# On the Trinity

- Author: [Faustinus](https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/authors/faustinus/)
- Latin title: *De Trinitate sive de fide contra Arianos*
- Date: ca. 380–384 (approximate)
- Source: Jacques-Paul Migne, ed., Patrologiae cursus completus, Series Latina, vol. 13 (Paris, 1845), cols. 37-80, after Sirmond and Coustant (Latin text: Migne, PL 13 (1845), digitized by Open Greek and Latin (patrologia_latina-dev), University of Leipzig, CC BY-SA 4.0)

- Translation: Claude, from the original text, unless a passage says otherwise; each passage below gives the translator
- Work page: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/faustinus-de-trinitate/
- Passages: 8

## On the Trinity 0

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/faustinus-de-trinitate/0/#p-0
- Source: PL 13:38b–38c
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Faustinus writes at the request of the empress, who asked how to answer the Arians' proof texts; he will first set out what the Arians really believe.

### Latin text

Reginam te orbis Romanas suspicit: et quia jam nihil est, quo amplius crescere debeas in rebus humanis, sublimitatibus non contenta terrenis, sacra in Deum fide coelestia desideras possidere, quae veros Filius Dei, in se pie credentibus pollicetur. Et haec quasi una de sapientissimis elaboras, intelligens omnem hanc regni sublimitatem nihil profuturam, si non ad coelestem gloriam consequendam verae fidet cognitione et defensione contendas. Et tamen apparet, quam grata sis in Christo Deo et Domino nostro, qui vobis hoc regnum tribuit; cum sollicita interrogatione perquiris, quomodo capitula ilia solvantur, quae ab Arianis adversus Catholicos sacrae legis interpretationibus opponuntur. Habens affectum verae fidei, cupis, prout possibile est, intelligere, quod fideliter credis. Quia et tunc magis anima religiosa, velut divinis epulis pascitur, cum quod credit, intelligit. Sed et cum exsecreris impias voces haereticorum, tamen religioso studio instrui adversus eos desideras, ut et rationem jam respuas: ire hoc quod exsecraris, quasi ex regni potentia, praesumptionis videatur esse, noh probationis. Sed huic tam pio, tam necessario et pulcherrimo desiderio tuo, etsi me imparem vides, tamen ut resistens obviam venire non audeo: Confiteor enim quod hac me inhabilis conscientia, et imperitia squalidi sermonis suffundit, ut taceam: hac fervor fidei, periculum credit esse ai taceam: quomodo enim periculum non videtur, si adversus hostem impium provocati conscientia eloquendi, quae verecundia, quasi terga vertamus? Maxime, cum in causa fidei non sermonum sublimitas requirenda est, quando ipsa sola testimonia divina sufficiant, quae potius operantur, quam quaevis fecundior eloquentia. Sed nec vitiorum conscientia cog(??)tanda est quando potius relevatur, Si primo Deum deest. non trepidet confiteri, exemplo illius evangelici latronis, qui quo die confessus est Deum, ipso die meruit cum eo in paradisum, quem confessus fuerat, introire. Incipiamus ergo, obedientes religiosissimis praeceptis tuis, collidere cum adversario, non quidem de nostris viribus praesumentes, sed habentes fiduciam de praesidiali patrocinio Salvatoris, adversus quem more gentilium et furore Judaeorum, bellum exagitat impietas haereticorum. Sed quia in his quae scribere dignata es ex persona haereticorum, vidi plurima esse, confusa, ut videreris mihi non plenius nosse quae asserant Ariani; melius opinatus sumpsi primum liquido palam facere quomodo credant, et quomodo sub ambiguitate sermonis simplices animas capiant; et tunc maxime, cum sub communi confessione impia sua verba commendant: quia et tune demum ad solutionem fidelis responsio manifesta est, si prius sacrilegae sectae impia tergiversatio propaletur.

### English translation (Claude)

The Roman world looks up to you as queen; and because there is now nothing in human affairs in which you could grow further, not content with earthly heights, you desire by holy faith in God to possess the heavenly things which the true Son of God promises to those who piously believe in him. And you labour at this like one of the wisest of women, understanding that all this height of royal power will profit nothing unless you strive, by the knowledge and defence of the true faith, to attain heavenly glory. And yet it is evident how grateful you are to Christ our God and Lord, who gave you this kingdom, when with anxious inquiry you ask how those chapters are to be answered which the Arians set against the catholics from their interpretations of the sacred law. Having the affection of true faith, you desire, as far as possible, to understand what you faithfully believe; for a religious soul is fed as with a divine banquet especially when it understands what it believes. But although you abhor the impious words of the heretics, you nevertheless desire with religious zeal to be equipped against them, so that you may reject them with reason, lest your rejection of what you abhor seem, as it were from the power of your royal rank, a matter of presumption, not of proof. To this desire of yours, so pious, so necessary and most beautiful, though you see me unequal to it, I do not dare to come against you as one resisting. For I confess that on the one side the consciousness of my inability and the unskilfulness of my rough speech cover me with shame, urging me to be silent; on the other, the fervour of faith believes it dangerous to be silent. For how does it not seem dangerous if, challenged against an impious enemy, we turn our backs, as it were, out of embarrassment about our ability to speak? Especially since in the cause of faith loftiness of speech is not to be sought, when the divine testimonies alone suffice, which accomplish more than any eloquence however rich. Nor should one be held back by the consciousness of one's faults, since they are rather lightened if one does not fear to confess God, after the example of the thief in the gospel, who on the very day he confessed God deserved to enter paradise with him whom he had confessed. Let us begin, then, obeying your most religious commands, to engage with the adversary—not presuming on our own strength, but trusting in the protecting patronage of the Saviour, against whom the impiety of the heretics, in the manner of the pagans and with the fury of the Jews, stirs up war. But since, in what you deigned to write as the heretics' position, I saw that much was confused, so that you seemed to me not to know fully what the Arians assert, I thought it better first to make plain how they believe and how, under the ambiguity of their language, they capture simple souls—and especially when they commend their impious words under a common confession; for only then is the faithful answer clear for refutation, when the impious evasion of the sacrilegious sect has first been exposed.

