is also in itself and whatever is not in that knowledge is not in the Word. And this Word can never have anything false, because it is unchangeable, as He is from whom it is. For the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do. Through power He cannot do this; nor is it infirmity, but strength, by which truth cannot be false. Therefore God the Father knows all things in Himself, knows all things in the Son; but in Himself as though Himself, in the Son as though His own Word which Word is spoken concerning all those things that are in Himself. Similarly the Son knows all things, viz. in Himself, as things which are born of those which the Father knows in Himself, and in the Father, as those of which they are born, which the Son Himself knows in Himself. The Father then, and the Son know mutually; but the one by begetting, the other by being born. And each of them sees simultaneously all things that are in their knowledge, in their wisdom, in their essence: not by parts or singly, as though by alternately looking from this side to that, and from that side to this, and again from this or that object to this or that object, so as not to be able to see some things without at the same time not seeing others; but, as I said, sees all things simultaneously, whereof there is not one that He does not always see.

And that word of ours which has neither sound nor thought of sound, but concerns the thing we speak of inwardly when we see it—and which therefore belongs to no particular language—is in some way like, in this enigma, to that Word of God which is also God. For our word is born from our knowledge in a manner similar to how that Word is born from the knowledge of the Father. Yet while we find this word of ours to be in some way like that Word, let us not hesitate to consider how unlike it also is, to the extent that we are able to express it.

24. And that word, then, of ours which has neither sound nor thought of sound, but is of that thing in seeing which we speak inwardly, and which therefore belongs to no tongue; and hence is in some sort like, in this enigma, to that Word of God which is also God; since this too is born of our knowledge, in such manner as that also is born of the knowledge of the Father: such a word, I say, of ours, which we find to be in some way like that Word, let us not be slow to consider how unlike also it is, as it may be in our power to utter it.

Does our word come only from what we know? Don't we also say many things that we do not know? And we say them not with doubt, but thinking they are true. Yet even if these things happen to be true in reality, they are not true in our word, because a word is not true unless it comes from something that is known. In this sense, our word is false—not when we lie, but when we are mistaken. And when we doubt, our word is not yet about the thing we doubt, but is a word about the doubt itself. For although we do not know whether the thing we doubt is true, we do know that we doubt. Therefore, when we say we doubt, we speak a true word, because we say what we know. And what about the fact that we can lie? When we do, we deliberately and knowingly have a false word, although there is still a true word in it—namely, that we are lying, for we know this. And when we admit that we have lied, we speak what is true, because we say what we know, for we know that we lied. But that Word which is God, though it can do more than we can, cannot do this. For it can do nothing except what it sees the Father do, and it does not speak of itself, but has from the Father all that it speaks, since the Father speaks it in a unique way. The great power of that Word is that it cannot lie, because there cannot be both yes and no in it, but yes is yes and no is no. Now, should something that is not true even be called a word? I readily agree if that is so. But what if our word is true and therefore rightly called a word? Can we speak of essence from essence, just as we can speak of sight from sight and knowledge from knowledge, as that Word of God is uniquely spoken of and should be spoken of? Why not? Because for us, to be is not the same as to know. We know many things that live in some way through memory and in some way die through being forgotten. So when those things are no longer in our knowledge, we still exist. And even when our knowledge has slipped away and perished from our mind, we are still alive.

Is our word, then, born of our knowledge only? Do we not say many things also that we do not know? And say them not with doubt, but thinking them to be true; while if perchance they are true in respect to the things themselves of which we speak, they are yet not true in respect to our word, because a word is not true unless it is born of a thing that is known. In this sense, then, our word is false, not when we lie, but when we are deceived. And when we doubt, our word is not yet of the thing of which we doubt, but it is a word concerning the doubt itself. For although we do not know whether that is true of which we doubt, yet we do know that we doubt; and hence, when we say we doubt, we say a word that is true, for we say what we know. And what, too, of its being possible for us to lie? And when we do, certainly we both willingly and knowingly have a word that is false, wherein there is a word that is true, viz. that we lie, for this we know. And when we confess that we have lied, we speak that which is true; for we say what we know, for we know that we lied. But that Word which is God, and can do more than we, cannot do this. For it can do nothing except what it sees the Father do; and it speaks not of itself, but it has from the Father all that it speaks, since the Father speaks it in a special way; and the great might of that Word is that it cannot lie, because there cannot be there yea and nay, but yea yea, nay nay. Well, but that is not even to be called a word, which is not true. I willingly assent, if so it be. What, then, if our word is true and therefore is rightly called a word? Is it the case that, as we can speak of sight of sight, and knowledge of knowledge, so we can speak of essence of essence, as that Word of God is especially spoken of, and is especially to be spoken of? Why so? Because to us, to be is not the same as to know; since we know many things which in some sense live by memory, and so in some sense die by being forgotten: and so, when those things are no longer in our knowledge, yet we still are: and while our knowledge has slipped away and perished out of our mind, we are still alive.

In those things that are so firmly known they can never slip from memory because they are always present and belong to the very nature of the mind itself — for example, knowing that we are alive (this continues as long as the mind continues, and because the mind always continues, this knowledge also always continues) — I say regarding this and similar cases, where we can better observe the image of God, it is hard to explain how an eternal word can be spoken about them, even though they are always known but not always being thought about, since our word exists in our thought. For it is eternal to the soul to live and eternal to know that it lives. Yet it is not eternal for the soul to be thinking about its own life or to be thinking about its own knowledge of its own life. When the soul turns to this or that activity, it will stop thinking about this, though it never stops knowing it. This means that if there can be any eternal knowledge in the mind, while the thought of that knowledge cannot be eternal, and if any inner and true word of ours is spoken only through our thought, then God alone can be understood to have a Word that is eternal and co-eternal with himself. Unless perhaps we should say that the very possibility of thought — since what is known can be truly thought even when it is not actually being thought — makes a word as perpetual as the knowledge itself is perpetual. But how is that a word if it is not yet formed in the vision of thought? How will it be like the knowledge from which it is born if it does not have the form of that knowledge, and is called a word only because it can have that form? This would be like saying something should be called a word because it can be a word. But what is this thing that can be a word and is therefore already considered worthy of the name word? What is this thing that is formable but not yet formed, except something in our mind that we toss back and forth by turning it this way and that while we think of one thing and then another, as they are discovered by us or come to us? The true word comes into being when, as I said, what we toss back and forth arrives at what we know and is formed by it, taking on its complete likeness, so that in whatever manner something is known, in that same manner it is also thought, that is, it is spoken in this way in the heart without articulate sound, without thought of articulate sound, such as certainly belongs to some particular language. So even if we grant, to avoid laborious argument over a name, that this something in our mind which can be formed from our knowledge should already be called a word even before it is formed, because it is, so to speak, already formable, who would not see how great the unlikeness would be between it and that Word of God, which exists in such a way in the form of God that it was never formable before being formed or ever capable of being formless, but is a simple form, simply equal to the one from whom it comes, and with whom it is wonderfully co-eternal?

25. In respect to those things also which are so known that they can never escape the memory, because they are present, and belong to the nature of the mind itself — as, e.g., the knowing that we are alive (for this continues so long as the mind continues; and because the mind continues always, this also continues always) — I say, in respect to this and to any other like instances, in which we are the rather to contemplate the image of God, it is difficult to make out in what way, although they are always known, yet because they are not always also thought of, an eternal word can be spoken respecting them, when our word is spoken in our thought. For it is eternal to the soul to live; it is eternal to know that it lives. Yet it is not eternal to it to be thinking of its own life, or to be thinking of its own knowledge of its own life; since, in entering upon this or that occupation, it will cease to think of this, although it does not cease from knowing it. And hence it comes to pass, that if there can be in the mind any knowledge that is eternal, while the thought of that knowledge cannot be eternal, and any inner and true word of ours is only said by our thought, then God alone can be understood to have a Word that is eternal, and co-eternal with Himself. Unless, perhaps, we are to say that the very possibility of thought — since that which is known is capable of being truly thought, even at the time when it is not being thought — constitutes a word as perpetual as the knowledge itself is perpetual. But how is that a word which is not yet formed in the vision of the thought? How will it be like the knowledge of which it is born, if it has not the form of that knowledge, and is only now called a word because it can have it? For it is much as if one were to say that a word is to be so called because it can be a word. But what is this that can be a word, and is therefore already held worthy of the name of a word? What, I say, is this thing that is formable, but not yet formed, except a something in our mind, which we toss to and fro by revolving it this way or that, while we think of first one thing and then another, according as they are found by or occur to us? And the true word then comes into being, when, as I said, that which we toss to and fro by revolving it arrives at that which we know, and is formed by that, in taking its entire likeness; so that in what manner each thing is known, in that manner also it is thought, i.e. is said in this manner in the heart, without articulate sound, without thought of articulate sound, such as no doubt belongs to some particular tongue. And hence if we even admit, in order not to dispute laboriously about a name, that this something of our mind, which can be formed from our knowledge, is to be already called a word, even before it is so formed, because it is, so to say, already formable, who would not see how great would be the unlikeness between it and that Word of God, which is so in the form of God, as not to have been formable before it was formed, or to have been capable at any time of being formless, but is a simple form, and simply equal to Him from whom it is, and with whom it is wonderfully co-eternal?

Therefore, the Word of God is called this in such a way that it should not be called a thought of God. This prevents us from believing that there is anything in God that can be turned over in the mind—something that at one time receives and at another recovers a form so as to be a word, and that can lose that form again and be turned over in some formless way. Certainly that excellent master of language knew well the power of words and had examined the nature of thought when he said in his poem, "And revolves with himself the varying issues of war," that is, thinks about them. Therefore, that Son of God is not called the Thought of God, but the Word of God. For our own thought, reaching what we know and being formed by it, is our true word. So the Word of God ought to be understood without any thought on God's part, so that it is understood as the simple form itself, containing nothing formable that can also be unformed. There are, indeed, passages of Holy Scripture that speak of God's thoughts, but this follows the same manner of speaking by which the forgetfulness of God is also mentioned there, whereas strictly speaking there is certainly no forgetfulness in Him.

Wherefore that Word of God is in such wise so called, as not to be called a thought of God, lest we believe that there is anything in God which can be revolved, so that it at one time receives and at another recovers a form, so as to be a word, and again can lose that form and be revolved in some sense formlessly. Certainly that excellent master of speech knew well the force of words, and had looked into the nature of thought, who said in his poem, And revolves with himself the varying issues of war, i.e. thinks of them. That Son of God, then, is not called the Thought of God, but the Word of God. For our own thought, attaining to what we know, and formed thereby, is our true word. And so the Word of God ought to be understood without any thought on the part of God, so that it be understood as the simple form itself, but containing nothing formable that can be also unformed. There are, indeed, passages of Holy Scripture that speak of God's thoughts; but this is after the same mode of speech by which the forgetfulness of God is also there spoken of, whereas in strict propriety of language there is in Him certainly no forgetfulness.

Since we have found in this enigma such great unlikeness to God and the Word of God, even though we found some likeness earlier, we must also admit this: even when we shall be like Him, when we shall see Him as He is (and certainly the one who said this was fully aware of our present unlikeness), not even then shall we be equal to Him in nature. For the nature that is created is always less than the nature that creates. At that time our word will not be false, because we shall neither lie nor be deceived. Perhaps, too, our thoughts will no longer revolve by passing back and forth from one thing to another, but we shall see all our knowledge at once and at a single glance. Still, when even this happens, if indeed it does happen, the creature that was formable will have been formed, so that nothing will be lacking from the form it ought to attain. Nevertheless, it will not be equal to that simplicity in which there is nothing formable, nothing that has been formed or reformed, but only form itself—which, being neither formless nor formed, is eternal and unchangeable substance.

26. Wherefore, since we have found now in this enigma so great an unlikeness to God and the Word of God, wherein yet there was found before some likeness, this, too, must be admitted, that even when we shall be like Him, when we shall see Him as He is (and certainly he who said this was aware beyond doubt of our present unlikeness), not even then shall we be equal to Him in nature. For that nature which is made is ever less than that which makes. And at that time our word will not indeed be false, because we shall neither lie nor be deceived. Perhaps, too, our thoughts will no longer revolve by passing and repassing from one thing to another, but we shall see all our knowledge at once, and at one glance. Still, when even this shall have come to pass, if indeed it shall come to pass, the creature which was formable will indeed have been formed, so that nothing will be wanting of that form to which it ought to attain; yet nevertheless it will not be to be equalled to that simplicity wherein there is not anything formable, which has been formed or reformed, but only form; and which being neither formless nor formed, itself is eternal and unchangeable substance.

