On the Trinity 15.15–15.18

Is our word born of our knowledge alone? Do we not also say many things that we do not know? And we say them not doubting, but thinking them true; and if perhaps they are true, they are true in the things themselves of which we speak, not in our word, because a word is not true unless it is begotten from a thing that is known. In this way, then, our word is false, not when we lie, but when we are deceived. But when we doubt, there is not yet a word about the thing we doubt, but there is a word about the doubt itself. For though we do not know whether what we doubt is true, yet we know that we doubt; and therefore when we say this, the word is true, since we say what we know. What of the fact that we can also lie? When we do this, we certainly have a false word, willingly and knowingly; and there the true word is that we are lying, for this we know. And when we confess that we have lied, we speak the truth, for we say what we know: we know that we lied. But that Word which is God and more powerful than we cannot do this. For “he cannot do anything except what he sees the Father doing”; and he does not speak from himself, but all that he speaks he has from the Father, since the Father speaks him uniquely; and it is the great power of that Word that he cannot lie, because there cannot be there “Yes and no,” but “Yes, yes; no, no.” “But what is not true is not even to be called a word.” If so, I gladly agree. What then, when our word is true and therefore rightly called a word: as it can be called sight from sight, or knowledge from knowledge, can it be called essence from essence, as that Word of God is most of all called and most of all to be called? Why not? Because for us to be is not the same as to know. For we know many things which in a way live through memory, and so in a way die through forgetting; and therefore when they are no longer in our knowledge, we still are; and when our knowledge has slipped from the mind and perished from us, we still live.

Even those things which are so known that they can never fall away, because they are present and belong to the nature of the mind itself, such as our knowing that we live (for this remains as long as the mind remains, and because the mind always remains, this too always remains): this, then, and any similar things that are found, in which the image of God is rather to be observed, even if they are always known, yet because they are not always also thought of, it is hard to find how an eternal word could be spoken of them, since our word is spoken by our thought. For it is eternal for the mind to live, eternal to know that it lives; and yet it is not eternal to think of its life, or to think of the knowledge of its life, since when it begins to think of one thing and another it will cease to think of this, though it does not cease to know it. From which it follows that, if there can be some eternal knowledge in the mind, and the thought of that knowledge cannot be eternal, and our true innermost word is not spoken except by our thought, God alone is understood to have a Word eternal and coeternal with himself. Unless perhaps it should be said that the very possibility of thought (since what is known, even when it is not thought of, can still be truly thought of) is a word as perpetual as the knowledge itself is perpetual. But how is it a word when it has not yet been formed in the sight of thought? How will it be like the knowledge from which it is born if it does not have its form, and is called a word already because it can have it? For that is as if one said it is already to be called a word because it can be a word. But what is it that can be a word and is therefore already worthy of the name of word? What, I say, is this formable and not yet formed thing, but something of our mind which we toss this way and that with a certain revolving motion, when we think now of this, now of that, as it is found or occurs to us? And it becomes a true word when that which I said we toss about with a revolving motion arrives at what we know and is formed from it, taking its likeness in every respect, so that as each thing is known so it is also thought, that is, so it is spoken in the heart, without voice and without thought of voice, which surely belongs to some language. And therefore, even if we grant, lest we seem to labor over a dispute about a word, that that something of our mind which can be formed from our knowledge is already to be called a word even before it is formed, because it is already, so to speak, formable, who does not see how great is the unlikeness here from that Word of God, who is in the form of God in such a way that he was not formable before being formed, nor can ever be formless, but is simple form, and simply equal to him from whom he is, and to whom he is wonderfully coeternal?

Therefore that Word of God is so called that it is not called God's thought, lest it be believed that there is something in God that revolves, as it were, which now receives and now recovers form so as to be a word, and can lose it and in some way roll about formlessly. For that outstanding speaker knew words well and had looked into the force of thought, who said in his poem, “and turns over within himself the varied outcomes of war,” that is, thinks about them. The Son of God, then, is not called the thought of God but the Word of God. For our thought, arriving at what we know and formed from it, is our true word. And therefore the Word of God must be understood without any thought of God, so that he is understood as simple form itself, having nothing formable that could also be formless. Thoughts of God are indeed spoken of in the holy Scriptures too, but in the manner of speaking in which forgetfulness of God is also spoken of there, which in the proper sense certainly does not exist in God.