### Scripture references

- Luke 23:43: allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- The empress is Flaccilla, wife of Theodosius I (died 386). Luke 23:42–43 (the penitent thief). "Si primo Deum deest" in the text is corrupt; the sense ("if one does not fear to confess God") is supplied from the context.

### Citation (SBL)

Faustinus, Trin. pref. (PL 13:38b–38c; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/faustinus-de-trinitate/0).

## On the Trinity 1

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/faustinus-de-trinitate/1/#p-1
- Source: PL 13:38c–49c
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Faustinus sets out the Arian position and refutes it from John 1, Philippians 2, Colossians 1, Genesis 1, and 'I and the Father are one,' arguing that the Son is eternal, equal, and of one substance and will with the Father.

### Latin text

I. Ariana impietas asserit multa nobiscum quidem iisdem sermonibus, sed non iisdem sensibus (confitetur), cum ad divinae fidei confessionem vocatur. Nam iisdem quibus et nos vocibus personat Deum Patrem, et Deum Filium, et omnia a Deo Patre per filium facta, et filium ante saecula genitum. Sed cnm nobiscum per haec verba concordet, nihilominus sacrilegis verborum interpretationibus a piis Ecclesiae catholicae sensibus abrumpit, ita dicens patrem, ut non vere genuerit: ita filium quoque pronuntians, ut apud eum adoptione, non natura sit filius, id est, ut aliunde ad filii nomen assumptus, non vere de Deo Patre sit genitus. Nam licet et ante saecula filium natum esse fateatur, tamen ei initium tribuit dicendo, Erat quando non erat. Sed et sic quoque per eum facta dicit universa, ut eum asserat ex nullis exstantibus substitutum, quia praesumpsit non vere de Deo Patre genitum: et inde est, quod ita vult habere persuasum, Christum Deum quidem esse, sed non verum, cui initium deputetur; et filium quidem ita, ut factus intelligatur esse, non natus. Si quidem non vere de patre natus est, sed de nihilo substitutus; ob hoc quoque et mutabilem credit, quia in fide ejus non vere Deus, non verus filius est: et ut hos impios sensus apud ignaros vel simplices commendet, adhibet quoque, ut sibi videtur, Scripturarum divinarum testimonia, dicens ex persona Sapientiae probatum, Dominus creavit me initium viarum suarum in opera sua. Christum autem sapientiam esse Apostolus quoque confirmat dicendo, Christum Dei virtutem, et Dei sapientiam. Constat ergo Christum, qui est, Apostolo interprete, sapientia, esse creaturam: (et jam, inquit,) consequens est, ut non sil verus Deus, qui sit creatura: jam nec verus filius, qui non sit a Deo genitus, sed creatus: erat ergo, quando non erat. II. Haec sunt nequitiae arma proposita, adversus quae ire provocamur, ut assertionis adversae propaletur impietas; non quidem, ut diximus, nostro ingenio, sed gratia Dei adjuvante semper pios conatus. Tu modo, quaeso ne squalido sermone fatigeris, sed rerum intenta virtutibus, da calculum veritati. Hoc autem non ut librum scribimus, sed quasi cum praesente adversario certis disputationibus dimicamus. Et imprimis contra hoc quod dicunt, Erat quando non erat, occurrendum est, quod semper fuerit; et opponendum de Evangelio testimonium, dicente Joanne, In principio erat Verbum. Sicut enim Christus Dei sapientia et Dei virtus est, ita et Dei Verbum est. Cum ergo ait, In principio erat Verbum, quomodo Ariana impietas dicit, Erat quando non erat? In principio, inquit, erat Verbum; non dixit, In principio factum est Verbum: et utique quod in principio erat, semper fuisse credendum est. Si enim, ut putat impietas, factura est filius; sine dubio Scriptura divina hoc ipsum quod factum est principio prodidisset, ex illa utique institutione, qua et Moyses loculus est dicendo: In principio fecit Deus coelum et terram. Si enim et filius Dei factura esset, dixisset Joannes, In principio factum est Verbum. Sed praevidens evangelista, magis autem Spiritus sanctus per evangelistam, futuros impiae mentis homines, qui dicerent de filio, Erat quando non erat, ideo sic coepit: In principio erat Verbum; nihil enim illo anterius est, qui invenitur ante principium. Scripturae divinae ob hoc editae sunt, ut secundum illarum sensum nostram fidem dirigamus, non ut nostros sensus illarum sacris dictionibus inseramus. Viderit, si sunt quaedam capitula, quae sui obscuritate dare putantur occasionem ambiguitatis; certe in hoc capitulo nulla ambiguitatis occasio est. Non licet interpreti aliter sentire, quam scriptum est; nec opus est, ut nunc nostros sensus ingeramus: sufficit ad plenam percipiendae fidei notitiam, ut divina verba recitemus. In principio, inquit, erat Verbum. Numquid aliqua hic est opinio temporis, numquid aliqua suspicio