We have spoken sufficiently about the Father and the Son, as much as we are able to see through this glass and in this enigma. We must now discuss the Holy Spirit, as far as God's gift allows us to see Him. According to the Holy Scriptures, the Holy Spirit belongs neither to the Father alone nor to the Son alone, but to both. In this way He suggests to us a mutual love by which the Father and the Son love one another. But the language of the Word of God, in order to train us, has made us search with greater effort for those things that do not lie on the surface but must be examined in hidden depths and drawn out from there. The Scriptures have not said "The Holy Spirit is Love." If they had said this, they would have eliminated a significant part of this investigation. Instead, they have said "God is love," so it remains uncertain and open to inquiry whether God the Father is love, or God the Son, or God the Holy Spirit, or the Trinity itself which is God. For we are not going to say that God is called Love because love itself is a substance worthy of the name God, but because it is a gift of God, just as it is said to God "You are my patience." This is not said because our patience is God's substance, but because He Himself gives it to us, as we read elsewhere "Since from Him is my patience." The way Scripture itself uses words sufficiently refutes this interpretation, for "You are my patience" is the same kind of expression as "You, Lord, are my hope" and "The Lord my God is my mercy," along with many similar texts. It does not say "O Lord my love" or "You are my love" or "God my love," but rather "God is love," just as it is said "God is a Spirit." Anyone who does not understand this must ask the Lord for understanding, not ask us for an explanation, for we cannot say anything more clearly.

27. We have sufficiently spoken of the Father and of the Son, so far as was possible for us to see through this glass and in this enigma. We must now treat of the Holy Spirit, so far as by God's gift it is permitted to see Him. And the Holy Spirit, according to the Holy Scriptures, is neither of the Father alone, nor of the Son alone, but of both; and so intimates to us a mutual love, wherewith the Father and the Son reciprocally love one another. But the language of the Word of God, in order to exercise us, has caused those things to be sought into with the greater zeal, which do not lie on the surface, but are to be scrutinized in hidden depths, and to be drawn out from thence. The Scriptures, accordingly, have not said, The Holy Spirit is Love. If they had said so, they would have done away with no small part of this inquiry. But they have said, God is love; so that it is uncertain and remains to be inquired whether God the Father is love, or God the Son, or God the Holy Ghost, or the Trinity itself which is God. For we are not going to say that God is called Love because love itself is a substance worthy of the name of God, but because it is a gift of God, as it is said to God, You are my patience. For this is not said because our patience is God's substance, but in that He Himself gives it to us; as it is elsewhere read, Since from Him is my patience. For the usage of words itself in Scripture sufficiently refutes this interpretation; for You are my patience is of the same kind as You, Lord, art my hope, and The Lord my God is my mercy, and many like texts. And it is not said, O Lord my love, or, You are my love, or, God my love; but it is said thus, God is love, as it is said, God is a Spirit. And he who does not discern this, must ask understanding from the Lord, not an explanation from us; for we cannot say anything more clearly.

God, then, is love. But the question is whether this refers to the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit, or the Trinity itself, since the Trinity is not three Gods but one God. However, I have already argued earlier in this book that the Trinity, which is God, should not be understood from those three aspects we found in the trinity of our mind in such a way that the Father would be the memory of all three, the Son the understanding of all three, and the Holy Spirit the love of all three. This would mean the Father would neither understand nor love for Himself, but the Son would understand for Him and the Holy Spirit love for Him, while He Himself would only remember both for Himself and for them. Likewise, the Son would neither remember nor love for Himself, but the Father would remember for Him and the Holy Spirit love for Him, while He Himself would only understand both for Himself and for them. Similarly, the Holy Spirit would neither remember nor understand for Himself, but the Father would remember for Him and the Son understand for Him, while He Himself would only love both for Himself and for them. Rather, it works this way: each and all of them have all three qualities in His own nature. These qualities are not distinct in them as they are in us, where memory is one thing, understanding another, and love or charity yet another. Instead, they are one single thing that is equivalent to all of them, namely wisdom itself. This is contained in the nature of each Person in such a way that the one who has it is identical with what He has, since He is an unchangeable and simple substance. If all this has been understood and made clearly true, so far as we are granted to see or conclude about such great matters, I do not know why both the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit should not be called Love, and all together one love, just as both the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit is called Wisdom, and all together not three wisdoms but one wisdom. For in the same way, both the Father is God, and the Son God, and the Holy Spirit God, and all three together one God.

28. God, then, is love; but the question is, whether the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit, or the Trinity itself: because the Trinity is not three Gods, but one God. But I have already argued above in this book, that the Trinity, which is God, is not so to be understood from those three things which have been set forth in the trinity of our mind, as that the Father should be the memory of all three, and the Son the understanding of all three, and the Holy Spirit the love of all three; as though the Father should neither understand nor love for Himself, but the Son should understand for Him, and the Holy Spirit love for Him, but He Himself should remember only both for Himself and for them; nor the Son remember nor love for Himself, but the Father should remember for Him, and the Holy Spirit love for Him, but He Himself understand only both for Himself and them; nor likewise that the Holy Spirit should neither remember nor understand for Himself, but the Father should remember for Him, and the Son understand for Him, while He Himself should love only both for Himself and for them; but rather in this way, that both all and each have all three each in His own nature. Nor that these things should differ in them, as in us memory is one thing, understanding another, love or charity another, but should be some one thing that is equivalent to all, as wisdom itself; and should be so contained in the nature of each, as that He who has it is that which He has, as being an unchangeable and simple substance. If all this, then, has been understood, and so far as is granted to us to see or conjecture in things so great, has been made patently true, I know not why both the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit should not be called Love, and all together one love, just as both the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit is called Wisdom, and all together not three, but one wisdom. For so also both the Father is God, and the Son God, and the Holy Ghost God, and all three together one God.

Yet it is not without purpose that in this Trinity the Son and no other is called the Word of God, and the Holy Spirit and no other the Gift of God, and God the Father alone is the one from whom the Word is born and from whom the Holy Spirit principally proceeds. I have added the word "principally" because we find that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as well. But the Father gave him this too, not by giving it to one who already existed and did not yet have it, but rather whatever he gave to the only-begotten Word, he gave by begetting him. Therefore he begot him in such a way that the common Gift should proceed from him also, and the Holy Spirit should be the Spirit of both. This distinction within the inseparable Trinity is not to be merely accepted in passing but to be carefully considered. For this is why the Word of God was specially called also the Wisdom of God, even though both Father and Holy Spirit are wisdom. If, then, any one of the three is to be specially called Love, what could be more fitting than that it should be the Holy Spirit? For in that simple and highest nature, substance is not one thing and love another, but substance itself is love, and love itself is substance, whether in the Father, or in the Son, or in the Holy Spirit. Yet the Holy Spirit is specially called Love.

29. And yet it is not to no purpose that in this Trinity the Son and none other is called the Word of God, and the Holy Spirit and none other the Gift of God, and God the Father alone is He from whom the Word is born, and from whom the Holy Spirit principally proceeds. And therefore I have added the word principally, because we find that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son also. But the Father gave Him this too, not as to one already existing, and not yet having it; but whatever He gave to the only-begotten Word, He gave by begetting Him. Therefore He so begot Him as that the common Gift should proceed from Him also, and the Holy Spirit should be the Spirit of both. This distinction, then, of the inseparable Trinity is not to be merely accepted in passing, but to be carefully considered; for hence it was that the Word of God was specially called also the Wisdom of God, although both Father and Holy Spirit are wisdom. If, then, any one of the three is to be specially called Love, what more fitting than that it should be the Holy Spirit?– namely, that in that simple and highest nature, substance should not be one thing and love another, but that substance itself should be love, and love itself should be substance, whether in the Father, or in the Son, or in the Holy Spirit; and yet that the Holy Spirit should be specially called Love.

Just as all the writings of the Old Testament together in Holy Scripture are sometimes indicated by the name "the Law"—for example, when the apostle quotes a text from the prophet Isaiah that says, "With various tongues and with various lips will I speak to this people," he introduces it by saying, "It is written in the Law." And the Lord Himself says, "It is written in their Law, They hated me without a cause," even though this is found in the Psalms. Sometimes, however, what was given through Moses is specifically called the Law, as in "The Law and the Prophets were until John" and "On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets." Here, what is specifically called the Law is clearly what came from Mount Sinai. The Psalms are also included under the name of the Prophets, yet in another place the Savior Himself says, "All things must be fulfilled which are written in the Law, and the Prophets, and the Psalms concerning me." Here, by contrast, He intended the name Prophets to be understood as not including the Psalms. Therefore, the Law together with the Prophets and the Psalms is called the Law in a general sense, but the Law is also specifically called what was given through Moses. Similarly, the Prophets are referred to generally along with the Psalms, and they are also referred to specifically without the Psalms. Many other examples could be given to show that many names of things are used both in a general way and also specifically applied to particular things, but there is no need for a long discussion about something so clear. I have said this much so that no one should think it inappropriate for us to call the Holy Spirit Love just because both God the Father and God the Son can be called Love.

30. Just as sometimes all the utterances of the Old Testament together in the Holy Scriptures are signified by the name of the Law. For the apostle, in citing a text from the prophet Isaiah, where he says, With various tongues and with various lips will I speak to this people, yet prefaced it by, It is written in the Law. And the Lord Himself says, It is written in their Law, They hated me without a cause, whereas this is read in the Psalm. And sometimes that which was given by Moses is specially called the Law: as it is said, The Law and the Prophets were until John; and, On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets. Here, certainly, that is specially called the Law which was from Mount Sinai. And the Psalms, too, are signified under the name of the Prophets; and yet in another place the Saviour Himself says, All things must needs be fulfilled, which are written in the Law, and the Prophets, and the Psalms concerning me. Here, on the other side, He meant the name of Prophets to be taken as not including the Psalms. Therefore the Law with the Prophets and the Psalms taken together is called the Law universally, and the Law is also specially so called which was given by Moses. Likewise the Prophets are so called in common together with the Psalms, and they are also specially so called exclusive of the Psalms. And many other instances might be adduced to teach us, that many names of things are both put universally, and also specially applied to particular things, were it not that a long discourse is to be avoided in a plain case. I have said so much, lest any one should think that it was therefore unsuitable for us to call the Holy Spirit Love, because both God the Father and God the Son can be called Love.

Just as we call the only Word of God specifically by the name of Wisdom, even though the Holy Spirit and the Father Himself are also universally wisdom, so the Holy Spirit is specifically called by the name of Love, even though both the Father and the Son are also universally love. The Word of God, that is, the only-begotten Son of God, is explicitly called the Wisdom of God by the apostle, where he says, "Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God." But where the Holy Spirit is called Love must be discovered by careful examination of the language of the apostle John, who, after saying, "Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God," went on to say, "And everyone that loves is born of God, and knows God. He that loves not, knows not God; for God is love." Here, clearly, he has called that love God, which he said was of God; therefore God of God is love. But since both the Son is born of God the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from God the Father, it is rightly asked which of them we ought to think is more properly called the love that is God. For the Father alone is God in such a way as not to be of God; and therefore the love that is God in such a way as to be of God is either the Son or the Holy Spirit. But when, in what follows, the apostle had mentioned the love of God, not the love by which we love Him, but the love by which He loved us and sent His Son to be a propitiation for our sins, and then had exhorted us also to love one another, and that so God would abide in us—because, that is, he had called God Love—immediately, in his wish to speak yet more clearly on the subject, "Hereby," he says, "we know that we dwell in Him, and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit." Therefore the Holy Spirit, of whom He has given us, makes us to abide in God, and Him in us; and this is what love does. Therefore He is the God that is love. Finally, a little later, when he had repeated the same thing, and had said "God is love," he immediately added, "And he who abides in love, abides in God, and God abides in him"; which corresponds to what he had said above, "Hereby we know that we abide in Him, and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit." He therefore is signified where we read that God is love. Therefore God the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father, when He has been given to man, inflames him to the love of God and of his neighbor, and is Himself love. For man has no source from which to love God, unless from God; and therefore he says a little later, "Let us love Him, because He first loved us." The apostle Paul, too, says, "The love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost, which is given unto us."

