On the Trinity 4.20–5.5

But if the Son is said to be sent by the Father in this sense, that the one is the Father and the other the Son, this in no way hinders us from believing that the Son is equal to the Father, consubstantial and coeternal, and yet sent by the Father. Not because the one is greater and the other less, but because the one is Father and the other Son; the one begetter, the other begotten; the one he from whom the one sent is, the other he who is from the one who sends. For the Son is from the Father, not the Father from the Son. In this sense it can now be understood that the Son is said to be sent not only because the Word became flesh, but sent so that the Word might become flesh and do through his bodily presence the things that are written; that is, so that not only the man is understood to have been sent, which the Word became, but also the Word to have been sent so that he might become man; because he was not sent according to any unequal power or substance or anything in him that is not equal to the Father, but according to the fact that the Son is from the Father, not the Father from the Son. For the Son is the Word of the Father, who is also called his Wisdom. What wonder, then, if he is sent, not because he is unequal to the Father, but because he is "a certain pure emanation of the glory of the almighty God"? And there, what emanates and that from which it emanates are of one and the same substance. For it does not emanate as water from an opening in the earth or in a rock, but as light from light. For what is said, "For it is the brightness of eternal light," what else is said than "It is the light of eternal light"? For what is the brightness of light but light? And therefore it is coeternal with the light from which it is light. But Scripture preferred to say "brightness of light" rather than "light of light," lest this which emanates should be thought dimmer than that from which it emanates. For when one hears that this is its brightness, it is easier to believe that that shines through this than that this shines less. But since there was no need to guard against the light that begot this one being thought lesser (for no heretic ever dared to say this, nor is it to be believed that anyone will dare), Scripture meets that thought by which the light that emanates might seem dimmer than that from which it emanates; and it removed this suspicion when it said, "It is the brightness of that," that is, of eternal light, and so showed it equal. For if this is lesser, it is its dimness, not its brightness. But if it is greater, it does not emanate from it; for it would not surpass that from which it was begotten. Because, then, it emanates from that, it is not greater than that; but because it is not its dimness but its brightness, it is not lesser; it is therefore equal. Nor should it trouble us that it is called "a certain pure emanation of the glory of the almighty God," as though it itself were not almighty, but the emanation of the almighty. For soon it is said of it, "And being one, it can do all things." And who is almighty but one who can do all things? It is sent, therefore, by him from whom it emanates. For so it is sought by him who loved and desired it: "Send her forth," he says, "from your holy heavens, and send her from the throne of your greatness, that she may be with me and labor with me"; that is, teach me to labor, so that I may not labor in vain. For her labors are virtues. But she is sent in one way to be with man; she was sent in another way to be herself man. For "she passes into holy souls and makes them friends of God and prophets," just as she also fills the holy angels and works through them everything suited to such ministries. But when the fullness of time came she was sent, not to fill angels, nor to be an angel, except insofar as she announced the counsel of the Father, which was also her own; nor to be with men or in men, for this had happened before too in the fathers and prophets; but so that the Word himself might become flesh, that is, become man. In this future sacrament, once revealed, was the salvation also of those wise and holy men who were born of women before he himself was born of the Virgin; and in this sacrament, accomplished and preached, is the salvation of all who believe, hope, and love. For "this is the great sacrament of godliness, which was manifested in the flesh, justified in the spirit, appeared to angels, was preached among the nations, believed in the world, taken up in glory." The Word of God, then, is sent by him whose Word he is; he is sent by him of whom he was born: he who begot sends, what was begotten is sent. And he is sent to each one when he is known and perceived by anyone, as far as he can be known and perceived according to the capacity of the rational soul, whether making progress toward God or perfected in God. The Son, then, is not said to be sent by the very fact that he was born of the Father; but either by the fact that the Word made flesh appeared to this world, which is why he says, "I came out from the Father and came into this world"; or by the fact that he is perceived in time by someone's mind, as it is said, "Send her, that she may be with me and labor with me." What was born from eternity, then, is eternal: "For it is the brightness of eternal light"; but what is sent in time is known by someone. But when the Son of God was manifested in the flesh, he was sent into this world, in the fullness of time, made of a woman. "For since, in the wisdom of God, the world could not know God by wisdom," since "the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it," "it pleased God through the foolishness of preaching to save those who believe"; so that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. But when he is perceived in time by the mind of anyone making progress, he is indeed said to be sent, but not into this world; for he does not appear perceptibly, that is, he is not present to the bodily senses. For we too, insofar as we grasp with the mind something eternal, as far as we can, are not in this world; and the spirits of all the righteous, even those still living in this flesh, insofar as they savor divine things, are not in this world. But the Father, when he is known by anyone in time, is not said to be sent; for he has no one from whom he is or from whom he proceeds. For Wisdom says, "I came forth from the mouth of the Most High"; and of the Holy Spirit it is said, "He proceeds from the Father"; but the Father from no one. As, then, the Father begot and the Son was begotten, so the Father sent and the Son was sent. But as he who begot and he who was begotten, so also he who sent and he who was sent are one, because the Father and the Son are one. So also the Holy Spirit is one with them, because these three are one. For as for the Son to be born is to be from the Father, so for the Son to be sent is to be known to be from him. And as for the Holy Spirit to be the gift of God is to proceed from the Father, so to be sent is to be known to proceed from him. Nor can we say that the Holy Spirit does not also proceed from the Son; for not in vain is the same Spirit called the Spirit both of the Father and of the Son. Nor do I see what else he wished to signify when, breathing on the faces of the disciples, he said, "Receive the Holy Spirit." For that bodily breath, proceeding from the body with the bodily sense of touch, was not the substance of the Holy Spirit, but a showing, by a fitting sign, that the Holy Spirit proceeds not only from the Father but also from the Son. For who would be so utterly mad as to say that the Spirit he gave by breathing was one and the Spirit he sent after his ascension another? For the Spirit of God is one, the Spirit of the Father and of the Son, the Holy Spirit, who works all things in all. But that he was given twice was certainly a dispensation of signification, of which we shall speak in its place, as far as the Lord grants. When, then, the Lord says, "whom I will send you from the Father," he shows that the Spirit is both the Father's and the Son's. For also, when he had said, "whom the Father will send," he added, "in my name"; yet he did not say, "whom the Father will send from me," as he said, "whom I will send you from the Father": showing, namely, that the Father is the principle of the whole divinity, or, if it is better so called, of the deity. He, then, who proceeds from the Father and the Son is referred back to him from whom the Son was born. And what the evangelist says, "The Spirit had not yet been given, because Jesus had not yet been glorified": how is it understood, unless because that particular giving or sending of the Holy Spirit after the glorification of Christ was to be such as had never been before? For it was not that there was none before, but there had not been such a one. For if the Holy Spirit was not given before, with whom were the prophets filled when they spoke? Since Scripture says openly, and shows in many places, that they spoke by the Holy Spirit; since it was said of John the Baptist too, "He will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from his mother's womb"; and Zechariah his father is found filled with the Holy Spirit, so as to say such things of him; and Mary with the Holy Spirit, so as to proclaim such things of the Lord whom she carried in her womb; and Simeon and Anna with the Holy Spirit, so as to recognize the greatness of the little Christ. How, then, had the Spirit not yet been given, because Jesus had not yet been glorified, unless because that giving, or bestowal, or sending of the Holy Spirit was to have a certain character of its own at its very coming, such as never was before? For nowhere do we read that men spoke in languages they did not know when the Holy Spirit came upon them, as happened then, when it was fitting that his coming should be shown by perceptible signs, to show that the whole world and all nations, set in various languages, would believe in Christ through the gift of the Holy Spirit; so that what is sung in the Psalm might be fulfilled: "There are no speeches or words in which their voices are not heard; their sound has gone out into all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world." So man was joined to the Word of God in unity of person, and in a certain way mingled with him, when, the fullness of time coming, the Son of God was sent into this world, made of a woman, so that he might also be the son of man for the sake of the sons of men. This person the angelic nature could figure beforehand, to foretell it; it could not appropriate it, so as to be it.