saeculorum, vel aliquod intervallum puncti aut momenti alicujus, ut dicere audeas, Erat quando non erat? III. In principio erat Verbum; et ne forte verbum intelligas, quod est loquentis officium, sequitur, et Verbum erat apud Deum: non dixit, « verbum quod locutus est Deus, sed, et erat Verbum apud Deum: ipse postremo interpretatus est, quid sit Verbum, dicens, et Deus erat Verbum. Si in principio erat Verbum, et hoc ipsum Verbum apud Deum erat, et Deus erat Verbum, confusa est impietatis intentio. Probatur enim de capitulo hoc, Christum filium Dei et semper fuisse, et semper inseparabilem a Patre, et semper Deum. Sicut enim sine initio est, cum dicitur, In principio erat, sic et cum dicitur, apud Deum erat, inseparabilitas ejus a Patre sine initio declaratur. Sed et cum hoc Verbum Deus esse definitur, non est ambiguum, quod sine initio Deus creditur. Hoc enim quod praemisit dicens, In principio, ad omnia referendum est, id est, In principio erat Verbum; et cum sequitur, et Verbum erat apud Deum, et Deus erat Verbum; sine dubio, in principio, subaudiendum est. Denique et ipse ita concludit, dicens: Hoc erat in principio apud Deum; quomodo ergo « erat quando non erat, » qui semper est? quomodo « ex nullis exstantibus est, » qui semper apud Patrem est? quomodo creatura, qui semper Deus, imo et per quem universa creatura est? Sequitur enim, Omnia per ipsum facta sunt. Quomodo « ex nullis exstantibus factus esi, » per quem omnia facta sunt? Si enim et ipse factus est, quomodo per ipsum omnia facta sunt? non enim cum fieret, potest sui auctor esse, qui nou fuit: atque ideo infectus credendus est, per quem omnia facta sunt; quia vanum est, et absurdum, ut et ipse, cum non exstaret, factus per se esse dicatur. IV. Similiter et Paulus docet Christum semper fuisse, et Deum esse, et aequalem Patri. Tunc enim vere Deus est, cum aequalis est Patri: quia nec aequalis esse diceretur si non vere Deus haberetur. Injuria est enim veri Dei, si ei non Deus verus dicatur aequalis. Ponit itaque in Epistola sua: Hoc enim existimate in vobis, quod in Christo Jesu: qui cum in forma Dei esset (constitutus), non rapinam arbitratus est, esse aequalem Deu, sed semetipsum exinanivit formam servi accipiens. Si vere homo est Christus, curo formam servi accipit; vere quoque Deus est, curo in forma Dei esse perhibetur: nec alia ratione aequalem diceret, nisi in forma Dei esse verum Deum voluisset intelligi. Et qui verus Deus est, utique semper est: et qui semper est Deus, non potest dici de eo, Erat quando non erat. Sed et per ipsum omnia facta ait apostolus Paulus scribens: Quia in ipso creata sunt omnia, sive quae in coelis, sive quae in terra, visibilia et invisibilia, sive throni, sive dominationes, sive principatus, sive potestates; omnia per ipsum et in ipso creata sunt, et ipse est ante omnes. Ergo ipse semper est, per quem et in quo omnia facta sunt. Sed et Hymnidicus cantans ait: Omnia in sapientia fecisti. Non tamen ipsam dixit factam esse sapientiam: quia et Apostolus cum dicit, et ipse est ante omnes, factum negavit. Si enim eum qui non erat, facium credi voluisset, ita posuisset, et ipse factus est ante omnes: at cum dicit et ipse est ante omnes, omnibus dedit initium, quorum anterior, immo et factor est: ipse vero sine initio est, qui ante omnes non factus, sed esse memoratur. Item Apostolus: Unus, inquit, Deus pater, ex quo omnia, et nos in ipso: et unus Dominus noster Jesus Christus, per quem omnia, et nos per ipsum: et heic cum dicit per Christum esse omnia, apertissime factorem discrevit a factis, nec posse intelligi naturam facturae in co qui fecit omnia. V. Se d videamus si et Moyses hoc idem docuit, quod apostoli annuntiaverunt, id est, omnia ex Deo facta esse per filium. Inter caetera, cum fabricam mundi refert, ait: Et dixit Deus, Fiat firmamentum in medio aquas, et sit dividens inter aquam et aquam: et factum est sic. Et fecit Deus firmamentum, et divisit Deus per medium aquae. Cum dicit, Et dixit Deus, Fiat firmamentum, in dicente patris intelligenda persona est: cum autem dicit. Et fecit Deus, in faciente filii intelligenda persona est. Nam si non putas ita intelligendum, apostolica periclitabitur assertio, dicens: Unus Deus pater, ex quo omnia et nos in ipso: et unus Dominus noster Jesus Christus, per quem omnia et nos per ipsum: nisi enim totam fabricam mundi per filium faciam esse credideris, immo et omnia invisibilia sive et visibilia, quemadmodum in fidem recipis vocem Apostoli dicentis: Unus Dominus noster Jesus Christus, per quem omnia, et illud quoque quod supra retulimus, quia in ipso creata sunt omnia, nec non et illud, Omnia in sapientia fecisti? Sed et hoc Joannes prosecutus est: Omnia per ipsum facta sunt: quomodo omnia, si