31. As, then, we call the only Word of God specially by the name of Wisdom, although universally both the Holy Spirit and the Father Himself is wisdom; so the Holy Spirit is specially called by the name of Love, although universally both the Father and the Son are love. But the Word of God, i.e. the only-begotten Son of God, is expressly called the Wisdom of God by the mouth of the apostle, where he says, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. But where the Holy Spirit is called Love, is to be found by careful scrutiny of the language of John the apostle, who, after saying, Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God, has gone on to say, And every one that loves is born of God, and knows God. He that loves not, knows not God; for God is love. Here, manifestly, he has called that love God, which he said was of God; therefore God of God is love. But because both the Son is born of God the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from God the Father, it is rightly asked which of them we ought here to think is the rather called the love that is God. For the Father only is so God as not to be of God; and hence the love that is so God as to be of God, is either the Son or the Holy Spirit. But when, in what follows, the apostle had mentioned the love of God, not that by which we love Him, but that by which He loved us, and sent His Son to be a propitiator for our sins, and thereupon had exhorted us also to love one another, and that so God would abide in us — because, namely, he had called God Love; immediately, in his wish to speak yet more expressly on the subject, Hereby, he says, know we that we dwell in Him, and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit. Therefore the Holy Spirit, of whom He has given us, makes us to abide in God, and Him in us; and this it is that love does. Therefore He is the God that is love. Lastly, a little after, when he had repeated the same thing, and had said God is love, he immediately subjoined, And he who abides in love, abides in God, and God abides in him; whence he had said above, Hereby we know that we abide in Him, and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit. He therefore is signified, where we read that God is love. Therefore God the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father, when He has been given to man, inflames him to the love of God and of his neighbor, and is Himself love. For man has not whence to love God, unless from God; and therefore he says a little after, Let us love Him, because He first loved us. The Apostle Paul, too, says, The love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost, which is given unto us.

There is no gift of God more excellent than this. It alone distinguishes the sons of the eternal kingdom from the sons of eternal perdition. Other gifts are also given by the Holy Spirit, but without love they are worthless. Therefore, unless the Holy Spirit is given to each person in such a way that it makes him love God and his neighbor, he is not moved from the left hand to the right. The Spirit is specifically called the Gift only because of love. And whoever does not have this love, even if he speaks with the tongues of men and angels, is just sounding brass and a tinkling cymbal. And even if he has the gift of prophecy and knows all mysteries and all knowledge, and even if he has all faith so that he can remove mountains, he is nothing. And even if he gives all his possessions to feed the poor, and even if he gives his body to be burned, it profits him nothing. How great a good, then, is that without which such great goods bring no one to eternal life! But love or charity itself—for they are two names for one thing—if someone has it who does not speak with tongues, nor has the gift of prophecy, nor knows all mysteries and all knowledge, nor gives all his possessions to the poor (either because he has none to give or because some necessity prevents it), nor delivers his body to be burned (if no trial of such suffering comes to him), brings that person to the kingdom. In this way, even faith itself is only made profitable by love, since faith without love can indeed exist but cannot profit. Therefore the Apostle Paul also says, "In Christ Jesus neither circumcision avails anything, nor uncircumcision, but faith that works by love," thus distinguishing it from that faith by which even the devils believe and tremble. Love, therefore, which is of God and is God, is specially the Holy Spirit, by whom the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts, and by this love the whole Trinity dwells in us. Therefore, most rightly the Holy Spirit, although He is God, is also called the gift of God. And by that gift what else can properly be understood except love, which brings us to God, and without which any other gift of God whatsoever does not bring us to God?

32. There is no gift of God more excellent than this. It alone distinguishes the sons of the eternal kingdom and the sons of eternal perdition. Other gifts, too, are given by the Holy Spirit; but without love they profit nothing. Unless, therefore, the Holy Spirit is so far imparted to each, as to make him one who loves God and his neighbor, he is not removed from the left hand to the right. Nor is the Spirit specially called the Gift, unless on account of love. And he who has not this love, though he speak with the tongues of men and angels, is sounding brass and a tinkling cymbal; and though he have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge, and though he have all faith, so that he can remove mountains, he is nothing; and though he bestow all his goods to feed the poor, and though he give his body to be burned, it profits him nothing. How great a good, then, is that without which goods so great bring no one to eternal life! But love or charity itself — for they are two names for one thing — if he have it that does not speak with tongues, nor has the gift of prophecy, nor knows all mysteries and all knowledge, nor gives all his goods to the poor, either because he has none to give or because some necessity hinders, nor delivers his body to be burned, if no trial of such a suffering overtakes him, brings that man to the kingdom, so that faith itself is only rendered profitable by love, since faith without love can indeed exist, but cannot profit. And therefore also the Apostle Paul says, In Christ Jesus neither circumcision avails anything, nor uncircumcision, but faith that works by love: so distinguishing it from that faith by which even the devils believe and tremble. Love, therefore, which is of God and is God, is specially the Holy Spirit, by whom the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts, by which love the whole Trinity dwells in us. And therefore most rightly is the Holy Spirit, although He is God, called also the gift of God. And by that gift what else can properly be understood except love, which brings to God, and without which any other gift of God whatsoever does not bring to God?

Does this also need to be proven, that the Holy Spirit is called the gift of God in the sacred books? If people need this demonstrated, we have in the Gospel of John the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, who says, If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink: whoever believes in me, as the Scripture says, out of his belly will flow rivers of living water. The evangelist then adds, And this He spoke of the Spirit, which those who believe in Him would receive. Hence the apostle Paul also says, And we have all been made to drink into one Spirit. The question is whether that water which is the Holy Spirit is called the gift of God. Just as we find here that this water is the Holy Spirit, so we find elsewhere in the same Gospel that this water is called the gift of God. When the same Lord was talking with the Samaritan woman at the well, to whom He had said, Give me to drink, and she had answered that the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans, Jesus replied to her, If you had known the gift of God, and who it is that says to you, Give me to drink, you would have asked of Him, and He would have given you living water. The woman says to Him, Sir, you have nothing to draw with, and the well is deep: where then do you get this living water, etc.? Jesus answered and said to her, Everyone who drinks of this water will thirst again; but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him will never thirst; but the water that I will give him will be in him a fountain of water springing up to eternal life. Since this living water, as the evangelist has explained to us, is the Holy Spirit, without doubt the Spirit is the gift of God, of which the Lord says here, If you had known the gift of God, and who it is that says to you, Give me to drink, you would have asked of Him, and He would have given you living water. For what is in the one passage, Out of his belly will flow rivers of living water, is in the other, will be in him a fountain of water springing up to eternal life.

33. Is this too to be proved, that the Holy Spirit is called in the sacred books the gift of God? If people look for this too, we have in the Gospel according to John the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, who says, If any one thirst, let him come to me and drink: he that believes in me, as the Scripture says, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. And the evangelist has gone on further to add, And this He spoke of the Spirit, which they should receive who believe in Him. And hence Paul the apostle also says, And we have all been made to drink into one Spirit. The question then is, whether that water is called the gift of God which is the Holy Spirit. But as we find here that this water is the Holy Spirit, so we find elsewhere in the Gospel itself that this water is called the gift of God. For when the same Lord was talking with the woman of Samaria at the well, to whom He had said, Give me to drink, and she had answered that the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans, Jesus answered and said to her, If you had known the gift of God, and who it is that says to you, Give me to drink, you would have asked of Him, and He would have given you living water. The woman says unto Him, Sir, you have nothing to draw with, and the well is deep: whence then have you this living water, etc.? Jesus answered and said to her, Every one that drinks of this water shall thirst again; but whose shall drink of the water that I shall give him, shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him, shall be in him a fountain of water springing up unto eternal life. Because this living water, then, as the evangelist has explained to us, is the Holy Spirit, without doubt the Spirit is the gift of God, of which the Lord says here, If you had known the gift of God, and who it is that says unto you, Give me to drink, you would have asked of Him, and He would have given you living water. For that which is in the one passage, Out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water, is in the other, shall be in him a fountain of water springing up unto eternal life.

The apostle Paul also says, "To each of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ." Then, to show that by the gift of Christ he meant the Holy Spirit, he continues, "Therefore He says, 'He has ascended up on high, He has led captivity captive, and has given gifts to men.'" Everyone knows that the Lord Jesus, after ascending into heaven following His resurrection from the dead, gave the Holy Spirit. Those who believed were filled with Him and spoke in the tongues of all nations. Let no one object that Paul says "gifts" and not "gift," because he was quoting from the Psalm. In the Psalm it reads: "You have ascended up on high, You have led captivity captive, You have received gifts in men." This is how it appears in many manuscripts, especially the Greek ones, and this is how we have it translated from the Hebrew. The apostle therefore said "gifts" as the prophet did, not "gift." But whereas the prophet said "You have received gifts in men," the apostle preferred to say "He gave gifts to men." This allows the fullest meaning to be gathered from both expressions, one prophetic and one apostolic, because both possess the authority of divine utterance. Both are true: that He gave to men and that He received in men. He gave to men as the head to His own members. He Himself who gave also received in men, certainly as in His own members. Because of His own members, He cried from heaven, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?" And concerning His own members He says, "Since you have done it to one of the least of these that are mine, you have done it unto me." Christ Himself therefore both gave from heaven and received on earth. Furthermore, both prophet and apostle have said "gifts" because many gifts, which are proper to each individual, are distributed in common to all the members of Christ by the Gift, which is the Holy Spirit. Each person does not have all gifts separately, but some have these and some have those, although all have the Gift itself by which what is proper to each is distributed to them, that is, the Holy Spirit. Elsewhere too, after mentioning many gifts, Paul says, "All these works that one and the self-same Spirit, dividing to each severally as He will." This language is also found in the Epistle to the Hebrews, where it is written, "God also bearing witness both with signs and wonders, and with various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost." So here, when Paul had said, "He ascended up on high, He led captivity captive, He gave gifts to men," he continues, "But that He ascended, what is it but that He also first descended into the lower parts of the earth? He who descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that He might fill all things. And He gave some apostles, some prophets, and some evangelists, and some pastors and doctors." This is why gifts are spoken of, because as he says elsewhere, "Are all apostles? Are all prophets?" and so on. Here he has added, "For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the building up of the body of Christ." This is the house which, as the Psalm sings, is built up after the captivity, since the house of Christ, which is called His Church, is built up of those who have been rescued from the devil by whom they were held captive. He Himself led this captivity captive, who conquered the devil. To prevent the devil from drawing into eternal punishment those who were to become members of the Holy Head, He bound him first by the bonds of righteousness and then by those of might. The devil himself therefore is called captivity, which He led captive who ascended up on high and gave gifts to men, or received gifts in men.

34. Paul the apostle also says, To each of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ; and then, that he might show that by the gift of Christ he meant the Holy Spirit, he has gone on to add, Wherefore He says, He has ascended up on high, He has led captivity captive, and has given gifts to men. And every one knows that the Lord Jesus, when He had ascended into heaven after the resurrection from the dead, gave the Holy Spirit, with whom they who believed were filled, and spoke with the tongues of all nations. And let no one object that he says gifts, not gift: for he quoted the text from the Psalm. And in the Psalm it is read thus, You have ascended up on high, You have led captivity captive, You have received gifts in men. For so it stands in many mss., especially in the Greek mss., and so we have it translated from the Hebrew. The apostle therefore said gifts, as the prophet did, not gift. But whereas the prophet said, You have received gifts in men, the apostle has preferred saying, He gave gifts to men: and this in order that the fullest sense may be gathered from both expressions, the one prophetic, the other apostolic; because both possess the authority of a divine utterance. For both are true, as well that He gave to men, as that He received in men. He gave to men, as the head to His own members: He Himself that gave, received in men, no doubt as in His own members; on account of which, namely, His own members, He cried from heaven, Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? And of which, namely, His own members, He says, Since you have done it to one of the least of these that are mine, you have done it unto me. Christ Himself, therefore, both gave from heaven and received on earth. And further, both prophet and apostle have said gifts for this reason, because many gifts, which are proper to each, are divided in common to all the members of Christ, by the Gift, which is the Holy Spirit. For each severally has not all, but some have these and some have those; although all have the Gift itself by which that which is proper to each is divided to Him, i.e. the Holy Spirit. For elsewhere also, when he had mentioned many gifts, All these, he says, works that one and the self-same Spirit, dividing to each severally as He will. And this word is found also in the Epistle to the Hebrews, where it is written, God also bearing witness both with signs and wonders, and with various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost. And so here, when he had said, He ascended up on high, He led captivity captive, He gave gifts to men, he says further, But that He ascended, what is it but that He also first descended into the lower parts of the earth? He who descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that He might fill all things. And He gave some apostles, some prophets, and some evangelists, and some pastors and doctors. (This we see is the reason why gifts are spoken of; because, as he says elsewhere, Are all apostles? Are all prophets? etc.) And here he has added, For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the building up of the body of Christ. This is the house which, as the Psalm sings, is built up after the captivity; since the house of Christ, which house is called His Church, is built up of those who have been rescued from the devil, by whom they were held captive. But He Himself led this captivity captive, who conquered the devil. And that he might not draw with him into eternal punishment those who were to become the members of the Holy Head, He bound him first by the bonds of righteousness, and then by those of might. The devil himself, therefore, is called captivity, which He led captive who ascended up on high, and gave gifts to men, or received gifts in men.

