On the Trinity 5.16–6.8

Nor should it trouble us that, although the Holy Spirit is coeternal with the Father and the Son, something is said of him from a point in time, such as this very thing we have called “given.” For the Spirit is eternally gift, but given in time. For if one is not called master except when he begins to have a servant, this relative name too belongs to God from a point in time; for the creature of which he is Lord is not everlasting. How then shall we maintain that even relative terms are not accidents, since nothing happens to God in time, because he is not changeable, as we discussed at the beginning of this inquiry? See, he does not have being Lord everlastingly, lest we be compelled to call the creature everlasting too, since he would not be Lord everlastingly unless it also served everlastingly. For just as there cannot be a servant who has no master, so there cannot be a master who has no servant. And suppose someone comes forward who says that God alone is eternal, and that times are not eternal because of their variety and changeableness, but that times nevertheless did not begin to be in time (for there was no time before times began, and therefore it did not happen to God in time that he was Lord, since he was Lord of the times themselves, which certainly did not begin to be in time): what will he answer about man, who was made in time, and of whom God was certainly not Lord before there was one of whom he could be Lord? Certainly at least that he was the Lord of man happened to God from a point in time; and, so that all dispute may seem to be removed, certainly that he was your Lord or mine, who have only lately begun to be, happened to God from a point in time. Or if this too seems uncertain because of the obscure question about the soul, what of his being Lord of the people of Israel? For even if the nature of the soul which that people had already existed, which we are not now asking, yet that people did not yet exist, and when it began to exist is evident. Finally, that he was Lord of this tree and this crop, which have only lately begun to be, happened from a point in time. For even if the matter itself already existed, yet it is one thing to be Lord of the matter and another to be Lord of a nature already made. For a man too is master of the wood at one time and master of the chest at another, although the chest was made from that very wood, and it certainly did not exist when he was already master of the wood. How then shall we maintain that nothing is said of God according to accident, except that nothing happens to his nature by which it is changed, so that those relative things are accidents which happen with some change of the things of which they are said? As a friend is spoken of relatively; for he does not begin to be a friend except when he has begun to love: some change of will therefore takes place, so that he is called a friend. But when a coin is called a price, it is spoken of relatively, and yet it was not changed when it began to be a price; nor when it is called a pledge, and anything similar. If, then, a coin can so often be spoken of relatively without any change in itself, so that neither when it begins to be so called nor when it ceases does any change take place in its nature or form by which it is a coin, how much more easily ought we to accept of that unchangeable substance of God that something is said of it relatively to the creature in such a way that, although it begins to be said in time, nothing is understood to have happened to the substance of God itself, but only to the creature to which it is related? “Lord,” he says, “you have become our refuge.” God is therefore called our refuge relatively, for he is referred to us; and he becomes our refuge when we take refuge in him. Does anything then come about in his nature that was not there before we took refuge in it? The change therefore takes place in us: for we were worse before we took refuge in him, and by taking refuge in him we are made better; but in him there is none. So too he begins to be our Father when we are regenerated by his grace, since “he gave us power to become sons of God.” Our substance, therefore, is changed for the better when we are made his sons; and at the same time he begins to be our Father, but with no change of his substance. What, therefore, God begins to be called in time that he was not called before is clearly said relatively; yet not according to an accident of God, as though something had happened to him, but plainly according to an accident of that in relation to which God begins to be called something. And when a righteous man begins to be a friend of God, it is he who is changed; but far be it that God should love anyone in time, as though with a new love that was not in him before, with whom things past have not passed away and things future have already been done. So he loved all his saints before the foundation of the world, as he predestined them; but when they are converted and find him, they are then said to begin to be loved by him, so that it may be said in the way in which what is said can be grasped by human feeling. So too when he is said to be angry with the wicked and gentle with the good, they are changed, not he: as light is harsh to weak eyes and gentle to strong ones, by their change, of course, not its own.

