On the Trinity 2.0–2.7

Prologue. When people seek God and, as far as the weakness of human nature allows, direct their minds to understanding the Trinity, they experience laborious difficulties, whether in the very effort of the mind's eye trying to look upon light unapproachable, or in the manifold and varied speech of the sacred writings, in which, it seems to me, the soul is simply worn down so that, glorified by the grace of Christ, it may grow sweet. When, all ambiguity having been shaken off, they have arrived at something certain, they ought most readily to pardon those who err in investigating so great a secret. But there are two things that are most hard to bear in human error: presumption before the truth is clear, and, once it has become clear, the defense of the falsehood presumed. If God, as I pray and hope, defends me from these two faults, which are most hostile to the discovery of truth and to the handling of the divine and holy books, and fortifies me with the shield of his good will and the grace of his mercy, I will not be slow to inquire into the substance of God, whether through his Scripture or through his creation. Both of these are set before us to be contemplated for this purpose, that he himself may be sought and he himself loved who both inspired the one and created the other. Nor shall I be afraid to put forward my opinion, in which I shall rather love to be examined by the upright than fear to be bitten by the perverse. For most beautiful and most modest love gladly receives the dove's eye; but the dog's tooth either most cautious humility avoids or most solid truth blunts. And I shall rather wish to be blamed by anyone at all than to be praised either by one who errs or by one who flatters. For no critic is to be feared by a lover of truth. For the one who will criticize is either an enemy or a friend. If an enemy insults, he must be borne; but a friend, if he errs, must be taught; if he teaches, he must be listened to. But one who praises, if he errs, confirms error, and if he flatters, entices into error. "Let the righteous man correct me in mercy and reprove me; but let not the oil of the sinner anoint my head."

Therefore, although we hold most firmly concerning our Lord Jesus Christ the rule, as it were canonical, which is spread through the Scriptures and has been demonstrated by learned catholic interpreters of those same Scriptures, of how the Son of God is understood to be both equal to the Father according to the form of God in which he is, and less than the Father according to the form of a servant which he took (in which form he is found less not only than the Father but also than the Holy Spirit, and not only so, but even than himself, not than himself as he was, but than himself as he is, because by taking the form of a servant he did not lose the form of God, as the testimonies of the Scriptures recalled in the previous book have taught), yet there are certain things in the divine words so placed that it is ambiguous to which rule they should rather be referred: whether to that by which we understand the Son as less in the creature he took, or to that by which we understand that the Son is not indeed less but equal to the Father, yet that he is from him, God from God, light from light. For we call the Son God from God, but the Father only God, not from God. Hence it is plain that the Son has another from whom he is and to whom he is Son, while the Father has not a Son from whom he is, but only one to whom he is Father. For every son is from his father what he is, and is son to his father; but no father is from his son what he is, but is father to his son. Some things, then, are so set down in the Scriptures about the Father and the Son as to indicate the unity and equality of substance, such as "I and the Father are one," and "Being in the form of God, he did not think it robbery to be equal to God," and whatever others are of this kind. But some are set down so as to show the Son as less on account of the form of a servant, that is, on account of the creature of changeable human substance that he took, such as his saying, "For the Father is greater than I," and "The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son." For a little later he goes on to say, "And he has given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of Man." And again some are set down so that he is shown neither less nor equal, but it is only intimated that he is from the Father, as is this: "As the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son to have life in himself"; and this: "For the Son can do nothing of himself, except what he sees the Father doing." If we take this to be said because the Son is less in the form taken from the creature, it will follow that the Father first walked on the waters, or opened the eyes of some other man born blind with spittle and clay, and did the other things that the Son did when he appeared among men in the flesh, so that he could do them who said that the Son can do nothing of himself except what he sees the Father doing. But who, even if out of his mind, would think so? It remains, then, that these things are said because the life of the Son is unchangeable like that of the Father, and yet is from the Father; and the working of the Father and the Son is inseparable, yet the Son's so working is from him from whom he himself is, that is, from the Father; and the Son so sees the Father that by the very fact that he sees him he is the Son. For to him to be from the Father, that is, to be born of the Father, is nothing other than to see the Father; nor is seeing him working anything other than working equally with him. But he works not of himself, because he is not of himself. And therefore whatever things he sees the Father doing, the Son also does the same things likewise, because he is from the Father. For he does not do other things likewise, as a painter paints other pictures in the way he sees others painted by someone else; nor the same things in a different way, as the body forms the same letters that the mind has thought; but "whatever the Father does," he says, "the Son also does the same things likewise." He said both "the same things" and "likewise"; and therefore the working of the Father and the Son is inseparable and equal, but it is from the Father to the Son. That is why the Son can do nothing of himself except what he sees the Father doing. From this rule, then, by which the Scriptures so speak as to wish to show not that one is less than another but only who is from whom, some have conceived the idea that the Son was being called less. But certain of our own people, less learned and very little instructed in these matters, are troubled when they try to take these things according to the form of a servant and the right understanding does not follow. To prevent this, this rule must be held, by which it is intimated not that the Son is less but that he is from the Father; by which words not his inequality but his birth is shown.