But as to the perceptible manifestation of the Holy Spirit, whether through the form of a dove or through fiery tongues, when a subject and serving creature showed his substance, coeternal with the Father and the Son and equally unchangeable, by temporal motions and forms, though it was not joined to the unity of his person, as the flesh that the Word became was, I do not dare to say that nothing of the kind happened before. But I would say quite confidently that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, of one and the same substance, God the Creator, the almighty Trinity, work inseparably; but that they cannot be shown inseparably through a creature far unequal and above all bodily; just as through our voices, which certainly sound bodily, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit cannot be named except in their own proper intervals of time, distinguished by definite separation, which the syllables of each word occupy. For in their own substance, by which they are, the three are one, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, the selfsame above every creature without any temporal motion, without any intervals of times or places, and at once one and the same from eternity to eternity, like eternity itself, which is not without truth and love; but in my voices the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are separated and could not be spoken at once, and in visible letters they have held their own separate spaces. And just as, when I name my memory and understanding and will, each name refers to each thing, yet each was produced by all three (for there is none of these three names that my memory and understanding and will have not produced together), so the Trinity together produced both the voice of the Father, and the flesh of the Son, and the dove of the Holy Spirit, though each of these is referred to each person. By this likeness it is in some way recognized that the Trinity, inseparable in itself, is shown separably through the appearance of a visible creature, and that the inseparable working of the Trinity is present even in each of the things that are said to belong properly to showing the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit. If, then, I am asked how either the voices or the perceptible forms and appearances were made before the incarnation of the Word of God, which prefigured this future event, I answer that God worked them through angels; which I have, I think, sufficiently shown also by the testimonies of the holy Scriptures. But if it is asked how the incarnation itself was brought about, I say that the Word of God himself was made flesh, that is, made man, yet not turned and changed into that which he was made; made, indeed, in such a way that there is there not only the Word of God and the flesh of a man, but also the rational soul of a man, and this whole is called both God on account of God and man on account of man. And if this is hard to understand, let the mind be cleansed by faith, by abstaining more and more from sins, by doing good, and by praying with the groaning of holy desires, so that, making progress through divine help, it may both understand and love. But if it is asked how, after the incarnation of the Word, either the voice of the Father or the bodily appearance by which the Holy Spirit was shown was made, I do not doubt that these were made through a creature; but whether only through a bodily and perceptible one, or with a rational or intellectual spirit also employed (for some have chosen so to call what the Greeks call noeron), not indeed to unity of person (for who would say that whatever creature it was through which the voice of the Father sounded is God the Father in that way, or that whatever creature it was in which the Holy Spirit was shown through the form of a dove or through fiery tongues is the Holy Spirit in that way, as that man who was made of the Virgin is the Son of God?), but only for the ministry of carrying out the signification, as God judged fitting; or whether something else is to be understood, is hard to find, and it is not expedient to affirm rashly. Yet how these things could have been done without a rational or intellectual creature I do not see. Nor is this yet the place to explain why I think so, as far as the Lord gives strength. For first the arguments of the heretics must be discussed and refuted, which they put forward not from the divine books but from their own reasonings, by which they think they forcefully compel us to understand the testimonies of the Scriptures about the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit as they wish. But now it has been sufficiently shown, I think, that the Son is not less because he was sent by the Father, nor the Holy Spirit less because both the Father and the Son sent him. For these things are understood to be set down in the Scriptures either on account of the visible creature, or rather on account of commending the principle, not on account of inequality or disparity or unlikeness of substance; because even if God the Father had willed to appear visibly through a subject creature, it would still be most absurd to say that he was sent either by the Son whom he begot or by the Holy Spirit who proceeds from him. Let this, then, be the measure of this volume; next, in the others, with the Lord's help, we shall see of what kind those most cunning arguments of the heretics are and how they are refuted.