Therefore, since now in this enigma there is so great an unlikeness to God and to the Word of God, in which some likeness has nevertheless been found, this too must be confessed: that even when we shall be like him, when we shall see him as he is (and he who said this surely had in view the unlikeness that now exists), not even then shall we be equal to him in nature. For the nature that is made is always less than the one who makes it. And then our word will not be false, because we shall neither lie nor be deceived; perhaps also our thoughts will not revolve, going from one thing to another and returning, but we shall see all our knowledge at once in one view; yet even when this has come to be, if it does come to be, the creature that was formable will be formed, so that nothing will be lacking of the form to which it ought to arrive; but still it will not be equal to that simplicity where nothing formable has been formed or re-formed, but where there is form, neither unformed nor formed, the eternal and unchangeable substance itself.

We have spoken enough of the Father and the Son, as far as we could see through this mirror and in this enigma. Now we must discuss the Holy Spirit, as far as it is granted, by God's gift, to see. According to the holy Scriptures this Holy Spirit is neither of the Father alone nor of the Son alone, but of both; and therefore he suggests to us the common love by which the Father and the Son love each other. But in order to exercise us, the divine word has made us inquire with greater zeal into things not lying at hand but to be searched out in hidden places and dug out from hiding. So Scripture did not say, “The Holy Spirit is love”; had it said so, it would have removed no small part of this question; but it said, “God is love,” so that it is uncertain, and therefore to be inquired, whether God the Father is love, or God the Son, or God the Holy Spirit, or God the Trinity itself. For we are not going to say that God is called love not because love itself is some substance worthy of the name of God, but because it is a gift of God, as was said to God, “For you are my patience”; for this was not said because our patience is God's substance, but because it is from him to us, as is read elsewhere, “For from him is my patience.” The very manner of speaking of the Scriptures easily refutes this sense. For “You are my patience” is like “You, Lord, are my hope,” and “My God, my mercy,” and many similar sayings. But it was not said, “Lord, my love,” or “You are my love,” or “God, my love”; but it was said thus, “God is love,” as it was said, “God is spirit.” Whoever does not discern this should seek understanding from the Lord, not explanation from us; for we can say nothing plainer.

God, then, is love; but whether the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit, or the Trinity itself, since it too is not three gods but one God: this is the question. But I have already argued above in this book that the Trinity which is God is not to be understood from those three which we have shown in the trinity of our mind in such a way that the Father is as it were the memory of all three, the Son the understanding of all three, and the Holy Spirit the love of all three; as if the Father neither understood nor loved for himself, but the Son understood for him and the Holy Spirit loved for him, while he only remembered for himself and for them; and the Son neither remembered nor loved for himself, but the Father remembered for him and the Holy Spirit loved for him, while he only understood for himself and for them; and likewise the Holy Spirit neither remembered nor understood for himself, but the Father remembered for him and the Son understood for him, while he only loved for himself and for them; but rather that all three, both all together and each singly, have all three, each in his own nature. Nor do these differ in them, as in us memory is one thing, understanding another, love or charity another; but there is some one thing that is capable of all, like wisdom itself; and it is so had in the nature of each that he who has it is what he has, as an unchangeable and simple substance. If, then, these things have been understood, and have become clear as true, as far as it is granted us in such great matters to see or conjecture, I do not know why, just as the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are each called wisdom, and all together not three but one wisdom, so the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit should not each be called love, and all together one love. For so the Father is God, the Son God, the Holy Spirit God, and all together one God.

And yet not in vain in this Trinity is no one called the Word of God but the Son, nor the Gift of God but the Holy Spirit, nor he from whom the Word was begotten and from whom the Holy Spirit principally proceeds but God the Father. I added “principally” because the Holy Spirit is found to proceed from the Son also. But this too the Father gave him, not as to one already existing and not yet having it; but whatever he gave to the only-begotten Word, he gave by begetting. He so begot him, then, that the common Gift should proceed from him also, and the Holy Spirit should be the Spirit of both. This distinction of the inseparable Trinity, then, is not to be taken in passing but carefully observed. For hence it came about that the Word of God was properly called also the wisdom of God, though both the Father and the Holy Spirit are wisdom. If, then, any one of these three is properly to be called love, what is more fitting than that this should be the Holy Spirit? So that in that simple and supreme 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; and yet the Holy Spirit is properly called love.

