On the Trinity 15.10–15.14

But now let us speak of those things which we think of as known, and which we have in our knowledge even when we are not thinking of them, whether they belong to the contemplative knowledge, which 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 the one mind and are one image of God. But when the lower is treated more distinctly and separately, then it is not to be called the image of God, although even then some likeness of that Trinity is found in it, as we showed in the thirteenth volume. Now, then, we are speaking of the whole of man's knowledge together, in which whatever things are known to us are known; and they are certainly true, otherwise they would not be known. For no one knows false things except when he knows them to be false; and if he knows this, he knows something true, for it is true that those things are false. We are now discussing, then, the things we think of as known, and which are known to us even when they are not being thought of by us. But certainly, if we wished to say them, we could not do so without thinking them. For even if no words sound, he who thinks certainly speaks in his heart. Hence the passage in the book of Wisdom: “They said among themselves, thinking not rightly.” For it explained what “they said among themselves” means when it added “thinking.” Similar to this is the passage in the Gospel where certain scribes, having heard the Lord say to the paralytic, “Take heart, son, your sins are forgiven you,” said within themselves, “This man blasphemes.” For what is “they said within themselves” but “by thinking”? Then follows: “And when Jesus saw their thoughts, he said, Why do you think evil in your hearts?” So Matthew. But Luke tells the same thing thus: “The scribes and Pharisees began to think, saying, Who is this who speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins but God alone? But when Jesus knew their thoughts, he answered and said to them, What are you thinking in your hearts?” What in the book of Wisdom is “they said, thinking,” here is “they thought, saying.” For both there and here it is shown that to speak within oneself and in one's heart is to speak by thinking. For they said within themselves, and it was said to them, “What are you thinking?” And of that rich man whose field brought forth abundant crops the Lord himself says, “And he thought within himself, saying.”

Some thoughts, then, are speech of the heart, where the Lord shows there is also a mouth, when he says: “Not what enters into the mouth defiles a man, but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man.” In one sentence he included two mouths of man, one of the body, the other of the heart. For that by which they had thought a man defiled enters the mouth of the body; but that by which the Lord said a man is defiled comes out of the mouth of the heart. So indeed he himself explained what he had said. For a little later he says of this to his disciples: “Are you also still without understanding? Do you not understand that whatever enters the mouth goes into the belly and is cast out into the drain?” Here he certainly showed most plainly the mouth of the body. But in what follows, showing the mouth of the heart, he says: “But the things that come out of the mouth come forth from the heart, and these defile a man. For out of the heart come evil thoughts,” and so on. What is clearer than this explanation? And yet, though we say that thoughts are speech of the heart, they are not on that account not also sights, arising from the sights of knowledge, when they are true. For outwardly, when these things happen through the body, speech is one thing and sight another; but inwardly, when we think, both are one. Just as hearing and sight are two things differing from each other in the bodily senses, but in the mind it is not one thing to see and another to hear; and therefore, though speech outwardly is not seen but rather heard, yet the holy Gospel says that inner speech, that is, thoughts, were seen by the Lord, not heard: “They said within themselves, This man blasphemes”; then it added, “And when Jesus saw their thoughts.” He saw, then, what they said. For by his own thought he saw their thoughts, which they supposed they alone saw.

Whoever, then, can understand a word not only before it sounds but even before the images of its sounds are turned over in thought (for this is what belongs to no language, that is, to none of those called the languages of the nations, of which our Latin is one): whoever, I say, can understand this can already see through this mirror and in this enigma some likeness of that Word of which it was said, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” For necessarily, when we speak what is true, that is, speak what we know, from the very knowledge which we hold in memory a word is born that is wholly of the same kind as the knowledge from which it is born. For the thought formed from the thing we know is the word which we speak in the heart, which is neither Greek nor Latin nor of any other language; but when it is necessary to convey it to the knowledge of those to whom we speak, some sign is taken up by which it is signified. And usually a sound, sometimes also a nod, is shown, the one to the ears, the other to the eyes, so that by bodily signs the word which we bear in the mind may become known to the bodily senses too. For what is nodding but speaking visibly, in a certain way? There is testimony to this in the holy Scriptures; for in the Gospel according to John we read: “Truly, truly, I say to you, one of you will betray me. The disciples then looked at one another, uncertain of whom he spoke. Now one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved, was reclining in Jesus' bosom; Simon Peter therefore nodded to him and said to him, Who is it of whom he speaks?” See, by nodding he said what he did not dare to say aloud. But these and similar bodily signs we present to the ears or eyes of those present to whom we speak; and letters were invented through which we might converse even with the absent; but these are signs of spoken words, while spoken words themselves in our speech are signs of the things we think.