There are, then, as I had begun to say, certain things in the holy books so placed that it is ambiguous to which they should be referred: whether to the fact that the Son is less on account of the creature he took, or to the fact that, though equal, it is indicated that he is from the Father. And it seems to me that if it is ambiguous in such a way that it cannot be unravelled and decided, it can be understood without danger according to either rule; such as his saying, "My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me." For it can be taken according to the form of a servant, as we have already treated it in the previous book, and according to the form of God, in which he is so equal to the Father that he is nonetheless from the Father. For in the form of God, just as the Son is not one thing and his life another, but the Son is life itself, so the Son is not one thing and his teaching another, but the Son is teaching itself. And therefore, just as what is said, "he has granted the Son life," is understood as nothing other than "he begot the Son, who is life," so also when it is said, "he has given the Son teaching," it is rightly understood as "he begot the Son, who is teaching"; so that what is said, "My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me," may be understood as if it were said, "I am not from myself, but from him who sent me."

For of the Holy Spirit too, of whom it is not said, "He emptied himself, taking the form of a servant," the Lord himself nonetheless says: "But when that Spirit of truth comes, he will teach you all truth. For he will not speak of himself, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will announce to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, because he will receive of mine and announce it to you." After these words, had he not immediately gone on to say, "All things that the Father has are mine; that is why I said, 'He will receive of mine and announce it to you,'" it might perhaps have been believed that the Holy Spirit was born of Christ as Christ was of the Father. For of himself he had said, "My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me"; and of the Holy Spirit, "For he will not speak of himself, but whatever he hears he will speak," and "because he will receive of mine and announce it to you." But since he gave the reason why he said, "he will receive of mine" (for he says, "All things that the Father has are mine; that is why I said, 'He will receive of mine'"), it remains that the Holy Spirit too is understood to have from the Father, as the Son does. How, except according to what we said above: "But when the Paraclete comes, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me"? It is by proceeding from the Father, then, that he is said not to speak of himself. And just as it does not follow that the Son is less because he said, "The Son can do nothing of himself, except what he sees the Father doing" (for he did not say this according to the form of a servant but according to the form of God, as we have already shown, and these words indicate not that he is less but that he is from the Father), so it does not follow from this that the Holy Spirit is less, because it is said of him, "For he will not speak of himself, but whatever he hears he will speak"; for this is said according to the fact that he proceeds from the Father. But since both the Son is from the Father and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, why both are not called sons, nor both begotten, but the one is the only-begotten Son and the other the Holy Spirit, neither son nor begotten (since if begotten, then certainly a son), we shall discuss in another place, if God grants it and as far as he grants it.

Here, however, let those wake up, if they can, who have thought that this too supports them, as if it showed that the Father is greater than the Son, because the Son said, "Father, glorify me." See, the Holy Spirit also glorifies him: is he too, then, greater than he? Moreover, if the Holy Spirit glorifies the Son because he will receive of the Son's, and he will receive of his because all things that the Father has are his, it is plain that when the Holy Spirit glorifies the Son, the Father glorifies the Son. From this it is known that all things that the Father has belong not only to the Son but also to the Holy Spirit, since the Holy Spirit is able to glorify the Son, whom the Father glorifies. But if he who glorifies is greater than him whom he glorifies, let them allow that those who glorify one another are equal. And it is written that the Son also glorifies the Father: "I have glorified you on earth," he says. Let them indeed beware lest the Holy Spirit be thought greater than both, because he glorifies the Son whom the Father glorifies, while it is not written that he himself is glorified either by the Father or by the Son.