negas de filio Dei dictum, et fecit Deus firmamentum: Et divisit Deus per medium aquae? Ergo et Moyses factorem inducit filium, non factum. Si enim factum sancto Spiritu revelante didicisset, inter caetera quae facta describebat, ipsum quoque prius facium esse memorasset. VI. Sed absolutius inferius prosequitur, ubi jam fabricati mundi incola faciendus est: Et dixit Deus, Faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram. Non est enim unius personae dicere, faciamus ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram, sed neque diversae deitatis. Nam pluralitas horum verborum, id est faciamus, et nostram, patris et filii personas significat. Quod autem singulariter imaginem dicit, una deitas, una virtus utriusque personae manifestator. Si creatura est Christus, quomodo in opera Deo consors adhibetur? ad ipsum enim dicitur, faciamus. Si non est verus filius, quomodo una illi cum patre imago est? Adoptivus filius non habet imaginem adoptantis: potest quidem habere munificentiam, non autem potest imaginis habere naturam. Scio quidem esse discretiones imaginum, quas nunc exsequi longum est, et non necessarium. Sed quod facit ad causam, vindico, dicens: Hoc in loco nulla discretio est imaginis, ubi patris et filii una imago perhibetur. Non enim dixit, Faciamus ad imagines nostras, sed, ad imaginem nostram. Et ne forte stupida mente, o quisquis ille es haereticus, usurpares etiam de una persona dici potuisse faciamus, ut scilicet apud se cogitantis affectio sit, non designabo personarum; subsequitur, et fecit Deus hominem, ad imaginem Dei fecit eum. Quae coram in luce posita sunt, si quis non videt, caecus est: Deus, inquit, fecit, ad imaginem Dei fecit. Nonne apertissimum est, quod jam tunc Spiritus sanctus per Moysen evangelica sacramenta tractabat dicens, Deum et Deum, non tamen duos deos, quia una imago est patris et filii? Et, o quam prospecte omnia edita sunt! Deum et Deum sacra Scriptura pronuntiat, ut Sabellium excluderet defendentem patris et filii unam esse personam: et ne duos deos introduceret, inter verba quibus pluralis significatio personarum est, unam imaginem inseruit. Hoc ita esse invenies, intendens testimonio dicenti, Faciamus hominem ad imaginem nostram. Quid agis, impietas Ariana? Si creatura Christus est, quomodo creaturae et creatori una imago est? VII. 2 Sed ne iterum Arius sub occasione personarum, diversitates induceret naturarum, diversitas naturae non admittit unius formae communionem. Multae sunt voces in libris Moysi, quibus redargui possint impii in filium, immo et in patrem: nam quomodo non et in patrem haec tendit impietas, quae profano spiritu exercetur in filium, cum patri adimunt quod vere patris est, auferentes filio quod vere filii est: quomodo enim paler est vere, qui secandum ipsos non genuit? quomodo Christus vere filius est, quem negant vere de ipso generatum? Sed, ut dixi, multae sunt voces in libris Moysi, quibus redargui haec eorum possit impietas: sed quia haec ipsa non studio librum scribentis exsequimur, sed veluti in scheda certas summas quasi properantes delimamus, ut tuo qualitercumque videamur obedisse praecepto, caeterae voces praetereundae sunt, maxime quia in divinis vocibus non numerus testimoniorum, sed auctoritas requirenda est; quae idonea est etiam si una voce proferatur. Sufficit interim de hoc uno capitulo Moysen concordasse cum Evangeliis et apostolis. Deum et Deum praedicat Moyses: sicut superius testimonium loquimur de Genesi, ita et Joannes Deum et Deum annuntiavit dicens: In principio erat Verbum, et Verbum erat apud Deum, et Deus erat Verbum. Nemo dixit duos deos, licet Deum et Deum diceret: nemo non unam imaginem patris et filii annuntiavit, et ideo unum Deum novit dicere in confessione fides catholica: non tamen ut per confessionem unius Dei filias negetur esse quod Deus est: quia sicut pater Deus est, ita et filius Deus est: nam si non sicut pater Deus est, ita et filius Deus; quomodo iliis una imago est secundum Moysen? vel quomodo secundum Paulum, in forma Dei Christus est aequalis existens Deo? VIII. Sed ei Joannes cum Verbum Deum asserit in principio apud Deum esse, non extra Deum esse; per hanc Verbi Dei a Deo inseparabilitatem idem mihi videtur significare, quod in significantia imaginis et formae est. Nam si per unam imaginem eamdemque formam, patris et filii inseparabilitas ostenditur, cur non cum Joannes Dei et Dei inseparabilitatem annuntiat per hoc quod ait, et Verbum eras apud Deum, et hoc erat in principio apud Deum, unam imaginem eamdemque formam patris et filii significasse credatur? Plane hic sensus videatur ambiguus, si non idem evangelista hoc ipsum paululum infra apertius prosecutus est dicens, et vidimus gloriam ejus, gloriam quasi