Accordingly, the word that sounds outside is a sign of the word that shines within, to which the name of word belongs more truly. For what is uttered by the mouth of flesh is the voice of the word; and it too is called a word, because of that by which it was taken up so as to appear outwardly. For thus our word becomes in a certain way a bodily voice, by taking up that in which it may be manifested to the senses of men, as the Word of God became flesh by taking up that in which he too might be manifested to the senses of men. And as our word becomes voice and is not changed into voice, so the Word of God became flesh, but far be it that he should be changed into flesh. For it is by taking it up, not by being consumed into it, that both ours becomes voice and that Word became flesh. Therefore whoever desires to arrive at some kind of likeness of the Word of God, though unlike in many respects, should not look at our word that sounds in the ears, either when it is uttered by the voice or when it is thought in silence. For the words of all spoken languages are thought in silence too, and songs are run through in the mind while the mouth of the body is silent; and not only the measures of syllables but also the melodies of songs, though they are bodily and belong to the bodily sense called hearing, are at hand, through certain incorporeal images of their own, to those who think of them and silently turn all these things over. But these must be passed over so that we may arrive at that word of man through whose likeness, of whatever kind, the Word of God may be seen after a fashion, as in an enigma: not that word which came to this or that prophet, and of which it was said, “But the word of God grew and multiplied”; and of which it was said again, “So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ”; and again, “When you received from us the word of the hearing of God, you received it not as the word of men, but as it truly is, the word of God.” And countless similar things are said in the Scriptures of the word of God, which in the sounds of many different languages is spread through human hearts and mouths. But it is called the word of God because divine teaching is handed down, not human. But we are seeking now to see, in whatever way, through this likeness, that Word of God of which it was said, “The Word was God”; of which it was said, “All things were made through him”; of which it was said, “The Word became flesh”; of which it was said, “The fountain of wisdom is the Word of God on high.” We must arrive, then, at that word of man, the word of a rational living being, the word of the image of God, not born of God but made by God, which is neither uttered in sound nor thought in the likeness of sound, such as must belong to some language, but which precedes all the signs by which it is signified, and is begotten from the knowledge that abides in the mind, when that same knowledge is spoken inwardly just as it is. For the sight of thought is most like the sight of knowledge. For when it is spoken through sound or through some bodily sign, it is not spoken as it is, but as it can be seen or heard through the body. When, therefore, what is in the knowledge is in the word, then it is a true word, and truth such as is expected from man: that what is in the knowledge is also in the word, and what is not in the knowledge is not in the word either. Here is recognized: “Yes, yes; no, no.” Thus this likeness of the made image approaches, as far as it can, that likeness of the born image, by which God the Son is declared to be like the Father in all things in substance.

In this enigma this likeness of the Word of God must also be noticed: as of that Word it was said, “All things were made through him,” where God is declared to have made all things through his only-begotten Word, so there are no works of man that are not first spoken in the heart; whence it is written, “The beginning of every work is a word.” But here too, it is when the word is true that it is the beginning of a good work. And a word is true when it is begotten from the knowledge of working well, so that there too “Yes, yes; no, no” may be kept: if it is so in the knowledge by which one must live, let it be so in the word through which one must act; if not, not. Otherwise such a word will be a lie, not truth, and thence will come sin, not right work. There is this likeness of the Word of God also in this likeness of our word: that there can be a word of ours which no work follows, but there can be no work unless a word precedes, just as the Word of God could have existed with no creature existing, but no creature could exist except through him through whom all things were made. And 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, though the Trinity brought it about: so that by our word following and imitating his example we might live rightly, that is, having no lie in either the contemplation or the working of our word. But this is the perfection of this image that is to be at some future time. To attain it the good teacher instructs us by the Christian faith and the teaching of godliness, so that with face unveiled from the veil of the Law, which is the shadow of things to come, beholding the glory of the Lord, that is, looking through a mirror, we may be transformed into the same image from glory to glory as by the Spirit of the Lord, according to the earlier discussion of these words.

When, then, by this transformation this image has been renewed to perfection, we shall be like God, because we shall see him, not through a mirror, but as he is, which the apostle Paul calls “face to face.” But now, in this mirror, in this enigma, in this likeness of whatever kind, who can explain how great the unlikeness also is? Yet I will touch on some points, as I am able, by which it may be noticed.