The apostle Peter, as we read in the canonical book that records the Acts of the Apostles, spoke to troubled Jews about Christ. When they asked, "Brothers, what shall we do? Tell us," he said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." We also read in the same book that Simon Magus wanted to give the apostles money so that he might receive power from them to give the Holy Spirit through laying on of hands. Peter said to him, "May your money perish with you, because you thought you could buy the gift of God with money." In another place in the same book, when Peter was speaking to Cornelius and those with him, announcing and preaching Christ, Scripture says, "While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all who heard the word, and the believers from among the circumcised who came with Peter were astonished, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles. For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God." When Peter later gave an account to the brothers in Jerusalem about his act of baptizing the uncircumcised, because the Holy Spirit had come upon them before baptism to settle the question, and the brothers in Jerusalem were troubled when they heard it, he said, after the rest of his words, "When I began to speak to them, the Holy Spirit fell upon them just as upon us in the beginning. And I remembered the word of the Lord, how He said, 'John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.' If therefore God gave them the same gift as He gave us who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could hinder God from giving them the Holy Spirit?" There are many other scriptural testimonies that unanimously confirm that the Holy Spirit is the gift of God, insofar as He is given to those who through Him love God. But to collect them all would take too long. And what would be enough to satisfy those who are not satisfied with the ones we have already cited?

35. And Peter the apostle, as we read in that canonical book, wherein the Acts of the Apostles are recorded — when the hearts of the Jews were troubled as he spoke of Christ, and they said, Brethren, what shall we do? Tell us, — said to them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins: and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. And we read likewise in the same book, that Simon Magus desired to give money to the apostles, that he might receive power from them, whereby the Holy Spirit might be given by the laying on of his hands. And the same Peter said to him, Your money perish with you: because you have thought to purchase for money the gift of God. And in another place of the same book, when Peter was speaking to Cornelius, and to those who were with him, and was announcing and preaching Christ, the Scripture says, While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all them that heard the word; and they of the circumcision that believed, as many as came with Peter, were astonished, because that upon the Gentiles also the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. And when Peter afterwards was giving an account to the brethren that were at Jerusalem of this act of his, that he had baptized those who were not circumcised, because the Holy Spirit, to cut the knot of the question, had come upon them before they were baptized, and the brethren at Jerusalem were moved when they heard it, he says, after the rest of his words, And when I began to speak to them, the Holy Spirit fell upon them, as upon us in the beginning. And I remembered the word of the Lord, how He said, that John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit. If, therefore, He gave a like gift to them, as also to us who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I, that I could hinder God from giving to them the Holy Spirit? And there are many other testimonies of the Scriptures, which unanimously attest that the Holy Spirit is the gift of God, in so far as He is given to those who by Him love God. But it is too long a task to collect them all. And what is enough to satisfy those who are not satisfied with those we have alleged?

Certainly they must be warned, since they now see that the Holy Spirit is called the gift of God, that when they hear of the gift of the Holy Spirit, they should understand this as the same kind of expression found in the phrase "the body of the flesh." Just as the body of the flesh is nothing other than the flesh itself, so the gift of the Holy Spirit is nothing other than the Holy Spirit himself. He is the gift of God insofar as he is given to those who receive him. But in himself he is God, even if he had never been given to anyone, because he was God co-eternal with the Father and the Son before he was given to anyone. Nor is he less than they are simply because they give and he is given. For he is given as God's gift in such a way that he also gives himself, being God. He cannot be said to lack his own power, since it is written of him, "The Spirit blows where it wills," and the apostle says, as I have already mentioned above, "All these things are the work of that same Spirit, distributing to each person individually as he wills." What we have here is not the creation of the one who is given and the authority of those who give, but the harmony of the given and the givers.

36. Certainly they must be warned, since they now see that the Holy Spirit is called the gift of God, that when they hear of the gift of the Holy Spirit, they should recognize therein that mode of speech which is found in the words, In the spoiling of the body of the flesh. For as the body of the flesh is nothing else but the flesh, so the gift of the Holy Spirit is nothing else but the Holy Spirit. He is then the gift of God, so far as He is given to those to whom He is given. But in Himself He is God, although He were given to no one, because He was God co-eternal with the Father and the Son before He was given to any one. Nor is He less than they, because they give, and He is given. For He is given as a gift of God in such way that He Himself also gives Himself as being God. For He cannot be said not to be in His own power, of whom it is said, The Spirit blows where it lists; and the apostle says, as I have already mentioned above, All these things works that selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as He will. We have not here the creating of Him that is given, and the rule of them that give, but the concord of the given and the givers.

If Holy Scripture declares that God is love, and that love is from God, and works in us so that we remain in God and he in us, and we know this because he has given us his Spirit, then the Spirit himself is God, who is love. Furthermore, if there is no greater gift of God than love, and there is no greater gift of God than the Holy Spirit, what follows more naturally than that he himself is love, who is called both God and from God? And if the love by which the Father loves the Son, and the Son loves the Father, ineffably shows the communion of both, what is more fitting than that he should be specially called love, who is the Spirit common to both? For this is the sounder view both to believe and to understand: that the Holy Spirit is not the only love in that Trinity, yet he is not called love specially without reason, for the reasons we have given. Just as he is not the only Spirit or the only holy one in that Trinity, since both the Father is a Spirit and the Son is a Spirit, and both the Father is holy and the Son is holy—as piety does not doubt. Yet it is not without reason that he is specially called the Holy Spirit, because he is common to both, he is specially called what both are in common. Otherwise, if in that Trinity the Holy Spirit alone is love, then surely the Son too turns out to be the Son not only of the Father but also of the Holy Spirit. For he is both said and read in countless places to be the only-begotten Son of God the Father. So what the apostle says of God the Father is also true: "Who has delivered us from the power of darkness and has translated us into the kingdom of the Son of his own love." He did not say "of his own Son." If he had said that, he would have spoken most truly, just as he did speak most truly because he has often said it. But he says "the Son of his own love." Therefore the Son is also the Son of the Holy Spirit, if in that Trinity there is no love in God except the Holy Spirit. But since this is most absurd, it follows that the Holy Spirit is not the only love there, but is specially called so for the reasons I have sufficiently explained. And the words "Son of his own love" mean nothing else than his own beloved Son—the Son, in short, of his own substance. For the love in the Father, which exists in his ineffably simple nature, is nothing else than his very nature and substance itself—as we have already often said and are not ashamed to repeat often. And therefore the Son of his love is none other than he who is born of his substance.

37. Wherefore, if Holy Scripture proclaims that God is love, and that love is of God, and works this in us that we abide in God and He in us, and that hereby we know this, because He has given us of His Spirit, then the Spirit Himself is God, who is love. Next, if there be among the gifts of God none greater than love, and there is no greater gift of God than the Holy Spirit, what follows more naturally than that He is Himself love, who is called both God and of God? And if the love by which the Father loves the Son, and the Son loves the Father, ineffably demonstrates the communion of both, what is more suitable than that He should be specially called love, who is the Spirit common to both? For this is the sounder thing both to believe and to understand, that the Holy Spirit is not alone love in that Trinity, yet is not specially called love to no purpose, for the reasons we have alleged; just as He is not alone in that Trinity either a Spirit or holy, since both the Father is a Spirit, and the Son is a Spirit; and both the Father is holy, and the Son is holy — as piety doubts not. And yet it is not to no purpose that He is specially called the Holy Spirit; for because He is common to both, He is specially called that which both are in common. Otherwise, if in that Trinity the Holy Spirit alone is love, then doubtless the Son too turns out to be the Son, not of the Father only, but also of the Holy Spirit. For He is both said and read in countless places to be so — the only-begotten Son of God the Father; as that what the apostle says of God the Father is true too: Who has delivered us from the power of darkness and has translated us into the kingdom of the Son of His own love. He did not say, of His own Son. If He had so said, He would have said it most truly, just as He did say it most truly, because He has often said it; but He says, the Son of His own love. Therefore He is the Son also of the Holy Spirit, if there is in that Trinity no love in God except the Holy Spirit. And if this is most absurd, it remains that the Holy Spirit is not alone therein love, but is specially so called for the reasons I have sufficiently set forth; and that the words, Son of His own love, mean nothing else than His own beloved Son — the Son, in short, of His own substance. For the love in the Father, which is in His ineffably simple nature, is nothing else than His very nature and substance itself — as we have already often said, and are not ashamed of often repeating. And hence the Son of His love, is none other than He who is born of His substance.

Wherefore the logic of Eunomius, from whom the Eunomian heretics sprang, is ridiculous. For when he could not understand, and would not believe, that the only-begotten Word of God, by which all things were made, is the Son of God by nature — that is, born of the ousia (substance) of the Father — he claimed that He was not the Son according to His own nature or ousia or essence, but the Son of the will of God. He meant to assert that the will by which God begot the Son was something accidental and optional to God — meaning it in the same way that we ourselves sometimes will something which we did not will before, as though it were not for these very reasons that our nature is seen to be changeable — a thing which God forbid we should believe about God. For it is written, Many are the thoughts in the heart of man, but the counsel of the Lord abides forever, for no other reason except that we may understand or believe that as God is eternal, so is His counsel for eternity, and therefore unchangeable, as He himself is. And what is said of thoughts can most truly be said also of the will: there are many wills in the heart of man, but the will of the Lord abides forever. Some, again, to escape saying that the only-begotten Word is the Son of the counsel or will of God, have affirmed that the same Word is the counsel or will itself of the Father. But it is better in my judgment to say counsel of counsel, and will of will, as ousia of ousia, wisdom of wisdom, so that we may not be led into that absurdity, which we have already refuted, and say that the Son makes the Father wise or willing, if the Father does not have in His own ousia either counsel or will. It was certainly a sharp answer that somebody gave to the heretic, who very cleverly asked him whether God begot the Son willingly or unwillingly, so that if he said unwillingly, it would follow most absurdly that God was miserable; but if willingly, he would immediately infer, as though by an unbeatable argument, what he was aiming at, namely that He was the Son, not of His nature, but of His will. But that other person, with great alertness, asked him in return whether God the Father was God willingly or unwillingly; so that if he answered unwillingly, that misery would follow, which to believe of God is sheer madness; and if he said willingly, it would be replied to him, Then He is God too by His own will, not by His nature. What remained, then, except that he should be silent and recognize that he was himself bound by his own question in an unsolvable knot? But if any person in the Trinity is also to be specially called the will of God, this name, like love, is better suited to the Holy Spirit; for what else is love, except will?

38. Wherefore the logic of Eunomius, from whom the Eunomian heretics sprang, is ridiculous. For when he could not understand, and would not believe, that the only-begotten Word of God, by which all things were made is the Son of God by nature, — i.e. born of the substance of the Father — he alleged that He was not the Son of His own nature or substance or essence, but the Son of the will of God; so as to mean to assert that the will by which he begot the Son was something accidental [and optional] to God — to wit, in that way that we ourselves sometimes will something which before we did not will, as though it was not for these very things that our nature is perceived to be changeable — a thing which far be it from us to believe of God. For it is written, Many are the thoughts in the heart of man, but the counsel of the Lord abides for ever, for no other reason except that we may understand or believe that as God is eternal, so is His counsel for eternity, and therefore unchangeable, as He himself is. And what is said of thoughts can most truly be said also of the will: there are many wills in the heart of man, but the will of the Lord abides forever. Some, again, to escape saying that the only-begotten Word is the Son of the counsel or will of God, have affirmed the same Word to be the counsel or will itself of the Father. But it is better in my judgment to say counsel of counsel, and will of will, as substance of substance, wisdom of wisdom, that we may not be led into that absurdity, which we have refuted already, and say that the Son makes the Father wise or willing, if the Father has not in His own substance either counsel or will. It was certainly a sharp answer that somebody gave to the heretic, who most subtly asked him whether God begot the Son willingly or unwillingly, in order that if he said unwillingly, it would follow most absurdly that God was miserable; but if willingly, he would immediately infer, as though by an invincible reason, that at which he was aiming, viz. that He was the Son, not of His nature, but of His will. But that other, with great wakefulness, demanded of him in turn, whether God the Father was God willingly or unwillingly; in order that if he answered unwillingly, that misery would follow, which to believe of God is sheer madness; and if he said willingly, it would be replied to him, Then He is God too by His own will, not by His nature. What remained, then, except that he should hold his peace, and discern that he was himself bound by his own question in an insoluble bond? But if any person in the Trinity is also to be specially called the will of God, this name, like love, is better suited to the Holy Spirit; for what else is love, except will?