unigeniti a patre: sicut una imago, eademque forma, ita et gloria non alia est filii, quam quae patris est. interea qui Christum de adoptione filium dicis, quomodo intelligis gloriam ejus quasi unigeniti a patre? Quod si plures esse Dei filios, de adoptione profiteris: quod si et Christus adoptivus est, quomodo unigenitus a patre est, cum non sic unigenitus existentibus quoque aliis per adoptionem filiis? Quod si vere unigenitus a patre est ideo quia ipse solus de ipso vero patre generatur, quomodo adoptivus asseritur, cum adoptivus inter plures adoptivos proprietatem unigeniti a patre habere non possit? Sed etsi adoptivi sunt, de nullo tamen eorum dictum est, et vidimus gloriam ejus, gloriam quasi unigeniti a patre. Sed de Christo solo dictum est, et vidimus gloriam ejus, gloriam quasi unigeniti a patre: non ergo adoptivus est, de quo hoc dicitur, quod de adoptivis dici non potest. Et merito illi una imago cum patre est, quia ipse solus unigenitus a patre est. Quid ergo mirum, si in filii imagine patris imago Signatur? Ideo et ipse Salvator dicebat, Qui me videt, videt et patrem: non hoc, ut Sabellius, dico quasi se ipsum patrem dicat esse, qui sit et filius. Confiteor enim patrem esse, qui genuit: filium vero esse, qui natus est. Sed cum dicit, Qui me videt, videt et patrem, sicut patris et filii non unam ostendit esse personam, ita unam ostendit esse deitatem; cum in patris et filii substantia nulla diversitas invenitur. IX. Herum in hoc quoque loco dicam, si creatura est filius, quomodo qui videt filium, videt et patrem? Nemo in visione creaturae patrem videt: de inspectione enim creaturae creator videri potest; pater autem non videtor nisi de Inspectione filii. Si ergo Christus creatura est, et non vere filius, non potest in creaturae visione pater videri: et quomodo ait, Qui me videt, videt et patrem, nisi quia vere filius de Deo patre natus est? et ideo cum videris filium, necesse est ut et patrem videris. Sine filio enim pater non est, sicut nec filius sine patre. Inde etiam subdidit, Ego in patre, et pater in me: non utique per quamdam passivam confusionem; sed quia consequens est ut ubi pater est, illic esse cognoscatur et filius; et ubi filius est, illic etiam patrem exstare cognoscas. Est et alius sensus dicti istius, Qui me vidit, vidit et patrem: non qui corporeis oculis in corpore vidisset Jesum, vidisse patrem refertur; alioquin absurda est increpatio Domini ad Philippum dicentis, Tanto tempore vobiscum sum, et non me nosti, Philippe? secundum corpus enim non solum Philippus videbat Jesum, sed et omnes Judaei qui ei adversabantur: nec tamen per hoc quod videbant secundum corpus Jesum, patrem quoque vidisse credendi sunt. Quid ergo est, Qui me vidit, vidit et patrem? intende cordis aciem, et vide secundum fidei spiritualis obtutus Christum filium Dei non creaturam esse, sed creatorem: intende eum vere esse Deum sine initio sempiternum; et secundum hoc, quod Deus invisibilem inaestimabilem, incorruptibilem, indemutabilem, et per omnia talem, qualis est et pater ejus qui eum genuit: et ita videns filium, patrem quoque te vidisse non dubium est. X. Hoc sensu accipe et illud quod ait, Ego in patre, et pater in me. Pater cum sit perfectus, perfectam filium genuit; et eum sit invisibilis, incomprehensibilis, inaestimabilis Deus et verum lumen; et filius tatis natos est v qualis est ille qui eum genuit: et ideo ait, Ego in patre, et pater rn me: cum enim omnia qua sunt paternae virtutis et deitatis habeantur in filio, pater in filio est, et fidus In patre: et ideo praemisit; Si me sciretis, et patrem meum sciretis; et hic ostenditur quod eadem sit patris et filii substantia, eo quod sit una utriusque cognitio. Sed creatura et creatoris non est una cognitio, quia non est una substantia. Patris autem et filii una cognitio est; ergo non est filius creatura, sed creator est, sicuti et pater creator est: et Deus est, sicuti et pater, non tamen per haec duos deos dicimus. Hic est ubi, impie haeretice, diabolico furore quasi in stultitiam istius confessionis inardescis, cum Deum et Deum audis, nec tamen duos deos dicimus. Inflatus enim de littera saeculari, in hac quaestione insanabiliter aegrotas; et putas te debere constringere, ut duos deos dicamus, cum Deum et Deum confitemur. Noli infelix adversus Christum Dominum totius creaturae, Aristotelis artificiosa argumenta colligere, qui le Christianum qualitercumque profiteris, nec adversus piam confessionem inenarrabilis de Deo sacramenti ut calculo calumniator, quasi ex disciplina terrenae supputationis circumscriptor advenias. Inspice potius divinos libros, et de divina fide divinis utere sermonibus. Legisti utique, Et in lumine tuo videbimus lumen. Quae hic distantia luminis