From here, then, I begin to say things that cannot be said as they are thought, either by any man or at least by us; although even our thought itself, when we think of God the Trinity, feels itself far unequal to him of whom it thinks, and does not grasp him as he is, but, as it is written, he is seen even by men as great as the apostle Paul was “through a mirror and in a riddle.” First, I pray to our Lord God himself, of whom we ought always to think and of whom we cannot think worthily, to whom blessing must be rendered in praise “at all times,” and to whose expression no speech is adequate, both for help to understand and explain what I intend, and for pardon wherever I give offence. For I am mindful not only of my will but also of my weakness. I ask those also who are going to read these things to forgive me where they notice that I wished to say more than I was able, whether because they themselves understand it better, or because they do not understand it on account of the difficulty of my language; just as I forgive them where they cannot understand because of their own slowness. And we shall more easily forgive one another if we know, or at least hold firmly by believing, that what is said of the unchangeable and invisible nature, supremely living and sufficient to itself, is not to be measured by the habits of things visible, changeable, mortal, or needy. But since we labour, and are not equal to the task, to grasp with knowledge even the things that lie near our bodily senses, or what we ourselves are in the inner man, it is nevertheless not impudent for faithful piety to burn for those things above, divine and unspeakable: a piety not puffed up by arrogance in its own strength, but set on fire by the grace of the Creator and Saviour himself. For with what understanding does man grasp God, who does not yet grasp the very understanding by which he wishes to grasp him? But if he already grasps this, let him attend carefully that there is nothing better in his nature than it, and let him see whether he sees there any outlines of shapes, brightness of colours, spacious size, distance of parts, extension of bulk, any motions through intervals of place, or anything of the kind. Certainly we find none of these in that than which we find nothing better in our nature, that is, in our understanding, by which we grasp wisdom as far as we are capable. What, therefore, we do not find in what is best in us, we ought not to seek in him who is far better than what is best in us; so that we may understand God, if we can and as far as we can, as good without quality, great without quantity, creator without need, presiding without position, containing all things without possession, wholly everywhere without place, everlasting without time, making changeable things without any change of himself, and undergoing nothing. Whoever thinks of God in this way, even if he cannot yet discover in every way what he is, nevertheless piously takes care, as far as he can, not to think anything of him that he is not.