Some think that the equality of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is hindered from being understood because it is written that Christ is “the power of God and the wisdom of God,” so that equality does not seem to be present, since the Father is not himself power and wisdom but the begetter of power and wisdom. And indeed the question is usually asked with no small attention, how God is called the Father of power and wisdom. For the apostle says that Christ is “the power of God and the wisdom of God.” And from this some of our writers reasoned against the Arians in this way, at least against those who first raised themselves against the catholic faith. For Arius himself is reported to have said, “If he is a son, he was born; if he was born, there was a time when he was not a son,” not understanding that for God even to have been born is everlasting, so that the Son is coeternal with the Father, as the brightness that is generated by fire and spreads from it is of the same age as the fire, and would be coeternal if the fire were eternal. Hence some later Arians abandoned that opinion and confessed that the Son of God did not begin from a point in time. But among the disputations that our writers held against those who said, “There was a time when the Son was not,” some also inserted this argument: “If the Son of God is the power and wisdom of God, and God was never without power and wisdom, the Son is coeternal with God the Father. But the apostle says that Christ is ‘the power of God and the wisdom of God’; and it is the part of a madman to say that God at some time did not have power or wisdom. Therefore there was not a time when the Son was not.” This argument compels us to say that God the Father is not wise except by having the wisdom which he begot, not by the Father being wisdom itself in himself. Then, if this is so, since the Son himself is called God from God, light from light, we must see whether he can be called wisdom from wisdom, if God the Father is not wisdom itself but only the begetter of wisdom. And if we hold this, why is he not also the begetter of his own greatness, goodness, eternity, and omnipotence, so that he is not himself his own greatness, goodness, eternity, and omnipotence, but is great by the greatness which he begot, good by the goodness, eternal by the eternity, and almighty by the omnipotence that was born of him, just as he is not himself his own wisdom, but is wise by the wisdom that was born of him? For we need not fear being compelled to speak of many sons of God coeternal with the Father, besides the adoption of the creature, if he is the begetter of his greatness, goodness, eternity, and omnipotence. This cavil is easily answered: it does not follow, because many things have been named, that he is the father of many coeternal sons, just as it does not follow that he is the father of two when Christ is called the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the same power is wisdom, and the same wisdom is power; and so also with the rest, so that the same greatness is power, and whatever else has been mentioned above or can still be mentioned.

But suppose the Father is called nothing in himself except what he is called in relation to the Son, that is, father, or begetter, or his beginning (and the one who begets is consequently the beginning of what he begets from himself); and whatever else he is called, he is called with the Son, or rather in the Son, whether great by the greatness which he begot, or just by the justice which he begot, or good by the goodness which he begot, or powerful by the power or strength which he begot, or wise by the wisdom which he begot; and greatness itself is not said of the Father, but he is the generator of greatness; while the Son, just as he is called Son in himself, which is said not with the Father but in relation to the Father, is not in the same way great in himself, but with the Father, whose greatness he is; and so he is called wise with the Father, whose wisdom he is, just as the Father is wise with the Son, because he is wise by the wisdom which he begot: then whatever they are called with reference to themselves, neither is called without the other; that is, whatever they are called that shows their substance, both are called together. If this is so, then neither is the Father God without the Son, nor the Son God without the Father, but both together are God. And what is said, “In the beginning was the Word,” is understood as “the Word was in the Father”; or if “in the beginning” is said as if it meant “before all things,” then in what follows, “And the Word was with God,” the Word is understood as the Son alone, not the Father and the Son together, as if both were one Word (for he is the Word as he is the Image, and the Father and the Son are not both together the image, but the Son alone is the image of the Father, as he is also the Son; for both together are not the son). But in what is added, “And the Word was with God,” it is a great deal to understand it thus: the Word, which is the Son alone, was with God, which is not the Father alone but the Father and the Son together. But what wonder if this can be said of two things very different from each other? For what is so different as mind and body? Yet one can say, “The mind was with the man,” that is, in the man, although the mind is not the body, while the man is mind and body together. So that what is written next, “And the Word was God,” would be understood thus: the Word, who is not the Father, was God together with the Father. Do we then say that the Father is the generator of his greatness, that is, the generator of his power or of his wisdom, while the Son is the greatness, power, and wisdom, and God, great, almighty, and wise, is both together? How then is he God from God, light from light? For both together are not God from God, but the Son alone is from God, namely the Father; nor are both together light from light, but the Son alone is from the light, the Father. Unless perhaps, in order to suggest and impress most briefly that the Son is coeternal with the Father, it was said “God from God” and “light from light,” and anything said in this way, as if it were said: “This, which is not the Son without the Father, from this, which is not the Father without the Son,” that is, “this light, which is not light without the Father, from this light, the Father, which is not light without the Son”; so that when it is said “God, who is not the Son without the Father, and from God, who is not the Father without the Son,” it may be perfectly understood that the begetter did not precede what he begot. If this is so, the only thing that cannot be said of them, “this from that,” is what both are not together. Thus “Word from Word” cannot be said, because both together are not the Word, but the Son alone; nor “image from image,” because both together are not the image; nor “Son from Son,” because both together are not the son; according to what is said, “I and the Father are one.” For “we are one” is said in the sense: what he is, I also am, according to essence, not according to relation.