I see that my argument in this book about the Holy Spirit, based on Holy Scripture, is quite sufficient for faithful people who already know that the Holy Spirit is God and is not of a different ousia, nor inferior to the Father and the Son—as we have demonstrated to be true in earlier books, according to the same Scriptures. We have also reasoned from the created order that God made, and, as far as we were able, have urged those who demand rational explanation on such matters to see and understand His invisible things, as far as they can, through those things which are made, and especially through the rational or intellectual creature which is made according to the image of God. Through this, so to speak, as through a glass, they might discern as far as they are able—if they are able—the Trinity which is God, in our own memory, understanding, and will. If anyone thoughtfully considers these three things as divinely established by nature in his own mind, and remembers through memory, contemplates through understanding, and embraces through love how great a reality exists in the mind by which even the eternal and unchangeable nature can be remembered, seen, and desired, that person certainly discovers an image of that supreme Trinity. And he ought to direct his whole life toward remembering, seeing, and loving that supreme Trinity, so that he may recollect, contemplate, and delight in it. But I have warned him, as much as seemed adequate, that he must not compare this image—fashioned by that Trinity yet corrupted for the worse by his own fault—to that same Trinity in such a way as to think it resembles it in every respect. Rather, he should recognize in that likeness, whatever its quality, a great unlikeness as well.

39. I see that my argument in this book respecting the Holy Spirit, according to the Holy Scripture, is quite enough for faithful men who know already that the Holy Spirit is God, and not of another substance, nor less than the Father and the Son — as we have shown to be true in the former books, according to the same Scriptures. We have reasoned also from the creature which God made, and, as far as we could, have warned those who demand a reason on such subjects to behold and understand His invisible things, so far as they could, by those things which are made and especially by the rational or intellectual creature which is made after the image of God; through which glass, so to say, they might discern as far as they could, if they could, the Trinity which is God, in our own memory, understanding, will. Which three things, if any one intelligently regards as by nature divinely appointed in his own mind, and remembers by memory, contemplates by understanding, embraces by love, how great a thing that is in the mind, whereby even the eternal and unchangeable nature can be recollected, beheld, desired, doubtless that man finds an image of that highest Trinity. And he ought to refer the whole of his life to the remembering, seeing, loving that highest Trinity, in order that he may recollect, contemplate, be delighted by it. But I have warned him, so far as seemed sufficient, that he must not so compare this image thus wrought by that Trinity, and by his own fault changed for the worse, to that same Trinity as to think it in all points like to it, but rather that he should discern in that likeness, of whatever sort it be, a great unlikeness also.

I have certainly done my best, not to make the thing visible face to face, but rather to show it through this likeness in an enigma, however slightly, by inference, in our memory and understanding, to suggest God the Father and God the Son: that is, God the begetter, who has in some way spoken through His own co-eternal Word everything that He has in His substance; and God His Word Himself, who Himself has nothing either more or less in substance than is in the Father, who has begotten the Word not falsely but truly. I have assigned to memory everything we know, even when we are not thinking about it, but to understanding I have assigned the formation of thought according to a certain particular mode. For we usually say we understand something when, by thinking about it, we have discovered it to be true; and this is what we then store again in memory. But there is an even more hidden depth of our memory, where we first discovered this also when we thought about it, and where an inner word is begotten that belongs to no language—like knowledge of knowledge, vision of vision, and understanding that appears in reflective thought; understanding that had already existed beforehand in the memory but was hidden there, although unless thought itself also had some kind of memory of its own, it would not return to those things it had left in memory while it turned to think about other things.

40. I have undoubtedly taken pains so far as I could, not indeed so that the thing might be seen face to face, but that it might be seen by this likeness in an enigma, in how small a degree soever, by conjecture, in our memory and understanding, to intimate God the Father and God the Son: i.e. God the begetter, who has in some way spoken by His own co-eternal Word all things that He has in His substance; and God His Word Himself, who Himself has nothing either more or less in substance than is in Him, who, not lyingly but truly, has begotten the Word; and I have assigned to memory everything that we know, even if we were not thinking of it, but to understanding the formation after a certain special mode of the thought. For we are usually said to understand what, by thinking of it, we have found to be true; and this it is again that we leave in the memory. But that is a still more hidden depth of our memory, wherein we found this also first when we thought of it, and wherein an inner word is begotten such as belongs to no tongue — as it were, knowledge of knowledge, vision of vision, and understanding which appears in [reflective] thought; of understanding which had indeed existed before in the memory, but was latent there, although, unless the thought itself had also some sort of memory of its own, it would not return to those things which it had left in the memory while it turned to think of other things.

I have shown nothing in this enigma about the Holy Spirit that might seem like Him, except our own will, or love, or affection, which is a stronger form of will. Our natural will is affected in various ways depending on what objects are near us or come to our attention, which either attract or repel us. What does this mean? Should we say that when our will is right, it doesn't know what to desire or what to avoid? Moreover, if it does know, then it clearly has its own kind of knowledge, which cannot exist without memory and understanding. Or should we listen to anyone who claims that love doesn't know what it's doing, when it acts rightly? Just as there are both understanding and love in that primary memory where we find stored what we can think about—because we also find these two things there when we discover through thinking that we both understand and love something, which were already there even when we weren't thinking about them—and just as there are memory and love in that understanding which is formed by thought (the true word we speak inwardly without using any human language when we express what we know, because our thought's focus only returns to something by remembering it and only wants to return by loving it), so too love, which combines the vision present in memory and the vision of thought formed from it like parent and offspring, would not know what to love rightly unless it had knowledge of what it desired, which it cannot have without memory and understanding.

41. But I have shown nothing in this enigma respecting the Holy Spirit such as might appear to be like Him, except our own will, or love, or affection, which is a stronger will, since our will which we have naturally is variously affected, according as various objects are adjacent or occur to it, by which we are attracted or offended. What, then, is this? Are we to say that our will, when it is right, knows not what to desire, what to avoid? Further, if it knows, doubtless then it has a kind of knowledge of its own, such as cannot be without memory and understanding. Or are we to listen to any one who should say that love knows not what it does, which does not do wrongly? As, then, there are both understanding and love in that primary memory wherein we find provided and stored up that to which we can come in thought, because we find also those two things there, when we find by thinking that we both understand and love anything; which things were there too when we were not thinking of them: and as there are memory and love in that understanding, which is formed by thought, which true word we say inwardly without the tongue of any nation when we say what we know; for the gaze of our thought does not return to anything except by remembering it, and does not care to return unless by loving it: so love, which combines the vision brought about in the memory, and the vision of the thought formed thereby, as if parent and offspring, would not know what to love rightly unless it had a knowledge of what it desired, which it cannot have without memory and understanding.

But since these things exist in one person, as they do in a human being, someone might say to us: These three things—memory, understanding, and love—are mine, not their own. They don't act for themselves, but for me; or rather, I act through them. I am the one who remembers through memory, understands through understanding, and loves through love. When I direct my mind's eye to my memory and speak in my heart about something I know, a true word is born from my knowledge. Both of these are mine—both the knowledge and the word. I am the one who knows, and I am the one who speaks in my heart about what I know. When I search my memory by thinking and discover that I understand and love something—an understanding and love that were already there before I thought about them—it is my own understanding and my own love that I find in my own memory. I am the one who understands, and I am the one who loves, not those things themselves. Similarly, when my thought is mindful and wants to return to things it had left in memory, and to understand and observe them and speak them inwardly, it is my own memory that is mindful, and it is my own will, not its will, by which it wants these things. When my love itself remembers and understands what it should desire and what it should avoid, it remembers by my memory, not its own, and it understands what it intelligently loves by my understanding, not its own. In short, through all these three things, it is I who remember, I who understand, I who love—I who am neither memory, nor understanding, nor love, but who possess them. These things, then, can be said by a single person who has these three things but is not these three things. But in the simplicity of that Highest Nature, which is God, although there is one God, there are three persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

42. But since these are in one person, as man is, some one may say to us, These three things, memory, understanding, and love, are mine, not their own; neither do they do that which they do for themselves, but for me, or rather I do it by them. For it is I who remember by memory, and understand by understanding, and love by love: and when I direct the mind's eye to my memory, and so say in my heart the thing I know, and a true word is begotten of my knowledge, both are mine, both the knowledge certainly and the word. For it is I who know, and it is I who say in my heart the thing I know. And when I come to find in my memory by thinking that I understand and love anything, which understanding and love were there also before I thought thereon, it is my own understanding and my own love that I find in my own memory, whereby it is I that understand, and I that love, not those things themselves. Likewise, when my thought is mindful, and wills to return to those things which it had left in the memory, and to understand and behold them, and say them inwardly, it is my own memory that is mindful, and it is my own, not its will, wherewith it wills. When my very love itself, too, remembers and understands what it ought to desire and what to avoid, it remembers by my, not by its own memory; and understands that which it intelligently loves by my, not by its own, understanding. In brief, by all these three things, it is I that remember, I that understand, I that love, who am neither memory, nor understanding, nor love, but who have them. These things, then, can be said by a single person, which has these three, but is not these three. But in the simplicity of that Highest Nature, which is God, although there is one God, there are three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

This trinity itself, then, is different from the image of a trinity in something else. Because of this image, the thing that contains these three things is also called an image, just as both a wooden panel and the picture painted on it are together called an image. But because of the picture painted on it, the panel itself is also called an image. However, in that Highest Trinity, which is incomparably above all things, there is such great indivisibility that while a trinity of three people cannot be called one person, in that Trinity there both is said to be and truly is one God. That Trinity is not in one God, but is one God. Also, unlike this image in the case of man, which has these three things but is one person, it is not the same with the Trinity. Instead, there are three persons: the Father of the Son, the Son of the Father, and the Spirit of both Father and Son. For although memory in man—especially that memory which animals do not have, namely the memory by which intelligible things are contained without having entered through the bodily senses—has in this image of the Trinity, according to its own small measure, some kind of likeness to the Father, though incomparably unequal; and likewise understanding in man, which is formed through the intention of thought when what is known is spoken and there is a word of the heart belonging to no tongue, has in its great disparity some likeness to the Son; and love in man, which proceeds from knowledge and joins memory and understanding as something common to parent and offspring and is understood to be neither parent nor offspring, has in that image some extremely unequal likeness to the Holy Spirit—nevertheless, it is not the case that, as in that image of the Trinity these three are not one man but belong to one man, so in the Highest Trinity itself, of which this is an image, these three belong to one God. Rather, they are one God, and these are three persons, not one. This is certainly a wonderfully inexpressible thing, or inexpressibly wonderful, that while this image of the Trinity is one person, the Highest Trinity itself is three persons, yet that Trinity of three persons is more indivisible than this Trinity of one person. For that Trinity, in the nature of Divinity, or perhaps better, Deity, is what it is, and is mutually and always unchangeably equal. There was no time when it was not or when it was otherwise, and there will be no time when it will not be or when it will be otherwise. But these three things that exist in the inadequate image, although they are not separated in space (for they are not bodies), are nevertheless in this present life separated from each other in magnitude. For even though there are no separate masses in them, this does not prevent us from seeing that memory is greater than understanding in one person, but the opposite in another, and that in yet another person these two are surpassed by the greatness of love—and this is true whether the two themselves are equal to one another or not. And so each two compared to each one, each one compared to each two, and each one compared to each one: the lesser are surpassed by the greater. And when they have been healed of all infirmity and are mutually equal, not even then will that thing which by grace will not be changed be made equal to that which by nature cannot change, because the creature cannot be made equal to the Creator. Even when it is healed from all infirmity, it will still be subject to change.

43. A thing itself, then, which is a trinity is different from the image of a trinity in some other thing; by reason of which image, at the same time that also in which these three things are is called an image; just as both the panel, and the picture painted on it, are at the same time called an image; but by reason of the picture painted on it, the panel also is called by the name of image. But in that Highest Trinity, which is incomparably above all things, there is so great an indivisibility, that whereas a trinity of men cannot be called one man, in that, there both is said to be and is one God, nor is that Trinity in one God, but it is one God. Nor, again, as that image in the case of man has these three things but is one person, so is it with the Trinity; but therein are three persons, the Father of the Son, and the Son of the Father, and the Spirit of both Father and Son. For although the memory in the case of man, and especially that memory which beasts have not — viz. the memory by which things intelligible are so contained as that they have not entered that memory through the bodily senses — has in this image of the Trinity, in proportion to its own small measure, a likeness of the Father, incomparably unequal, yet of some sort, whatever it be: and likewise the understanding in the case of man, which by the purpose of the thought is formed thereby, when that which is known is said, and there is a word of the heart belonging to no tongue, has in its own great disparity some likeness of the Son; and love in the case of man proceeding from knowledge, and combining memory and understanding, as though common to parent and offspring, whereby it is understood to be neither parent nor offspring, has in that image, some, however exceedingly unequal, likeness of the Holy Spirit: it is nevertheless not the case, that, as in that image of the Trinity, these three are not one man, but belong to one man, so in the Highest Trinity itself, of which this is an image, these three belong to one God, but they are one God, and these are three persons, not one. A thing certainly wonderfully ineffable, or ineffably wonderful, that while this image of the Trinity is one person, but the Highest Trinity itself is three persons, yet that Trinity of three persons is more indivisible than this of one. For that [Trinity], in the nature of the Divinity, or perhaps better Deity, is that which it is, and is mutually and always unchangeably equal: and there was no time when it was not, or when it was otherwise; and there will be no time when it will not be, or when it will be otherwise. But these three that are in the inadequate image, although they are not separate in place, for they are not bodies, yet are now in this life mutually separate in magnitude. For that there are therein no several bulks, does not hinder our seeing that memory is greater than understanding in one man, but the contrary in another; and that in yet another these two are overpassed by the greatness of love; and this whether the two themselves are or are not equal to one another. And so each two by each one, and each one by each two, and each one by each one: the less are surpassed by the greater. And when they have been healed of all infirmity, and are mutually equal, not even then will that thing which by grace will not be changed, be made equal to that which by nature cannot change, because the creature cannot be equalled to the Creator, and when it shall be healed from all infirmity, will be changed.