Just so, sometimes by the name of the Law all the oracles of the holy Scriptures of the Old Testament together are signified. For the apostle, citing a testimony from the prophet Isaiah, where he says, “In other tongues and with other lips I will speak to this people,” nevertheless introduced it with, “It is written in the Law.” And the Lord himself says, “It is written in their Law, They hated me without cause,” though this is read in the Psalm. But sometimes the Law given through Moses is called the Law in the proper sense, according to what was said, “The Law and the Prophets until John,” and “On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.” Here certainly the Law from Mount Sinai is called the Law in the proper sense. Again, by the name of the Prophets the Psalms too are signified; and yet in another place the Saviour himself says, “All things had to be fulfilled that are written in the Law and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning me.” Here again he meant the name of the Prophets to be understood excluding the Psalms. The Law, then, is spoken of universally, together with the Prophets and the Psalms, and it is spoken of properly as that given through Moses. Likewise the Prophets are spoken of commonly together with the Psalms, and properly apart from the Psalms. And by many other examples it could be shown that many names of things are applied both universally and properly to certain things, were it not that in a plain matter lengthy speech is to be avoided. I have said this lest anyone think we call the Holy Spirit love inappropriately because both God the Father and God the Son can be called love.

As, then, we properly call the only Word of God by the name of wisdom, though universally both the Holy Spirit and the Father himself are wisdom, so the Holy Spirit is properly called by the name of love, though universally both the Father and the Son are love. But the Word of God, that is, the only-begotten Son of God, was openly called the wisdom of God by the apostle's mouth, where he says, “Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God”; but where the Holy Spirit was called love we find if we carefully search the words of the apostle John, who, having said, “Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God,” went on to add, “And everyone who loves is born of God; whoever does not love has not known God, for God is love.” Here he made plain that he called God that love which he said is from God. God from God, then, 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 should take to be called here the love that is God. For the Father alone is God in such a way as not to be from God; and therefore the love that is God in such a way as to be from God is either the Son or the Holy Spirit. But in what follows, having mentioned the love of God, not that by which we loved him, but that by which he loved us and sent his Son as the offerer of atonement for our sins, and having then exhorted that we too should love one another, and so God would abide in us, since he had called love God, wishing at once to say something plainer on this matter, he says: “By this we know that we abide in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit.” The Holy Spirit, then, of whom he has given us, makes us abide in God and him in us; and this is what love does. He, then, is the God who is love. Then a little later, having repeated this very thing and said, “God is love,” he immediately added, “And he who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him”; whence he had said above, “By this we know that we abide in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit.” He, then, is signified where we read, “God is love.” God the Holy Spirit, therefore, who proceeds from God, when he has been given to man, kindles him to love of God and neighbor, and is himself love. For man has nothing from which to love God except from God. For this reason he says a little later, “Let us love him, because he first loved us.” The apostle Paul also says, “The love of God has been poured out in our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us.”

There is no gift of God more excellent than this. It alone divides the sons of the eternal kingdom from the sons of eternal perdition. Other gifts too are given through the Holy Spirit, but without love they profit nothing. Unless, then, the Holy Spirit is imparted to someone so far as to make him a lover of God and neighbor, he is not transferred from the left hand to the right. Nor is the Spirit properly called Gift except on account of love; and whoever does not have love, “if he speaks with the tongues of men and of angels, is sounding brass and a tinkling cymbal; and if he has prophecy, and knows all mysteries and all knowledge, and if he has all faith so as to move mountains, he is nothing; and if he distributes all his substance, and if he hands over 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 both are names of one thing), if he has it who does not speak in tongues, nor has prophecy, nor knows all mysteries and all knowledge, nor distributes all his goods to the poor, either because he has nothing to distribute or because some necessity prevents him, nor hands over his body to be burned, if there is no trial of such suffering, brings him to the kingdom, so that only love makes faith itself useful. For faith can indeed exist without love, but cannot also profit. For this reason the apostle Paul too says, “In Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love,” thus distinguishing it from that faith by which even the demons believe and tremble. The love, then, which is from God and is God, is properly the Holy Spirit, through whom the love of God is poured out in our hearts, through which the whole Trinity dwells in us. Therefore the Holy Spirit, though he is God, is most rightly also called the Gift of God. And what is that Gift properly to be understood to be but love, which brings us to God, and without which any other gift of God whatever does not bring us to God?