Yet he is without doubt a substance, or, if this is a better name for it, an essence, which the Greeks call ousia. For just as wisdom (sapientia) is named from being wise (sapere), and knowledge (scientia) from knowing (scire), so essence (essentia) is named from being (esse). And who is more than he who said to his servant Moses, “I am who I am,” and, “You shall say to the children of Israel: He who is has sent me to you”? But other things that are called essences or substances admit accidents, by which a change, great or of any size, takes place in them; but nothing of the kind can happen to God. And therefore that substance or essence which is God is alone unchangeable, and to it being itself, from which essence is named, belongs most of all and most truly. For what is changed does not keep its very being; and what can be changed, even if it is not changed, can cease to be what it was; and so only that which not only is not changed but cannot be changed at all comes to mind without hesitation as that which most truly is said to be.

Therefore, so that we may now begin to answer the adversaries of our faith even concerning those things that are neither said as they are thought nor thought as they are: among the many arguments that the Arians are accustomed to raise against the catholic faith, they seem to put forward this as their most cunning device, when they say: “Whatever is said or understood of God is said not according to accident but according to substance. Therefore to be unbegotten belongs to the Father according to substance, and to be begotten belongs to the Son according to substance. But to be unbegotten and to be begotten are different; therefore the substance of the Father and of the Son is different.” We answer them: If whatever is said of God is said according to substance, then what was said, “I and the Father are one,” is said according to substance. Therefore the substance of the Father and of the Son is one. Or if this is not said according to substance, then something is said of God not according to substance; and so we are no longer compelled to understand “unbegotten” and “begotten” according to substance. Again, it is said of the Son, “He did not think it robbery to be equal with God.” We ask: equal according to what? For if he is not called equal according to substance, let them admit that something is said of God not according to substance; let them admit, then, that “unbegotten” and “begotten” are not said according to substance. But if they do not admit this, because they will have everything said of God according to substance, then the Son is equal to the Father according to substance.

Now nothing is usually called an accident except what can be lost by some change of the thing to which it happens. For even if certain accidents are called inseparable, which in Greek are called achōrista, such as the black colour of a raven's feather, yet the feather loses it, not indeed as long as it is a feather, but because it is not always a feather. Therefore the matter itself is changeable, and from the fact that that animal or that feather ceases to be, and that whole body is changed and turned into earth, it certainly loses that colour too. And yet even an accident that is called separable is lost not by separation but by change, as blackness is in men's hair; because while it is hair it can grow white, it is called a separable accident. But to those who look carefully it is clear enough that nothing migrates, as it were, by separation from the head when it grows grey, so that the blackness departs from it and goes somewhere when whiteness takes its place, but that that quality of colour is turned and changed there. Therefore there is no accident in God, because there is nothing in him changeable or able to be lost. But if one likes to call that also an accident which, though it is not lost, is yet decreased or increased, like the life of the soul (for as long as it is a soul it lives, and because it is always a soul it always lives; but because it lives more when it is wise and less when it is foolish, some change takes place here too, not that life is lacking, as wisdom is lacking in the foolish, but that it is less): nothing of this kind takes place in God either, because he remains wholly unchangeable.

Therefore nothing is said of him according to accident, because nothing happens to him; and yet not everything that is said of him is said according to substance. For in created and changeable things, whatever is not said according to substance must be said according to accident. For all things that can be lost or decreased happen to them as accidents: both sizes and qualities, and what is said with relation to something, such as friendships, kinships, servitudes, likenesses, equalities, and anything of the kind; and positions and conditions, places and times, actions and passions. But in God nothing is said according to accident, because there is nothing changeable in him; and yet not everything that is said is said according to substance. For something is said with relation to something, as the Father in relation to the Son and the Son in relation to the Father, and this is not an accident: for the one is always Father and the other always Son. And not “always” in the sense that, from the time the Son was born, the Father never ceases to be Father because the Son never ceases to be Son, but in the sense that the Son was always born and never began to be Son. For if he had at some time begun to be, or were at some time to cease to be Son, it would be said according to accident. If, however, what is called Father were said with reference to himself, not to the Son, and what is called Son were said with reference to himself, not to the Father, then both the one would be called Father and the other Son according to substance. But because the Father is not called Father except from the fact that he has a Son, and the Son is not called Son except from the fact that he has a Father, these things are not said according to substance; for each of them is not said with reference to himself, but these terms are said reciprocally and in relation to each other. Nor are they said according to accident, because both what is called Father and what is called Son is eternal and unchangeable in them. Therefore, although to be Father and to be Son are different, the substance is not different; because these are said not according to substance but relatively; and yet this relation is not an accident, because it is not changeable.