And I do not know whether it is found said in the Scriptures that things whose nature is different “are one.” But if several things are of the same nature and think differently, they are not one, at least in so far as they think differently. For if the disciples were already one from the fact that they were men, he would not have said, “That they may be one, as we are one,” when he commended his disciples to the Father. But Paul and Apollos, because they were both men and thought the same, are one: “He who plants,” he says, “and he who waters are one.” When, therefore, “one” is said without adding one what, and several things are called one, the same nature and essence is signified, not disagreeing nor dissenting. But when one what is added, it can signify something made one out of several, even though different in nature. So soul and body are certainly not one (for what is so different?), unless one what is added or understood, that is, one man, or one animal. Hence the apostle says, “He who joins himself to a harlot is one body.” He did not say, “They are one,” or “He is one,” but added “body,” as one body composed by joining from two different things, male and female. And, “He who joins himself to the Lord,” he says, “is one spirit.” He did not say, “He who joins himself to the Lord is one,” or “They are one,” but added “spirit.” For the spirit of man and the Spirit of God are different in nature; but by cleaving, one spirit is made from two different ones, in such a way that the Spirit of God is blessed and perfect without the human spirit, but the spirit of man is not blessed except with God. And not without reason, I think, when the Lord in the Gospel according to John spoke so much and so often of unity itself, whether his own with the Father or ours with one another, did he nowhere say, “That they and we may be one,” but, “That they may be one, as we also are one.” The Father and the Son, therefore, are one, certainly according to unity of substance; and there is one God, and one great, and one wise, as has been discussed. How then is the Father greater? For if greater, he is greater in greatness; but since the Son is his greatness, neither is the Son greater than him who begot him, nor is the Father greater than that greatness by which he is great: therefore they are equal. For in what is he equal, if not in that by which he is, for whom to be is not one thing and to be great another? Or if the Father is greater in eternity, the Son is not equal in anything at all. For in what is he equal? If you say in greatness, a greatness that is less eternal is not equal, and so with the rest. Or perhaps he is equal in power but not equal in wisdom? But how is a power equal that is less wise? Or is he equal in wisdom but not equal in power? But how is a wisdom equal that is less powerful? It remains, then, that if he is not equal in any one thing, he is not equal in all. But Scripture cries out, “He did not think it robbery to be equal with God.” Every adversary of the truth, therefore, provided he is bound by apostolic authority, is compelled to confess that the Son is equal to God in at least some one thing. Let him choose which he likes: from it he will be shown to be equal in all the things that are said of his substance.

For so the virtues that are in the human mind, although each is understood in its own way, are in no way separated from one another, so that whoever are equal, for example, in courage are equal also in prudence, temperance, and justice. For if you say that these men are equal in courage but that one excels in prudence, it follows that the other's courage is less prudent, and so they are not equal even in courage, since the one's courage is more prudent. And you will find the same of the other virtues if you go through them all with the same consideration. For we are not dealing with strength of body but with courage of mind. How much more, then, do these things hold in that unchangeable and eternal substance, incomparably more simple than the human mind? For to the human mind it is not the same to be as to be courageous, or prudent, or just, or temperate; for a mind can exist and have none of these virtues. But to God it is the same to be as to be strong, or just, or wise, and whatever you may say of that simple multiplicity or multiple simplicity by which his substance is signified. Therefore, whether “God from God” is said in such a way that this name fits each one, yet not so that both together are two gods but one God (for they cohere with each other in the way that the apostle bears witness happens even in distant and different substances; for the Lord alone is spirit, and the spirit of man alone is certainly spirit, yet if it cleaves to the Lord it is one spirit; how much more there, where there is a wholly inseparable and eternal bond?), lest it seem absurdly to be said as though he were the son of both, when he is called the Son of God, if what is called God is said only of both together; or whether whatever is said of God that indicates his substance is said only of both together, or rather of the Trinity itself together: whether it is this or that, which needs more careful discussion, for now it is enough to see that the Son is in no way equal to the Father if he is found unequal in anything that pertains to signifying his substance, as we have already shown. But the apostle called him equal. Therefore the Son is equal to the Father in all things, and is of one and the same substance.