When the promised sight comes to us face to face, we will see this not only incorporeal but also absolutely indivisible and truly unchangeable Trinity far more clearly and certainly than we now see its image, which we ourselves are. Yet those who see through this glass and in this enigma, as is permitted in this life, are not those who merely observe in their own mind the things we have arranged and emphasized for them. Rather, they are those who see this as an image, so that they can refer what they see—in whatever way possible—to Him whose image it is, and to see that reality also by inference, which they see through the image by observation, since they cannot yet see face to face. For the apostle does not say "We see now a glass," but "We see now through a glass."

44. But when the sight shall have come which is promised anew to us face to face, we shall see this not only incorporeal but also absolutely indivisible and truly unchangeable Trinity far more clearly and certainly than we now see its image which we ourselves are: and yet they who see through this glass and in this enigma, as it is permitted in this life to see, are not those who behold in their own mind the things which we have set in order and pressed upon them; but those who see this as if an image, so as to be able to refer what they see, in some way be it what it may, to Him whose image it is, and to see that also by conjecturing, which they see through the image by beholding, since they cannot yet see face to face. For the apostle does not say, We see now a glass, but, We see now through a glass.

Those who see their own mind, in whatever way that is possible, and in it the Trinity I have discussed in many ways as best I could, yet do not believe or understand it to be an image of God, do indeed see a mirror, but they do not see through the mirror the One who is now to be seen through the mirror. They do not even recognize that the mirror they see is a mirror—that is, an image. If they knew this, perhaps they would understand that the One whose mirror this is should be sought through it, and somehow provisionally seen, with genuine faith purifying their hearts, so that the One who is now seen through a mirror may be able to be seen face to face. But if they reject this faith that purifies the heart, what do they gain by understanding the most intricate arguments about the nature of the human mind, except that they are condemned by the witness of their own understanding? They certainly would not struggle so much in understanding and scarcely arrive at anything certain if they were not trapped in the darkness of punishment and weighed down by the corruptible body that presses down the soul. And for what fault other than sin is this evil inflicted on them? Therefore, being warned by the severity of such a great evil, they ought to follow the Lamb who takes away the sins of the world.

They, then, who see their own mind, in whatever way that is possible, and in it that Trinity of which I have treated as I could in many ways, and yet do not believe or understand it to be an image of God, see indeed a glass, but do not so far see through the glass Him who is now to be seen through the glass, that they do not even know the glass itself which they see to be a glass, i.e. an image. And if they knew this, perhaps they would feel that He too whose glass this is, should by it be sought, and somehow provisionally be seen, an unfeigned faith purging their hearts, that He who is now seen through a glass may be able to be seen face to face. And if they despise this faith that purifies the heart, what do they accomplish by understanding the most subtle disputes concerning the nature of the human mind, unless that they be condemned also by the witness of their own understanding? And they would certainly not so fail in understanding, and hardly arrive at anything certain, were they not involved in penal darkness, and burdened with the corruptible body that presses down the soul. And for what demerit save that of sin is this evil inflicted on them? Wherefore, being warned by the magnitude of so great an evil, they ought to follow the Lamb that takes away the sins of the world.

For if any belong to Him, although they are far less intelligent than those others, yet when they are freed from the body at the end of this life, the hostile powers have no right to hold them. For that Lamb who was slain by them without owing any debt of sin has conquered them, but not by the strength of power before He had done so by the righteousness of blood. And freed accordingly from the power of the devil, they are carried up by holy angels, being set free from all evils by the mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus. Since by the harmonious testimony of the Divine Scriptures, both Old and New, both those by which Christ was foretold and those by which He was proclaimed, there is no other name under heaven by which men must be saved. And when cleansed from all contamination of corruption, they are placed in peaceful dwelling places until they take their bodies again—their own bodies, but now incorruptible—to adorn, not to burden them. For this is the will of the best and most wise Creator, that the spirit of a man, when piously subject to God, should have a body happily subject to it, and that this happiness should last forever.

For if any belong to Him, although far duller in intellect than those, yet when they are freed from the body at the end of this life, the envious powers have no right to hold them. For that Lamb that was slain by them without any debt of sin has conquered them; but not by the might of power before He had done so by the righteousness of blood. And free accordingly from the power of the devil, they are borne up by holy angels, being set free from all evils by the mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus. Since by the harmonious testimony of the Divine Scriptures, both Old and New, both those by which Christ was foretold, and those by which He was announced, there is no other name under heaven whereby men must be saved. And when purged from all contagion of corruption, they are placed in peaceful abodes until they take their bodies again, their own, but now incorruptible, to adorn, not to burden them. For this is the will of the best and most wise Creator, that the spirit of a man, when piously subject to God, should have a body happily subject, and that this happiness should last forever.

Chapter 25.– The Question Why the Holy Spirit is Not Begotten, and How He Proceeds from the Father and the Son, Will Only Be Understood When We are in Bliss.

There we will see the truth without any difficulty and will enjoy it completely, in the clearest and most certain way. We will no longer be searching for answers with a reasoning mind, but will understand through contemplation why the Holy Spirit is not a Son, even though He proceeds from the Father. In that light there will be no room for questions. But here, my own experience has shown me how difficult this is—and it will certainly also appear so to those who carefully and thoughtfully read what I have written. In the second book I promised that I would discuss this matter elsewhere, yet whenever I have tried to explain it by means of the created image of it that we ourselves are, no matter what I meant to say, adequate words completely failed me. In fact, even in my very understanding I felt that I had achieved effort rather than accomplishment. I did find in one person, such as a human being, an image of that highest Trinity, and I wanted, especially in the ninth book, to illustrate and make clearer the relationship of the Three Persons through what is subject to time and change. But three things belonging to one person cannot properly correspond to those Three Persons, as human reasoning requires; and this we have demonstrated in this fifteenth book.

45. There we shall see the truth without any difficulty, and shall enjoy it to the full, most clear and most certain. Nor shall we be inquiring into anything by a mind that reasons, but shall discern by a mind that contemplates, why the Holy Spirit is not a Son, although He proceeds from the Father. In that light there will be no place for inquiry: but here, by experience itself it has appeared to me so difficult — as beyond doubt it will likewise appear to them also who shall carefully and intelligently read what I have written — that although in the second book I promised that I would speak thereof in another place, yet as often as I have desired to illustrate it by the creaturely image of it which we ourselves are, so often, let my meaning be of what sort it might, did adequate utterance entirely fail me; nay, even in my very meaning I felt that I had attained to endeavor rather than accomplishment. I had indeed found in one person, such as is a man, an image of that Highest Trinity, and had desired, especially in the ninth book, to illustrate and render more intelligible the relation of the Three Persons by that which is subject to time and change. But three things belonging to one person cannot suit those Three Persons, as man's purpose demands; and this we have demonstrated in this fifteenth book.

In the highest Trinity, which is God, there are no intervals of time by which it could be shown or even investigated whether the Son was born from the Father first and then afterward the Holy Spirit proceeded from both, since Holy Scripture calls Him the Spirit of both. For He is the one of whom the apostle says, "But because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts," and He is the one of whom the same Son says, "For it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you." Many other testimonies of the Divine Word prove that the Spirit, who is specifically called the Holy Spirit in the Trinity, is of the Father and of the Son. The Son Himself likewise says of Him, "Whom I will send to you from the Father," and in another place, "Whom the Father will send in my name." We are taught that He proceeds from both, because the Son Himself says, "He proceeds from the Father." And when He had risen from the dead and appeared to His disciples, He breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit," thereby showing that He proceeded also from Himself. And the Spirit is that very power that went out from Him, as we read in the Gospel, and healed them all.

Further, in that Highest Trinity which is God, there are no intervals of time, by which it could be shown, or at least inquired, whether the Son was born of the Father first and then afterwards the Holy Spirit proceeded from both; since Holy Scripture calls Him the Spirit of both. For it is He of whom the apostle says, But because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts: and it is He of whom the same Son says, For it is not ye who speak, but the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you. And it is proved by many other testimonies of the Divine Word, that the Spirit, who is specially called in the Trinity the Holy Spirit, is of the Father and of the Son: of whom likewise the Son Himself says, Whom I will send unto you from the Father; and in another place, Whom the Father will send in my name. And we are so taught that He proceeds from both, because the Son Himself says, He proceeds from the Father. And when He had risen from the dead, and had appeared to His disciples, He breathed upon them, and said, Receive the Holy Ghost, so as to show that He proceeded also from Himself. And Itself is that very power that went out from Him, as we read in the Gospel, and healed them all.

But the reason why, after His resurrection, He gave the Holy Spirit twice—first on earth and then sent Him from heaven—is, in my judgment, this: love is poured into our hearts through that very Gift, by which we love God and our neighbors according to those two commandments on which all the law and the prophets depend. And Jesus Christ, to signify this, gave the Holy Spirit once on earth for the love of neighbor, and a second time from heaven for the love of God. And if some other reason might perhaps be given for this double gift of the Holy Spirit, we should not doubt in any case that the same Holy Spirit was given when Jesus breathed on them—the one of whom He soon says, "Go, baptize all nations in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," where this Trinity is especially revealed to us. It is therefore He who was also given from heaven on the day of Pentecost, that is, ten days after the Lord ascended into heaven. How, then, is He not God who gives the Holy Spirit? Indeed, how great a God is He who gives God! For none of His disciples gave the Holy Spirit, since they prayed that He might come upon those on whom they laid their hands; they did not give Him themselves. And the Church preserves this custom even now with her leaders. Finally, Simon Magus also, when he offered the apostles money, does not say, "Give me also this power, that I may give the Holy Spirit," but "that on whomever I lay my hands, he may receive the Holy Spirit." Because Scripture had not said before, "And Simon, seeing that the apostles gave the Holy Spirit," but had said, "And Simon, seeing that the Holy Spirit was given by the laying on of the apostles' hands." Therefore the Lord Jesus Christ Himself not only gave the Holy Spirit as God, but also received it as man, and therefore He is said to be full of grace and of the Holy Spirit. And in the Acts of the Apostles it is written more plainly of Him, "Because God anointed Him with the Holy Spirit"—certainly not with visible oil but with the gift of grace that is signified by the visible ointment with which the Church anoints the baptized. And Christ was certainly not anointed with the Holy Spirit at that moment when He, as a dove, descended upon Him at His baptism. For at that time He chose to prefigure His body, that is, His Church, in which especially the baptized receive the Holy Spirit. But He is to be understood to have been anointed with that mystical and invisible anointing when the Word of God was made flesh, that is, when human nature, without any preceding merits from good works, was joined to God the Word in the womb of the Virgin, so that together with it He became one person. Therefore we confess that He was born of the Holy Spirit and of the Virgin Mary. For it is completely absurd to believe that He received the Holy Spirit when He was nearly thirty years old—for He was baptized by John at that age—but rather that He came to baptism not only without any sin at all, but also not without the Holy Spirit. For if it was written of His servant and forerunner John himself, "He shall be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb," because, although generated by his father, he received the Holy Spirit when formed in the womb, what must be understood and believed about the man Christ, whose very conception in the flesh was not carnal but spiritual? Both natures, the human as well as the divine, are shown in what is also written of Him: that He received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, and poured forth the Holy Spirit—seeing that He received as man and poured forth as God. And we indeed can receive that gift according to our small measure, but we certainly cannot pour it forth upon others; but for this to happen, we invoke over them God, by whom this is accomplished.