a lumine est? posuisset enim et distantiam, si fuisset, ne quis luminis a lumine nullam distantiam crederet: quod si nulla distantia est, non ergo duo lumina, sed unum lumen est, cum in lumine patris, filii lumen agnoscitur. Hoc lumen est de quo et Daniel loquitur dicens, Et lumen cum ipso est: non enim de aliqua creatura hoc dicitur, sed de splendore ipsius Dei existentis sempiterni luminis. Si pater sempiternum lumen est, sine dubio et filias lumen est sempiternum. Si vero negatur filius Dei lumen esse sempiternum, quomodo in patris sempiterno lumine lumen filii, quod non est sempiternum,' videtur? Sed in laudibus Dei non est haec falsa dictio sanctorum: Et in lumine tuo videbimus lumen. Ergo et filii lumen sempiternum est, quod non distat a patris lumine sempiterno; et ideo licet lumen sit filius, et paler lumen sit; unam tamen patris et filii lumen est, quia in patre et filio nulla discretio est, nulla separatio luminis est, quomodo nec imaginis secundum Moysen, nec formae secundum apostolum Paulum. XI. Sacramentum autem inseparabilis unitatis secundum hoc, quod uterque, id est, pater et filius aequaliter et indivise, neque secundum portionem, Deus unus: et pluralitatis secundum hoc, quod unus pater est, et unus filius. Etiam de huc capitulo manifestatur quod legimus in Evangelio, ipso Salvatore dicente, Ego et pater unum sumus. Sumus enim pluralitatem significat personarum, quia hic pater, el hic filius: Unum autem unam eamdemque in patre et filio substantiam deitatemque consignat, ut vere pater et filius unus Deus sit; cum ambo. id est, pater et filius unum sunt secundum deitatem, non unus secandum personas. Ego et pater unum sumus: hac una voce et Sabellius excluditur, et Arius confutatur. Sabellius enim ipsum dicit patrem, qui sit et filias, hoc modo, tamquam si unus habeat duo nomina, et interpretator unum ideo dictum, ut unius personae singularitas crederetur. Contra vero Arius respiciens ad hoc qnod ait, sumus, in hoc sermone, pluralitatem intelligens, introduxit impiam pluralitatem deorum, credens unum sempiternum Deum, et alium qui esse coeperit Deus; unum omnipotentem, et alium qui non sit omnipotens. Sed, o caecitas in utrisque! habent ante oculos quod pie videant, et incautis offensionibus impie litigare contendant: saltem commodent sibi sensus suos, et piae fidei perspicient veritatem. Sabellius admiratione virtutum quas Christus operabatur, Christum Deum verum esse credit, et non qui aliquando coeperit, sed qui semper fuerit, et possit omnia: credat hoc Arius, et non blasphemet in Christum, quem filium confitetur. Item Arius negat Christum esse patrem: neget hoc et Sabellius, et pie credat, quod Christus vere Deus est, non existens pater, sed filius. Adhuc apertius dicam. Sabellius vincat Arium, quod Christus venis Deus est; et Arius vincat Sabellium, quod Christus sub confessione veri Dei verus et filius est: et mihi catholico ambo vicerunt, immo et mecum ambo vincant impietatis errorem, cum mecum intellexerint sacrae fidei veritatem, quae et pluralitatem personarum inlelligit, et unitatem deitatis in hac pronuntiatione Domini dicentis, Ego et pater unum sumus. Sed hanc divinam pronuntiationem, et hanc piam divinae pronuntiationis intelligentiam Arii sectatores cum quaerum subvertere, alio modo interpretantur, et dicunt, unum sunt quidem, sed non substantia, non deitate, non potestate, sed voluntate: id est, quia unam eamdemque habeant voluntatem, ideo ait, Ego et paler unum sumus. Dicite, o impiissimi, substantivam Verbum Dei est; et qui linguae sermonem dedit, nescit loqui, et ignoravit altum sensum vestrum propriis et competentibus sermonibus explicare, et inefficax fuit dicere, Ego et pater unum volumus, si tamen hoc in loco unitatem voluntatis, et non substantiae ac deitatis volebat intelligi. XII. Sed nunc, quaeso, Regina, memineris quae capitula ex persona haereticorum scribere dignata es. Ipsi haeretici alunt, Qui me misit pater, ipse mihi praeceptum dedit, quid dicam et quid loquar: et Descendit de coelo, non ut faciam voluntatem meam, sed voluntatem ejus qui misit me, patris. Hoc artificium haereticorum est, ut alibi negent, quod alibi confitentur: ut cum se vident praesentium quaestionum absolutionibus vehementer astringi, serpentino lubrico semper eludant. Certe dicitis, o haeretici, praeceptum dedisse filio patrem, quid dicat, quid loquatur: et quomodo quasi nesciat loqui, vos verba ejus emendatis, Immo jam patris; quia filius quod dicit, quod loquitur, secundum praeceptum quod dedit ei pater, et dicit et loquitur. Jamne intelligitis, quia cum profano spiritu adversus filii deitatem exercere contenditis vestram amentiam, etiam in patrem prorumpitis insanientes? Claamat filius, Ego et pater unum