First, the very knowledge from which our thought is truly formed when we speak what we know: of what kind or how great can it come to be in a man, however skilled and learned? For apart from what comes into the mind from the bodily senses, in which so many things are otherwise than they seem that one who is mad, overwhelmed by their likeness to truth, seems to himself sane (whence the Academic philosophy grew so strong that, doubting everything, it was far more wretchedly mad); apart, then, from the things that come into the mind from the bodily senses, how much remains that we know as we know that we live? In this we have no fear at all of being deceived by some likeness to truth, since it is certain that even one who is deceived lives; nor is it counted among those sights presented from outside, so that the eye is deceived in it as it is deceived when an oar appears broken in water, and towers seem to move to those sailing past, and six hundred other things that are otherwise than they seem; for this is not discerned through the eye of the flesh. The knowledge by which we know that we live is innermost, where not even the Academic can say: “Perhaps you are asleep and do not know it, and see in dreams.” For who does not know that the sights of dreamers are very like those of the waking? But he who is certain of the knowledge of his own life does not say in it, “I know that I am awake,” but, “I know that I live”; whether, then, he sleeps or wakes, he lives. Nor can he be deceived in that knowledge by dreams, because both to sleep and to see in dreams belong to one who lives. Nor can the Academic say against this knowledge, “Perhaps you are mad and do not know it,” because the sights of the mad are very like those of the sane; but he who is mad lives. Nor does he say in reply to the Academics, “I know that I am not mad,” but, “I know that I live.” He, then, who says he knows that he lives can never be deceived or lie. So let a thousand kinds of deceptive sights be set before him who says, “I know that I live”; he will fear none of them, since even he who is deceived lives. But if such things alone belong to human knowledge, they are very few; except that in each kind they are so multiplied that not only are they not few, but they are found to extend to an infinite number. For he who says, “I know that I live,” says he knows one thing; then if he says, “I know that I know that I live,” there are already two; and that he knows these two is a third knowing; so he can add a fourth and a fifth and countless more, if he has the stamina. But because he cannot comprehend an innumerable number by adding single items, nor say anything innumerable times, he comprehends and says this very thing most certainly: that this is true, and so innumerable that he truly cannot comprehend and state its infinite number. The same can be observed likewise in a certain will. For to whom who says, “I will to be happy,” would it not be impudent to answer, “Perhaps you are deceived”? And if he says, “I know that I will this, and I know that I know it,” to these two he can add a third, that he knows these two; and a fourth, that he knows that he knows these two; and so proceed to an infinite number. Likewise if someone says, “I do not wish to err,” will it not be true, whether he errs or does not err, that he does not wish to err? Who would not be most impudent to say to him, “Perhaps you are deceived,” when surely, wherever he is deceived, he is not deceived in not wishing to be deceived? And if he says he knows this, he adds as great a number of known things as he likes, and perceives the number to be infinite. For he who says, “I do not wish to be deceived, and I know that I do not wish it, and I know that I know it,” can from this show an infinite number, even if in awkward speech. And other things are found that avail against the Academics, who contend that nothing can be known by man. But moderation must be kept, especially as this is not what we have undertaken in this work. There are three books of ours on the subject, written in the first period of our conversion; whoever can and will read them, and having read them understands them, will surely not be moved by any of the many arguments they devised against the perception of truth. For since there are two kinds of things that are known, one of those which the mind perceives through the bodily senses, the other of those which it perceives through itself, those philosophers chattered much against the bodily senses; but certain most firm perceptions of true things by the mind through itself, such as the one I mentioned, “I know that I live,” they could in no way call into doubt. But far be it from us to doubt that the things we have learned through the bodily senses are true; for through them we have learned of heaven and earth and the things in them that are known to us, as far as he who made both us and them willed them to become known to us. Far be it also that we should deny that we know what we have learned by the testimony of others; otherwise we do not know that the Ocean exists; we do not know that there are lands and cities which most widespread report commends; we do not know that the men and their deeds existed which we have learned by reading history; we do not know the things that are reported daily from everywhere and confirmed by consistent and concurring evidence; finally, we do not know in what places or from what parents we were born, since we have believed all these things on the testimony of others. And if it is most absurd to say this, we must confess that not only our own bodily senses but also those of others have added very much to our knowledge.

All these things, then, which the human mind knows, whether perceived through itself, through the senses of its body, or by the testimony of others, it holds stored in the treasury of memory; and from these a true word is begotten when we speak what we know, but a word before all sound, before all thought of sound. For then the word is most like the thing known, from which it is begotten, and is its image, since from the sight of knowledge arises the sight of thought, which is a word of no language, a true word from a true thing, having nothing of its own, but wholly from the knowledge from which it is born. Nor does it matter when he who speaks what he knows learned it; for sometimes he says it as soon as he learns it; provided only that the word is true, that is, arisen from things known.