46. But the reason why, after His resurrection, He both gave the Holy Spirit, first on earth, and afterwards sent Him from heaven, is in my judgment this: that love is shed abroad in our hearts, by that Gift itself, whereby we love God and our neighbors, according to those two commandments, on which hang all the law and the prophets. And Jesus Christ, in order to signify this, gave to them the Holy Spirit, once upon earth, on account of the love of our neighbor, and a second time from heaven, on account of the love of God. And if some other reason may perhaps be given for this double gift of the Holy Spirit, at any rate we ought not to doubt that the same Holy Spirit was given when Jesus breathed upon them, of whom He by and by says, Go, baptize all nations in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, where this Trinity is especially commended to us. It is therefore He who was also given from heaven on the day of Pentecost, i.e. ten days after the Lord ascended into heaven. How, therefore, is He not God, who gives the Holy Spirit? Nay, how great a God is He who gives God! For no one of His disciples gave the Holy Spirit, since they prayed that He might come upon those upon whom they laid their hands: they did not give Him themselves. And the Church preserves this custom even now in the case of her rulers. Lastly, Simon Magus also, when he offered the apostles money, does not say, Give me also this power, that I may give the Holy Spirit; but, that on whomsoever I may lay my hands, he may receive the Holy Spirit. Because neither had the Scriptures said before, And Simon, seeing that the apostles gave the Holy Spirit; but it had said, And Simon, seeing that the Holy Spirit was given by the laying on of the apostles' hands. Therefore also the Lord Jesus Christ Himself not only gave the Holy Spirit as God, but also received it as man, and therefore He is said to be full of grace, and of the Holy Spirit. And in the Acts of the Apostles it is more plainly written of Him, Because God anointed Him with the Holy Spirit. Certainly not with visible oil but with the gift of grace which is signified by the visible ointment wherewith the Church anoints the baptized. And Christ was certainly not then anointed with the Holy Spirit, when He, as a dove, descended upon Him at His baptism. For at that time He deigned to prefigure His body, i.e. His Church, in which especially the baptized receive the Holy Spirit. But He is to be understood to have been then anointed with that mystical and invisible unction, when the Word of God was made flesh, i.e. when human nature, without any precedent merits of good works, was joined to God the Word in the womb of the Virgin, so that with it it became one person. Therefore it is that we confess Him to have been born of the Holy Spirit and of the Virgin Mary. For it is most absurd to believe Him to have received the Holy Spirit when He was near thirty years old: for at that age He was baptized by John; but that He came to baptism as without any sin at all, so not without the Holy Spirit. For if it was written of His servant and forerunner John himself, He shall be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb, because, although generated by his father, yet he received the Holy Spirit when formed in the womb; what must be understood and believed of the man Christ, of whose flesh the very conception was not carnal, but spiritual? Both natures, too, as well the human as the divine, are shown in that also that is written of Him, that He received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, and shed forth the Holy Spirit: seeing that He received as man, and shed forth as God. And we indeed can receive that gift according to our small measure, but assuredly we cannot shed it forth upon others; but, that this may be done, we invoke over them God, by whom this is accomplished.

Are we then able to ask whether the Holy Spirit had already proceeded from the Father when the Son was born, or had not yet proceeded, and when He was born, proceeded from both—where there is no such thing as distinct times? We can ask this just as we have been able to ask, in a case where we do find times, how the will proceeds from the human mind first, in order to seek something which, when found, may be called offspring. When that offspring has already been brought forth or born, that will is made perfect, resting in this goal, so that what had been its desire when seeking becomes its love when enjoying. This love now proceeds from both—that is, from the mind that begets and from the notion that is begotten, as if from parent and offspring. But these things are absolutely impossible to ask in this case, where nothing is begun in time so as to be perfected in a following time. Therefore, let anyone who can understand the generation of the Son from the Father without time also understand the procession of the Holy Spirit from both without time. And let anyone who can understand, in what the Son says—"As the Father has life in Himself, so has He given to the Son to have life in Himself"—not that the Father gave life to the Son who already existed without life, but that He begot Him apart from time, so that the life which the Father gave to the Son by begetting Him is co-eternal with the life of the Father who gave it—let him, I say, understand that as the Father has in Himself that the Holy Spirit should proceed from Him, so has He given to the Son that the same Holy Spirit should proceed from Him, and both are apart from time. The Holy Spirit is so said to proceed from the Father that it is understood that His proceeding also from the Son is a property derived by the Son from the Father. For if the Son has of the Father whatever He has, then certainly He has of the Father that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from Him. But let no one think of any times in this which imply a before and after, because these things are not there at all. How, then, would it not be completely absurd to call Him the Son of both? For just as generation from the Father, without any changeableness of nature, gives to the Son essence without beginning of time, so procession from both, without any changeableness of nature, gives to the Holy Spirit essence without beginning of time. While we do not say that the Holy Spirit is begotten, yet we do not therefore dare to say that He is unbegotten, lest anyone suspect in this word either two Fathers in that Trinity or two who are not from another. For the Father alone is not from another, and therefore He alone is called unbegotten—not indeed in the Scriptures, but in the usage of disputants who employ such language as they can on so great a subject. And the Son is born of the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father principally, the Father giving the procession without any interval of time, yet in common from both Father and Son. But He would be called the Son of the Father and of the Son if—a thing repugnant to the feeling of all sound minds—both had begotten Him. Therefore the Spirit of both is not begotten of both, but proceeds from both.

47. Are we therefore able to ask whether the Holy Spirit had already proceeded from the Father when the Son was born, or had not yet proceeded; and when He was born, proceeded from both, wherein there is no such thing as distinct times: just as we have been able to ask, in a case where we do find times, that the will proceeds from the human mind first, in order that that may be sought which, when found, may be called offspring; which offspring being already brought forth or born, that will is made perfect, resting in this end, so that what had been its desire when seeking, is its love when enjoying; which love now proceeds from both, i.e. from the mind that begets, and from the notion that is begotten, as if from parent and offspring? These things it is absolutely impossible to ask in this case, where nothing is begun in time, so as to be perfected in a time following. Wherefore let him who can understand the generation of the Son from the Father without time, understand also the procession of the Holy Spirit from both without time. And let him who can understand, in that which the Son says, As the Father has life in Himself, so has He given to the Son to have life in Himself, not that the Father gave life to the Son already existing without life, but that He so begot Him apart from time, that the life which the Father gave to the Son by begetting Him is co-eternal with the life of the Father who gave it: let him, I say, understand, that as the Father has in Himself that the Holy Spirit should proceed from Him, so has He given to the Son that the same Holy Spirit should proceed from Him, and be both apart from time: and that the Holy Spirit is so said to proceed from the Father as that it be understood that His proceeding also from the Son, is a property derived by the Son from the Father. For if the Son has of the Father whatever He has, then certainly He has of the Father, that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from Him. But let no one think of any times therein which imply a sooner and a later; because these things are not there at all. How, then, would it not be most absurd to call Him the Son of both: when, just as generation from the Father, without any changeableness of nature, gives to the Son essence, without beginning of time; so procession from both, without any changeableness of nature, gives to the Holy Spirit essence without beginning of time? For while we do not say that the Holy Spirit is begotten, yet we do not therefore dare to say that He is unbegotten, lest any one suspect in this word either two Fathers in that Trinity, or two who are not from another. For the Father alone is not from another, and therefore He alone is called unbegotten, not indeed in the Scriptures, but in the usage of disputants, who employ such language as they can on so great a subject. And the Son is born of the Father; and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father principally, the Father giving the procession without any interval of time, yet in common from both [Father and Son]. But He would be called the Son of the Father and of the Son, if — a thing abhorrent to the feeling of all sound minds — both had begotten Him. Therefore the Spirit of both is not begotten of both, but proceeds from both.

But because it is extremely difficult to distinguish generation from procession in that co-eternal, equal, incorporeal, ineffably unchangeable and indivisible Trinity, let it be enough for now to set before those who cannot go further what I said on this subject in a sermon delivered to the ears of Christian people, which I then wrote down. For when, among other things, I had taught them through testimonies of the Holy Scriptures that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both, I continue: If, then, the Holy Spirit proceeds both from the Father and from the Son, why did the Son say, 'He proceeds from the Father'? Why do you think, except that He customarily refers to the Father even that which is His own, from whom He Himself also exists? This is also like what He says: 'My doctrine is not my own, but His who sent me.' If, therefore, the doctrine here understood is His, yet He said it was not His own but belonged to Him who sent Him, how much more should we understand there that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from Himself, where He says, 'He proceeds from the Father,' without saying, 'He does not proceed from me'? From the Father, certainly, from whom the Son has His divine nature—for He is God of God—He also has this: that from Him too the Holy Spirit proceeds. And so the Holy Spirit has from the Father Himself that He should proceed from the Son also, just as He proceeds from the Father. Here also, in some way, this can be understood, as far as people like us can understand it, why the Holy Spirit is not said to be born, but rather to proceed. For if He too were called a Son, He would certainly be called the Son of both, which is completely absurd, since no one is the son of two persons except of father and mother. But far be it from us to imagine anything like this between God the Father and God the Son. For not even a human son proceeds at the same time from both father and mother; when he proceeds from the father into the mother, he does not at that time proceed from the mother; and when he proceeds from the mother into this present light, he does not at that time proceed from the father. But the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Father into the Son, and from the Son proceed to sanctify the creature, but proceeds at once from both. Yet the Father has given this to the Son, that He should proceed from Him just as He proceeds from the Father Himself. For we cannot say that the Holy Spirit is not life, while the Father is life and the Son is life. And so, just as the Father, who has life in Himself, has also given to the Son to have life in Himself, so He has also given to Him that life should proceed from Him, just as it also proceeds from Himself. I have transferred this from that sermon into this book, but I was speaking to believers, not to unbelievers.

48. But because it is most difficult to distinguish generation from procession in that co-eternal, and equal, and incorporeal, and ineffably unchangeable and indivisible Trinity, let it suffice meanwhile to put before those who are not able to be drawn on further, what we said upon this subject in a sermon to be delivered in the ears of Christian people, and after saying wrote it down. For when, among other things, I had taught them by testimonies of the Holy Scriptures that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both, I continue: If, then, the Holy Spirit proceeds both from the Father and from the Son, why did the Son say, 'He proceeds from the Father.' Why, think you, except as He is wont to refer to Him, that also which is His own, from whom also He Himself is? Whence also is that which He says, 'My doctrine is not my own, but His that sent me?' If, therefore, it is His doctrine that is here understood, which yet He said was not His own, but His that sent Him, how much more is it there to be understood that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from Himself, where He so says, He proceeds from the Father, as not to say, He proceeds not from me? From Him, certainly, from whom the Son had his Divine nature, for He is God of God, He has also, that from Him too proceeds the Holy Spirit; and hence the Holy Spirit has from the Father Himself, that He should proceed from the Son also, as He proceeds from the Father. Here, too, in some way may this also be understood, so far as it can be understood by such as we are, why the Holy Spirit is not said to be born, but rather to proceed; since if He, too, was called a Son, He would certainly be called the Son of both, which is most absurd, since no one is son of two, save of father and mother. But far be it from us to surmise any such thing as this between God the Father and God the Son. Because not even the son of men proceeds at the same time from both father and mother; but when he proceeds from the father into the mother, he does not at that time proceed from the mother; and when he proceeds from the mother into this present light, he does not at that time proceed from the father. But the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Father into the Son, and from the Son proceed to sanctify the creature, but proceeds at once from both; although the Father has given this to the Son, that He should proceed, as from Himself, so also from Him. For we cannot say that the Holy Spirit is not life, while the Father is life, and the Son is life: and hence as the Father, while He has life in Himself, has given also to the Son to have life in Himself; so has He given also to Him that life should proceed from Him, as it also proceeds from Himself. I have transferred this from that sermon into this book, but I was speaking to believers, not to unbelievers.

But if they are not capable of looking at this image and seeing how true these things are that exist in their mind—things that are not so three as to be three persons, but all three belong to a person who is one—why do they not believe what they find in the sacred books about that highest Trinity which is God, rather than demanding the clearest reasoning, which cannot be grasped by the human mind, dull and weak as it is? And certainly, once they have firmly believed the Holy Scriptures as most trustworthy witnesses, they should strive—by praying, seeking, and living well—to understand, that is, so that what is held by faith may be seen by the mind, to the extent it can be seen. Who would forbid this? In fact, who would not rather urge them toward it? But if they think they should deny these things exist because they cannot discern them with their blind minds, then those who are blind from birth should also deny that the sun exists. The light, then, shines in darkness; but if the darkness does not comprehend it, let them first be enlightened by the gift of God so they may become believers, and let them begin to be light compared to unbelievers. Once this foundation is laid, let them be built up to see what they believe, so that at some point they may be able to see. For some things are believed in such a way that they cannot be seen at all. Christ is not going to be seen a second time on the cross; but unless what has been done and seen is believed—that it is not now to be hoped for as something still to come and be seen—there is no coming to Christ as he is to be seen without end. But regarding the discerning in some way by the understanding of that highest, ineffable, incorporeal, and unchangeable nature, the sight of the human mind can nowhere better exercise itself—provided that the rule of faith governs it—than in what a person has in his own nature that is superior to the other animals and also to the other parts of his own soul, which is the mind itself. To the mind has been assigned a certain sight of invisible things, and to it, as though presiding honorably in a higher and inner place, the bodily senses also bring reports of all things so they may be judged. There is nothing higher than the mind except what it must be subject to and governed by, which is God.