sumus: et vos quas grammatici velut inefficaciam dominicae pronuntiationis suppositi verbi demutatione supplentes emendatis, et dicitis: Hoc qnod ait, sumus, volumus intelligendum est; ut scilicet sic dictum sit, Ego et pater unum volumus. Sed reclamat filius etiam contra vos dicens illa, quae dixit nd vestrae impietatis participes Judaeos: Quare loquelam meam non cognoscitis? Habeant locum suum parabolae et allegoriae et aenigmata: hoc tamen loco apertissime et plene dictum est, Ego et pater unum sumus: et quomodo unum sunt, alibi quoque declarat, cum dicit: Credite mihi, quia ego in patre, et pater in me est: et ne videretur ipse de se usurpare, quod non erat; ut veritatem dictionis ostendat, praemisit dicens: Non creditis quia ego in patre, et pater in me? Verba quae ego loquor vobis, a me ipso non loquor: pater autem in me manens ipse loquitur, et opera quae ego facio ipse facit. Sed et alibi: Sicut docuit me pater, haec loquor: et qui me misit, mecum est, et non reliquit me solum, quia quae placita sunt ei, facio semper. Non quia filius ignoraret quid sibi loquendum erat: quid est enim quod Dei sapientia ignoret? Sed ut duritiam indomitae fidei tuae ad piam divinae unitatis intelligentiam patris quoque auctoritate molliret, ait: Pater in me manens ipse loquitur; vel illud, sicut docuit me pater, haec loquor. Sicut autem opera filii, opera patris sunt, eo quod faciente filio, pater in ipso manens faciat: ita quod loquitur filius, pater in ipso manens loquitur non aliud, quam quod loquitur filius; quia nec filius aliud loquitur, quam quod loquitur pater in ipso manens. Eadem ergo patris et filii loquela est, sicut eadem et operatio; et ideo dicebat, alioquin propter opera ipsa credite. Quae utique similiter faciebat ut pater: ut postremo vel auctoritate operum crederetur, quia filius in patre est, et pater in filio. XIII. Hoc autem quo modo intelligendum est quod ait, Ego in patre et pater in me, jam supra expositum est. Sed et nunc brevius dicam. Secundum indifferentiam substantiae audiendum est, Ego in patre et pater in me. Sed et illud quod ait, Ego et pater unum sumus, secundum indifferentiam substantiae unum sunt pater et filius. Nolo ergo, impie haeretice, ut indifferentiam substantiae patris et filii adimas, et Importune unitatem voluntatis interseras, quam alibi impie negas dicendo: Scriptum est, Descendi de coelo, non ut faciam voluntatem meam, sed voluntatem ejus qui misit me patris. Qui in hoc capitulo ignorans dictionis ejus sacramentum, tam impie negas patris et filii unam esse voluntatem; quomodo tibi credam, quia sinceriter confiteris, quod una eadem voluntas patris et filii significetur in hoc quod pronuntiavit Dominus dicens, Ego et pater unum sumus? Tu si vere credis, quod pater et filius unum sunt voluntate, non video quomodo negare possis quia et substantia et divinitate et potestate unum sunt. Quare enim non una substantia sit, una divinitas et potestas, quibus una voluntas est? Si enim ex aequo illis voluntas est, ex aequo divinitas est. Si non ex aequo divinitas, nec ex aequo voluntas. Dei enim voluntas, et cujuslibet, non tamen Dei, voluntas pariare non potest: quia alia est vis voluntatis ejus qui Deus est, et alia vis voluntatis ejus qui Deus non est. Voluntas Dei naturaliter bona est, perfecta est, indemutabilis est, semper eadem existens, et sine initio existens, et sine fine perseverans. Voluntas vero ejus qui non est Deus, eo quod habeat initium, sicut et ipse qui non est Deus potest et nutare, potest et verti, sicuti et ipse qui non est Deus: ac per hoc non vere bona, quia non naturaliter bona, nec vere perfecta, quae potest verti et minui: ita ut quod hodie voluit, crastino nolit, et quod hodie noluit, crastino velit. XIV. Dicam exemplo apertius: Angelus iste qui nunc diabolus est, antequam fieret diabolus, bonam habuit voluntatem; sed ubi factus est diabolus, proprii arbitrii agitatione amisit bonam voluntatem; ideo scilicet, quia ex factura subsistit, et non naturaliter Deus est. Hoc et de omni creatura rationabili sentiendum est: etsi enim quidam eorum non declinaverunt, neque declinant a bona voluntate; tamen in natura habent posse declinare, quia creaturae sunt, et non Deus. Hoc enim quod non declinant, ex disciplinae perpetua observatione obtinent, non ex naturae indemutabilis veritate. Deus autem ipse solus sine initio bonus et perfectus et inconvertibilis est sine initio, habens quoque bonam voluntatem et perfectam et inconvertibilem; non institutione, neque ex profectu observationis habet bonam et perfectam et inconvertibilem voluntatem, sed ex naturae indemutabilis veritate, qua et bonus et perfectus et inconvertibilis Deus est. Viderit, si qua fortassis est haeresis, quae hunc sensum