But, refuted on these points, they turn to this, saying: "He who sends is greater than he who is sent. Therefore the Father is greater than the Son, because the Son constantly recalls that he was sent by the Father; and he is greater than the Holy Spirit too, because Jesus said of him, 'whom the Father will send in my name.' And the Holy Spirit is less than both, because both the Father sends him, as we have recalled, and the Son, when he says, 'But if I go away, I will send him to you.'" In this question I first ask from where and to where the Son was sent. "I came out from the Father," he says, "and came into this world." To come out from the Father and come into this world, then, is to be sent. What, then, is it that the same evangelist says of him: "He was in this world, and the world was made through him, and the world did not know him"? Then he adds, "He came to his own." He was certainly sent to where he came; but if he was sent into this world because he came out from the Father and came into this world, and he was in this world, then he was sent to where he was. For also what is written in the prophet, that God says, "I fill heaven and earth": if it is said of the Son (for some wish it to be understood that he himself spoke either to the prophets or in the prophets), to where was he sent except to where he was? For he who says, "I fill heaven and earth," was everywhere. But if it is said of the Father, where could he be without his Word and without his Wisdom, which "reaches mightily from end to end and orders all things sweetly"? But neither could he be anywhere without his Spirit. So if God is everywhere, his Spirit too is everywhere. The Holy Spirit too, then, was sent to where he was. For he too who found no place to go from the face of God, and says, "If I ascend into heaven, you are there; if I descend into hell, you are present," wishing God to be understood as present everywhere, named his Spirit first. For he speaks thus: "Where shall I go from your Spirit? And where shall I flee from your face?" Therefore, if both the Son and the Holy Spirit are sent to where they were, we must ask how this sending is to be understood, whether of the Son or of the Holy Spirit. For the Father alone is nowhere read of as sent. And of the Son the Apostle writes thus: "But when the fullness of time came, God sent his Son, made of a woman, made under the Law, to redeem those who were under the Law." "He sent," he says, "his Son, made of a woman." What catholic does not know that by this name he wished to signify not the loss of virginity but the difference of sex, after the Hebrew manner of speaking? So when he says, "God sent his Son, made of a woman," he shows clearly enough that the Son was sent by the very fact that he was made of a woman. Insofar, then, as he was born of God, he was in this world; but insofar as he was born of Mary, he came, sent, into this world. Accordingly he could not be sent by the Father without the Holy Spirit: not only because it is understood that when the Father sent him, that is, made him of a woman, he certainly did not make him without his Spirit, but also because it is said most plainly and openly in the Gospel to the Virgin Mary when she asked the angel, "How will this be?": "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you"; and Matthew says, "She was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit." And in the prophet Isaiah, too, Christ himself is understood to say of his future coming, "And now the Lord has sent me, and his Spirit." Perhaps someone may press us to say that the Son was sent by himself as well, since that conception and birth from Mary is the work of the Trinity, by whose creating all things are created. "And how then," he says, "did the Father send him, if he sent himself?" To him I answer first by asking him to tell me, if he can, how the Father sanctified him, if he sanctified himself? For the same Lord says both: "Whom the Father," he says, "sanctified and sent into the world, do you say, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'?" And in another place he says: "And for them I sanctify myself." Again I ask how the Father handed him over, if he handed himself over? For the apostle Paul says both: "He who did not spare his own Son," he says, "but handed him over for us all"; and elsewhere he says of the Savior himself, "who loved me and handed himself over for me." He will answer, I think, if he thinks rightly about these things, that there is one will of the Father and the Son and an inseparable working. Let him understand in the same way that the incarnation and birth from the Virgin, in which the Son is understood to have been sent, was done inseparably by one and the same working of the Father and the Son, the Holy Spirit certainly not being separated from it, of whom it is plainly said, "She was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit." For if we ask in this way, perhaps what we are saying will appear more clearly: How did God send his Son? Did he command him to come, and did he come in obedience to the one commanding? Or did he ask him, or only advise him? But whichever of these it was, it was certainly done by a word; and the Word of God is the Son of God himself. Therefore, since the Father sent him by a word, it was done by the Father and his Word that he was sent. Therefore the same Son was sent by the Father