49. But if they are not competent to gaze upon this image, and to see how true these things are which are in their mind, and yet which are not so three as to be three persons, but all three belong to a man who is one person; why do they not believe what they find in the sacred books respecting that highest Trinity which is God, rather than insist on the clearest reason being rendered them, which cannot be comprehended by the human mind, dull and infirm as it is? And to be sure, when they have steadfastly believed the Holy Scriptures as most true witnesses, let them strive, by praying and seeking and living well, that they may understand, i.e. that so far as it can be seen, that may be seen by the mind which is held fast by faith. Who would forbid this? Nay, who would not rather exhort them to it? But if they think they ought to deny that these things are, because they, with their blind minds, cannot discern them, they, too, who are blind from their birth, ought to deny that there is a sun. The light then shines in darkness; but if the darkness comprehend it not, let them first be illuminated by the gift of God, that they may be believers, and let them begin to be light in comparison with the unbelievers; and when this foundation is first laid, let them be built up to see what they believe, that at some time they may be able to see. For some things are so believed, that they cannot be seen at all. For Christ is not to be seen a second time on the cross; but unless this be believed which has been so done and seen, that it is not now to be hoped for as about to be and to be seen, there is no coming to Christ, such as without end He is to be seen. But as far as relates to the discerning in some way by the understanding that highest, ineffable, incorporeal, and unchangeable nature the sight of the human mind can nowhere better exercise itself, so only that the rule of faith govern it, than in that which man himself has in his own nature better than the other animals, better also than the other parts of his own soul, which is the mind itself, to which has been assigned a certain sight of things invisible, and to which, as though honorably presiding in a higher and inner place, the bodily senses also bring word of all things, that they may be judged, and than which there is no higher, to which it is to be subject, and by which it is to be governed, except God.

Among all the many things I have said here, there is nothing I would dare claim is worthy of the ineffableness of that highest Trinity. Rather, I must confess that the wonderful knowledge of Him is too great for me, and I cannot attain to it. O my soul, where do you sense yourself to be? Where do you lie? Where do you stand? This will be so until all your weaknesses are healed by Him who has forgiven all your sins. You surely perceive that you are in the inn where that Samaritan brought the man he found half-dead, wounded many times by thieves. Yet you have seen many true things, not with those eyes that see colored objects, but with the eyes for which the one prayed who said, "Let my eyes behold the things that are equal." You have certainly seen many true things and have distinguished them from that light by the light through which you saw them. Lift up your eyes to that light itself and fix them on it if you can. For in this way you will see how the birth of the Word of God differs from the procession of the Gift of God—which is why the only-begotten Son did not say that the Holy Spirit is begotten of the Father, otherwise He would be His brother, but rather that He proceeds from Him. Therefore, since the Spirit of both is a kind of consubstantial communion of Father and Son, He is not called—far be it from us to say so—the Son of both. But you cannot fix your gaze there so as to discern this clearly and lucidly; I know you cannot. I speak the truth to myself; I know what I cannot do. Yet that light itself shows you three things in yourself, in which you may recognize an image of the highest Trinity itself, which you cannot yet contemplate with steady eye. That light shows you that there is in you a true word when it is born from your knowledge—that is, when we say what we know, even though we neither speak nor think of any articulate word that has meaning in any language of any nation, but our thought is formed by what we know. And in the mind's eye of the thinker there is an image resembling that thought which the memory contained, with will or love as a third thing combining these two as parent and offspring. Whoever can, sees and discerns that this will does indeed proceed from thought (for no one wills something of which he is completely ignorant regarding what it is or what sort of thing it is), yet it is not an image of the thought. And so there is suggested in this intelligible thing a kind of difference between birth and procession, since to behold by thought is not the same as to desire, or even to enjoy by will. You too have been able to discern this, although you have not been able, nor are you now able, to unfold with adequate speech what you have barely seen amidst the clouds of bodily likenesses that constantly flit back and forth before human thoughts. But that light which is not yourself also shows you that these incorporeal likenesses of bodies are different from the truth, which we contemplate with the understanding by rejecting them. That light has shown these and other similarly certain things to your inner eyes. What reason is there, then, why you cannot see that light itself with steady eye, except certainly weakness? And what has produced this in you, except sin? Who then is it that heals all your weaknesses, unless it is He who forgives all your sins? And therefore I will now at last finish this book with a prayer rather than with an argument.

50. But among these many things which I have now said, and of which there is nothing that I dare to profess myself to have said worthy of the ineffableness of that highest Trinity, but rather to confess that the wonderful knowledge of Him is too great for me, and that I cannot attain to it: O you, my soul, where do you feel yourself to be? Where do you lie? Where do you stand? Until all your infirmities be healed by Him who has forgiven all your iniquities. You perceive yourself assuredly to be in that inn whither that Samaritan brought him whom he found with many wounds inflicted by thieves, half-dead. And yet you have seen many things that are true, not by those eyes by which colored objects are seen, but by those for which he prayed who said, Let my eyes behold the things that are equal. Certainly, then, you have seen many things that are true, and hast distinguished them from that light by the light of which you have seen them. Lift up your eyes to the light itself, and fix them upon it if you can. For so you will see how the birth of the Word of God differs from the procession of the Gift of God, on account of which the only-begotten Son did not say that the Holy Spirit is begotten of the Father, otherwise He would be His brother, but that He proceeds from Him. Whence, since the Spirit of both is a kind of consubstantial communion of Father and Son, He is not called, far be it from us to say so, the Son of both. But you can not fix your sight there, so as to discern this lucidly and clearly; I know you can not. I say the truth, I say to myself, I know what I cannot do; yet that light itself shows to you these three things in yourself, wherein you may recognize an image of the highest Trinity itself, which you can not yet contemplate with steady eye. Itself shows to you that there is in you a true word, when it is born of your knowledge, i.e. when we say what we know: although we neither utter nor think of any articulate word that is significant in any tongue of any nation, but our thought is formed by that which we know; and there is in the mind's eye of the thinker an image resembling that thought which the memory contained, will or love as a third combining these two as parent and offspring. And he who can, sees and discerns that this will proceeds indeed from thought (for no one wills that of which he is absolutely ignorant what or of what sort it is), yet is not an image of the thought: and so that there is insinuated in this intelligible thing a sort of difference between birth and procession, since to behold by thought is not the same as to desire, or even to enjoy will. You, too, hast been able [to discern this], although you have not been, neither art, able to unfold with adequate speech what, amidst the clouds of bodily likenesses, which cease not to flit up and down before human thoughts, you have scarcely seen. But that light which is not yourself shows you this too, that these incorporeal likenesses of bodies are different from the truth, which, by rejecting them, we contemplate with the understanding. These, and other things similarly certain, that light has shown to your inner eyes. What reason, then, is there why you can not see that light itself with steady eye, except certainly infirmity? And what has produced this in you, except iniquity? Who, then, is it that heals all your infirmities, unless it be He that forgives all your iniquities? And therefore I will now at length finish this book by a prayer better than by an argument.

O Lord our God, we believe in You, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. For the Truth would not say, "Go, baptize all nations in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," unless You were a Trinity. Nor would You, O Lord God, command us to be baptized in the name of someone who is not the Lord God. Nor would the divine voice have said, "Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God is one God," unless You were both a Trinity and one Lord God. And if You, O God, were the Father and were also the Son, Your Word Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit Your gift, we would not read in the book of truth, "God sent His Son"; nor would You, O Only-begotten, say of the Holy Spirit, "Whom the Father will send in my name," and "Whom I will send to you from the Father." Guided by this rule of faith, as much as I have been able, as much as You have enabled me to be able, I have sought You, and have desired to see with my understanding what I believed; and I have argued and worked hard. O Lord my God, my one hope, listen to me, so that I may not grow weary and stop seeking You, but may always earnestly seek Your face. Give me strength to seek, since You have made me find You and have given the hope of finding You more and more. My strength and my weakness are before Your sight: preserve the one and heal the other. My knowledge and my ignorance are before Your sight; where You have opened to me, receive me as I enter; where You have closed, open to me as I knock. May I remember You, understand You, love You. Increase these things in me until You renew me completely. I know it is written, "In the multitude of speech, you shall not escape sin." But if only I might speak only in preaching Your word and in praising You! Not only would I avoid sin this way, but I would earn good merit, however much I spoke. For a man blessed by You would not command a sin upon his own true son in the faith, to whom he wrote, "Preach the word: be urgent in season and out of season." Are we to say that he spoke too much, when he was not silent about Your word, O Lord, not only in season but out of season? But it was not too much, because it was only what was necessary. Set me free, O God, from that multitude of speech which I suffer inwardly in my soul, wretched as it is in Your sight, and fleeing for refuge to Your mercy; for I am not silent in thoughts even when silent in words. And if I thought of nothing except what pleased You, I certainly would not ask You to set me free from such multitude of speech. But my thoughts are many, such as You know, thoughts of man, since they are vain. Grant me not to consent to them; and if they ever delight me, nevertheless to condemn them and not to dwell in them as though I were asleep. Nor let them so prevail in me that anything in my actions should come from them; but at least let my opinions, let my conscience, be safe from them under Your protection. When the wise man spoke of You in his book, which is now called by the special name of Ecclesiasticus, he said, "We speak much and yet come short; and in sum of words, He is all." When we shall have come to You, these very many things that we speak and yet come short will cease; and You, as One, will remain all in all. And we shall say one thing without end, in praising You in One, ourselves also made one in You. O Lord the one God, God the Trinity, whatever I have said in these books that is of Yours, may those who are Yours acknowledge it; if anything is of my own, may it be pardoned both by You and by those who are Yours. Amen.

51. O Lord our God, we believe in You, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. For the Truth would not say, Go, baptize all nations in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, unless You were a Trinity. Nor would you, O Lord God, bid us to be baptized in the name of Him who is not the Lord God. Nor would the divine voice have said, Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God is one God, unless You were so a Trinity as to be one Lord God. And if You, O God, were Yourself the Father, and were Yourself the Son, Your Word Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit your gift, we should not read in the book of truth, God sent His Son; nor would You, O Only-begotten, say of the Holy Spirit, Whom the Father will send in my name; and, Whom I will send to you from the Father. Directing my purpose by this rule of faith, so far as I have been able, so far as You have made me to be able, I have sought You, and have desired to see with my understanding what I believed; and I have argued and labored much. O Lord my God, my one hope, hearken to me, lest through weariness I be unwilling to seek You, but that I may always ardently seek Your face. Do Thou give strength to seek, who has made me find You, and has given the hope of finding You more and more. My strength and my infirmity are in Your sight: preserve the one, and heal the other. My knowledge and my ignorance are in Your sight; where You have opened to me, receive me as I enter; where You have closed, open to me as I knock. May I remember You, understand You, love You. Increase these things in me, until You renew me wholly. I know it is written, In the multitude of speech, you shall not escape sin. But O that I might speak only in preaching Your word, and in praising You! Not only should I so flee from sin, but I should earn good desert, however much I so spoke. For a man blessed of You would not enjoin a sin upon his own true son in the faith, to whom he wrote, Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season. Are we to say that he has not spoken much, who was not silent about Your word, O Lord, not only in season, but out of season? But therefore it was not much, because it was only what was necessary. Set me free, O God, from that multitude of speech which I suffer inwardly in my soul, wretched as it is in Your sight, and flying for refuge to Your mercy; for I am not silent in thoughts, even when silent in words. And if, indeed, I thought of nothing save what pleased You, certainly I would not ask You to set me free from such multitude of speech. But many are my thoughts, such as You know, thoughts of man, since they are vain. Grant to me not to consent to them; and if ever they delight me, nevertheless to condemn them, and not to dwell in them, as though I slumbered. Nor let them so prevail in me, as that anything in my acts should proceed from them; but at least let my opinions, let my conscience, be safe from them, under Your protection. When the wise man spoke of You in his book, which is now called by the special name of Ecclesiasticus, We speak, he said, much, and yet come short; and in sum of words, He is all. When, therefore, we shall have come to You, these very many things that we speak, and yet come short, will cease; and You, as One, will remain all in all. And we shall say one thing without end, in praising You in One, ourselves also made one in You. O Lord the one God, God the Trinity, whatever I have said in these books that is of Yours, may they acknowledge who are Yours; if anything of my own, may it be pardoned both by You and by those who are Yours. Amen.