Therefore the Holy Spirit too subsists in the same unity and equality of substance. For whether he is the unity of both, or the holiness, or the love, or the unity because the love, and the love because the holiness, it is clear that he is not one of the two, he by whom each is joined to the other, by whom the begotten is loved by the begetter and loves his begetter, and they are, not by participation but by their own essence, not by the gift of some superior but by their own, “keeping the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” This we are commanded to imitate by grace, both towards God and towards ourselves: “on these two commandments hang the whole Law and the Prophets.” Thus those three are God, one, alone, great, wise, holy, blessed. But we are blessed from him, through him, and in him; because by his gift we are one among ourselves, and one spirit with him, because our soul cleaves after him. And it is good for us to cleave to God, because he will destroy everyone who goes whoring away from him. The Holy Spirit, then, is something common to the Father and the Son, whatever it is. But that communion itself is consubstantial and coeternal; and if it can fittingly be called friendship, let it be so called; but it is more aptly called love. And this too is substance, because God is substance, and “God is love,” as it is written. And just as he is substance together with the Father and the Son, so he is great together with them, and good together, and holy together, and whatever else is said with reference to himself; since for God it is not one thing to be and another to be great or good, and so on, as we showed above. For if love is less great there than wisdom, wisdom is loved less than it is; it is therefore equal, so that wisdom is loved as much as it is. But wisdom is equal to the Father, as we argued above; therefore the Holy Spirit too is equal; and if equal, equal in all things, because of the supreme simplicity which is in that substance. And therefore they are not more than three: one loving him who is from him, and one loving him from whom he is, and love itself. And if this is nothing, how is God love? If it is not substance, how is God substance?

But if it is asked how that substance is both simple and manifold, we must first notice why the creature is manifold and in no way truly simple. And first, every body certainly consists of parts, so that one part is greater, another less, and the whole is greater than any part of whatever size. For heaven and earth are parts of the whole mass of the world; and earth alone and heaven alone consist of innumerable parts, and each is less in a third of itself than in the rest, and less in a half than in the whole; and the whole body of the world, which is commonly called by its two parts, heaven and earth, is certainly greater than heaven alone or earth alone. And in each body size is one thing, colour another, shape another. For the same colour and the same shape can remain when the size is reduced; and the same shape and the same size can remain when the colour is changed; and when the shape does not remain the same, it can be just as large and coloured in the same way; and whatever other things are said of a body together can be changed, either together or several without the others. And so the nature of body is shown to be manifold, and in no way simple. The spiritual creature too, such as the soul, is indeed simpler in comparison with the body; but apart from comparison with the body it is manifold, and is not simple either. For it is simpler than the body because it is not spread out in bulk through a space of place, but in each body it is whole in the whole and whole in any part of it; and therefore when something happens in any tiny part of the body which the soul senses, although it does not happen in the whole body, yet the whole soul senses it, because it is not hidden from the whole. But even in the soul, since it is one thing to be skilful, another to be idle, another sharp, another of good memory, and desire is one thing, fear another, joy another, sadness another, and some can be found in the nature of the soul without others, some more and some less, innumerable things in innumerable ways, it is clear that its nature is not simple but manifold. For nothing simple is changeable; but every creature is changeable.

God, however, is indeed called in many ways great, good, wise, blessed, true, and whatever else seems not unworthily said; but his greatness is the same as his wisdom (for he is great not in bulk but in power), and his goodness is the same as his wisdom and greatness, and his truth the same as all of them; and there it is not one thing to be blessed and another to be great, or wise, or true, or good, or to be at all. Nor, because he is a Trinity, is he therefore to be thought threefold; otherwise the Father alone, or the Son alone, would be less than the Father and the Son together. Although it is not found how one could say either “the Father alone” or “the Son alone,” since always and inseparably the one is with the Son and the other with the Father; not so that both are Father or both Son, but because they are always in each other, neither is alone. But since we also call the Trinity itself God alone, although he is always with holy spirits and souls, yet we say he alone is God because they are not God with him: so we say the Father alone is Father, not because he is separated from the Son, but because both together are not Father.

Since, then, the Father alone, or the Son alone, or the Holy Spirit alone is as great as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit together, he is in no way to be called threefold. For bodies grow by being joined. For although he who cleaves to his wife is one body, yet it becomes a larger body than if it were the husband's alone or the wife's alone. But in spiritual things, when the lesser cleaves to the greater, as the creature to the Creator, the former becomes greater than it was, not the latter. For in things that are not great in bulk, to be greater is the same as to be better. And the spirit of any creature becomes better when it cleaves to the Creator than if it did not cleave; and therefore also greater, because better. “He, then, who cleaves to the Lord is one spirit”; but yet the Lord does not therefore become greater, although he who cleaves to the Lord does. In God himself, therefore, when the equal Son cleaves to the equal Father, or the Holy Spirit equal to the Father and the Son, God does not become greater than each of them, because there is nothing by which that perfection could grow. But perfect is the Father, perfect the Son, perfect the Holy Spirit, and perfect God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: and therefore a Trinity rather than threefold.