and the Son, because the Son himself is the Word of the Father. For who would clothe himself in so sacrilegious an opinion as to think that a temporal word was made by the Father so that the eternal Son might be sent and appear in the flesh in time? But surely in the very Word of God, which was in the beginning with God and was God, in the very Wisdom of God, that is, there was, without time, the time at which that Wisdom ought to appear in the flesh. So, since without any beginning of time the Word was in the beginning, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God, there was without any time in the Word himself the time at which the Word would become flesh and dwell among us. When this fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, made of a woman, that is, made in time, so that the incarnate Word might appear to men; and in the Word himself it was, without time, in what time this should be done. For the order of times is without time in the eternal Wisdom of God. So, since this was done by the Father and the Son, that the Son should appear in the flesh, he who appeared in that flesh is fittingly said to have been sent, and he who did not appear in it to have sent. For the things that are done outwardly before bodily eyes come into being from the inner preparation of the spiritual nature, and therefore they are fittingly said to be sent. Moreover, that form of the man who was taken is the person of the Son, not also of the Father. Therefore the invisible Father, together with the Son, who with him is invisible, is said to have sent the Son by making him visible. If the Son had become visible in such a way as to cease to be invisible with the Father, that is, if the invisible substance of the Word had been changed and turned, passing over into a visible creature, then the Son would be understood to have been sent by the Father in such a way that he would be found only sent, not also sending together with the Father. But since the form of a servant was so taken that the form of God remained unchangeable, it is plain that what appeared in the Son was done by the Father and the Son, who did not appear; that is, that the same Son, made visible, was sent by the invisible Father together with the invisible Son. Why, then, does he say, "And I have not come of myself"? This is said according to the form of a servant, according to which it is said, "I judge no one." If, then, he is said to be sent insofar as he appeared outwardly in a bodily creature, who inwardly in his spiritual nature is always hidden from the eyes of mortals, it is now easy to understand why the Holy Spirit too is said to be sent. For a certain form of creature was made in time in which the Holy Spirit might be shown visibly, whether when he descended upon the Lord himself in bodily form like a dove, or when, ten days after his ascension, on the day of Pentecost, there came suddenly from heaven a sound as of a mighty wind rushing, and there appeared to them divided tongues as of fire, which also rested on each one of them. This working, visibly expressed and offered to mortal eyes, was called the sending of the Holy Spirit: not that his very substance might appear, in which he too is invisible and unchangeable, like the Father and the Son, but that human hearts, moved by outward sights, might be turned from the temporal manifestation of him who comes to the hidden eternity of him who is always present.

And it is nowhere written that God the Father is greater than the Holy Spirit, or the Holy Spirit less than God the Father, for this reason: the creature in which the Holy Spirit appeared was not taken up in the way in which the Son of Man was taken up, the form in which the person of the Word of God himself was presented; not so that he might have the Word of God, as other holy and wise men have, but above his fellows; not, certainly, in that he had the Word more fully, so as to be of more excellent wisdom than the rest, but in that he was the Word himself. For the Word in flesh is one thing, the Word flesh another; that is, the Word in a man is one thing, the Word man another. For "flesh" is put for "man" where he says, "The Word became flesh"; as also in this: "And all flesh shall see the salvation of God together." For not without soul or without mind; but "all flesh" is said as if it were said "every man." The creature, then, in which the Holy Spirit appeared was not taken up in the way in which that flesh and that human form from the Virgin Mary was taken up. For the Spirit did not beatify the dove, or that wind, or that fire, and join it to himself and to his person in unity and union forever. Nor, on the other hand, is the nature of the Holy Spirit changeable and convertible, so that these things were not made from the creature, but he himself was changeably turned into this and that, as water into ice. But these things appeared as they ought to appear at the fitting time, the creature serving the Creator, and, at the bidding of him who remains unchangeable in himself, being changed and turned in order to signify and show him, as it was fitting that he should be signified and shown to mortals. Accordingly, although that dove is called the Spirit, and of that fire, when it was said, "There appeared to them divided tongues as of fire, which rested on each one of them, and they began to speak in tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance," this was said to show that the Spirit was manifested by that fire as by the dove; yet we cannot say that the Holy Spirit is both God and a dove, or both God and fire, in the way we say that the Son is both God and man; nor in the way we call the Son the Lamb of God, not only because John the Baptist says, "Behold the Lamb of God," but also because John the evangelist sees the Lamb that was slain in the Apocalypse. For that prophetic vision was not presented to bodily eyes through bodily forms, but in the spirit through spiritual images of bodies. But that dove and that fire, whoever saw them saw with their eyes. Although it can be debated about the fire whether it was seen with the eyes or in the spirit, because of the words used. For it does not say, "They saw divided tongues as of fire," but "There appeared to them." And we do not usually say "It appeared to me" in the same sense in which we say "I saw." And in those spiritual visions of bodily images it is usual to say both "It appeared to me" and "I saw"; but in those things that are shown to the eyes in a distinct bodily form, it is not usual to say "It appeared to me," but "I saw." So there can be a question about that fire, how it was seen: whether inwardly in the spirit as though outwardly, or truly outwardly before the eyes of the flesh. But of that dove, which is said to have descended in bodily form, no one has ever doubted that it was seen with the eyes. Nor can we call the Spirit a dove or fire in the way in which we call the Son a rock (for it is written, "And the rock was Christ"). For that rock already existed in creation, and by way of its function it was called by the name of Christ, whom it signified; like that stone which Jacob, having placed it at his head, also took up with anointing to signify the Lord; as Isaac was Christ when he carried the wood for his own sacrifice. A certain signifying action was added to these things, which already existed; but they did not, like that dove and fire, suddenly come into being only to signify these things. These seem to me more like the flame that appeared to Moses in the bush, and that pillar which the people followed in the desert, and the lightnings and thunders that occurred when the Law was given on the mountain. For the bodily appearance of those things came into being for this purpose, to signify something and pass away.

It is on account of these bodily forms, then, which came into being in time to signify him and to show him as was fitting for human senses, that the Holy Spirit too is said to be sent; yet he is not said to be less than the Father, as the Son is on account of the form of a servant, because that form of a servant clung to him in the unity of person, whereas those bodily appearances appeared for a time to show what was needed, and afterward ceased to be. Why, then, is the Father not also said to be sent through those bodily appearances, the fire of the bush, the pillar of cloud or of fire, the lightnings on the mountain, and whatever such things appeared then, when, as we learn from the testimony of Scripture, he spoke face to face with the fathers, if it was he himself who was shown through those modes and forms of the creature, bodily expressed and presented to human sight? But if it was the Son who was shown through them, why is he said to be sent so long afterward, when he was made of a woman, as the Apostle says, "But when the fullness of time came, God sent his Son, made of a woman," since he was being sent before too, when he appeared to the fathers through those changeable forms of the creature? Or if he could not rightly be said to be sent except when the Word became flesh, why is the Holy Spirit said to be sent, of whom no such incorporation took place? But if through those visible things that are commended in the Law and the Prophets neither the Father nor the Son but the Holy Spirit was shown, why is he too now said to be sent, when he was being sent in those ways before as well? In the perplexity of this question, with the Lord's help, we must first ask whether it was the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit; or sometimes the Father, sometimes the Son, sometimes the Holy Spirit; or, without any distinction of persons, as God is called one and only, that is, the Trinity itself, that appeared to the fathers through those forms of the creature. Then, whichever of these is found or seen to be so, whether a creature was formed only for this work, in which God might be shown to human sight as he then judged fitting; or whether angels, who already existed, were sent in such a way as to speak in the person of God, taking a bodily appearance from bodily creation for the use of their ministry, as each case required, or changing and turning their own body, to which they are not subject but which they rule as subject to them, into whatever appearances they wished, suited and fit for their actions, according to the power given them by the Creator. Finally we shall see what we had set out to ask: whether the Son and the Holy Spirit were sent before as well; and if they were sent, what difference there is between that sending and the one we read of in the Gospel; or whether neither of them was sent except when either the Son was made of the Virgin Mary or the Holy Spirit appeared in visible form, whether in the dove or in the fiery tongues.