But does God the Father, from whom the Word was born, God from God, does God the Father, I say, in that wisdom which he is to himself, learn some things through the sense of his body and others through himself? Who would say this, who thinks of God not as a rational animal but as above the rational soul, as far as he can be thought of by those who set him above all animals and all souls, although they see by conjecture through a mirror and in an enigma, not yet face to face as he is? Did God the Father learn from elsewhere, from someone, the very things which he knows not through a body, for he has none, but through himself, or did he need messengers or witnesses in order to know them? Certainly not; for that perfection of his suffices for knowing all that he knows. He has messengers indeed, that is, angels, yet not to announce to him what he does not know, for there is nothing he does not know; but their good is to consult his truth about their works, and this is what is meant when they are said to announce some things to him: not that he may learn from them, but that they may learn from him through his Word without bodily sound. They also announce what he wills, sent by him to whom he wills, hearing everything from him through that Word of his, that is, finding in his truth what they are to do, what they are to announce, to whom, and when. For we too pray to him, and yet we do not teach him our needs. For “your Father knows,” says his Word, “what you need before you ask him.” Nor did he come to know these things at some point in time, so that he could know them; but all future temporal things, and among them also what and when we were going to ask of him, and whom he would hear or not hear and in what matters, he foreknew without beginning. And he knows all his creatures, both spiritual and bodily, not because they are; rather, they are because he knows them. For he was not ignorant of what he was going to create. Because he knew, then, he created; he did not know because he created. Nor did he know them otherwise when created than when still to be created; for nothing was added to his wisdom from them, but while they came into existence as was fitting and when it was fitting, it remained as it was. So also it is written in the book Ecclesiasticus: “Before they were created, all things were known to him; so also after they were completed.” “So,” it says, not otherwise: both before they were created and after they were completed, so are they known to him. Far unlike this knowledge, then, is our knowledge. For what is the knowledge of God is also his wisdom; and what is his wisdom is his essence or substance. For in the wonderful 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 in the earlier books too. But our knowledge in very many things can be both lost and received back, because for us to be is not the same as to know or be wise; for we can be even if we do not know, and are not wise in, the things we have learned from elsewhere. For this reason, as our knowledge is unlike that knowledge of God, so also our word, which is born from our knowledge, is unlike that Word of God which is born from the essence of the Father. And this is as if I said, from the knowledge of the Father, from the wisdom of the Father; or, more expressly, from the Father who is knowledge, from the Father who is wisdom.

The Word of God, then, the only-begotten Son of the Father, like and equal to the Father in all things, God from God, light from light, wisdom from wisdom, essence from essence, is wholly what the Father is, yet not the Father, because this one is the Son, that one the Father. And therefore he knows all that the Father knows; but for him to know is from the Father, as is to be. For there to know and to be are one. And therefore, as the Father's being is not from the Son, so neither is his knowing. Accordingly the Father, as it were uttering himself, begot the Word equal to himself in all things. For he would not have uttered himself wholly and perfectly if there were anything less or more in his Word than in himself. There “Yes, yes; no, no” is recognized in the highest degree. And therefore this Word is truly truth, since whatever is in that knowledge from which he was begotten is also in him, and what is not in it is not in him. And this Word can never have anything false, because he is unchangeably as he is from whom he is. For “the Son cannot do anything of himself, except what he sees the Father doing.” He is powerfully unable to do this; nor is this weakness but strength, by which truth cannot be false. God the Father, then, knows all things in himself, and knows them in the Son; but in himself as himself, in the Son as his Word, which is the Word of all these things that are in himself. Likewise the Son also knows all things: in himself, namely, as the things that were born from those which the Father knows in himself; and in the Father, as those from which were born the things the Son himself knows in himself. The Father and the Son, then, know each other, but the one by begetting, the other by being born. And all the things that are in their knowledge, in their wisdom, in their essence, each of them sees at once; not part by part or one by one, as if with a gaze alternating from here to there and from there to here, and again from there or there to one thing after another, so that he could not see some things without not seeing others; but, as I said, he sees all at once, and there is none of them that he does not always see.

But that word of ours which has no sound nor thought of sound, but is the word of the thing which we speak inwardly by seeing it, and therefore belongs to no language, and is hence in some way like, in this enigma, that Word of God who is also God, since this too is born of our knowledge as that was born of the knowledge of the Father: let us not be reluctant to observe how unlike such a word of ours, which we have found to be in some way like that Word, also is, as far as we are able to say it.