respuat: tu tamen praecipue ad hoc, Ariane, consentis, qui et ipsum filium Dei quem totius creaturae Dominum confiteris, vertibilem et mutabilem dicis, quod eum a Deo factum de nihilo praedicas, non tamen de Deo vere natum. Si haec libi sententia est, quod omnis creatura vertibilis est et mutabilis, Christum autem dicis esse creaturam: ergo et ipse, secundum te, ex conditione naturae vertibilis et mutabilis existens, non habet inconvertibilem et indemutabilem voluntatem. Et quomodo interpretaris, quod pater et filius unum sunt voluntate? cum patris et filii, secundum te, diversae sint voluntates et contrariae; quia scilicet una est indemutabilis et inconvertibilis, alia vero mutabilis et convertibilis, deprehenderis et detegeris, haeretice fraudulente, quomodo conaris simplices animas circumvenire et capere. Constrictus enim et coarctatus testimonio dominicae pronuntiationis dicentis. Ego et pater unum sumus, ut de hac voce qualitercumque evoles, quae claris sermonibus in patre et filio unitatem deitatis ostendit, succubuisti necessitate, non arbitrio, ad hoc ut vel ad monumentum in praesenti capitulo summis labiis, et ut ita dixerim, superficie sola verborum, unitatem voluntatis interseras, quo expressius et vivacius et medullitus unitatem deitatis excluderes. Tollis enim sensum, unitate substantiae, qui facile creditur ex ipsa simplicitate verborum; et interpretaris sensum, unitate voluntatis; ut quia supra dicta ratio ejus non facile apud omnes intelligitur, inierim simplicem decipias auditorem, cum illud agis ne unitatem divinitatis intelligat. Nam et unitatem voluntatis in patre et filio, fides catholica sincerissime et verissime credit, non labiis (tantum) sed et loto corde, quae et unitatem substantiae et divinitatis agnoscit. Sicut enim indemutabilis et inconvertibilis est substantiae cum Patre Filius, ita et indemutabilis et inconvertibilis voluntatis est cura Patre Filius. Atque ideo una voluntas est Patris et Filii, sicut et una virtus et una imago, magis aut dixerim quod ipse Filius voluntas est Patris. Sicut enim Patris et Filii una imago eam sit secundum Moysen, tamen et ipse Filius imago Dei invisibilis scribitur ab Apostolo; ita et una voluntas cum sit Patris et Filii, (pie) definitur quod voluntas Patris est Filius. (Sicut est) Dei invisibilis imago, similiter et de virtute intellige. Fides enim catholica dicit, unam virtutem esse Patris el Filii; et tamen scribit Apostolus, Christum Dei virtutem esse et Dei sapientiam. Pie ergo dictum est, quod Filius voluntas est Patris, sicut idem ipse est sapientia Dei. Et tamen si adhuc movet hic sensus, intende ad ea quae dicimus: certe Dei sapientia Christus est. Quid autem est Dei voluntas, quam Dei sapientia? non enim in Deo aliud voluntas, et aliud sapientia: in hominibus quidem potest esse voluntas, non tamen haec ipsa sapientia; quia voluntas hominis eruditione et meditatione et profectu ad sapientiam sibi possibilem pervenit. Dei autem voluntas non eruditione, non meditatione, non profectu ad sapientiam pervenit, sed ipsa nihil indigens, naturaliter substantiva sapientia est. Unde et Christus Dei sapientia existens, Dei quoque voluntas est; quia in Deo non aliud voluntas, et aliud sapientia.

### English translation (Claude)

I. The Arian impiety asserts many things with us in the same words, but not in the same sense, when it is called to confess the divine faith. For with the same expressions as we use, it speaks of God the Father and God the Son, and of all things made by God the Father through the Son, and of the Son begotten before the ages. But although it agrees with us in these words, it nevertheless breaks away from the pious sense of the catholic church by sacrilegious interpretations of the words, so speaking of the Father as not truly having begotten, and so declaring the Son that with them he is son by adoption, not by nature—that is, taken up from elsewhere into the name of son, not truly begotten of God the Father. For though it admits that the Son was born before the ages, it nevertheless ascribes a beginning to him by saying, "There was when he was not." And it says that all things were made through him in such a way that it asserts he was put in place from nothing existing, because it has presumed that he was not truly begotten of God the Father. And hence it wants people to be persuaded that Christ is indeed God, but not true God, since a beginning is assigned to him; and Son indeed, but so that he is understood to have been made, not born—since he was not truly born of the Father but put in place from nothing. For this reason too it believes him mutable, because in its faith he is not truly God, not a true Son. And to commend these impious meanings to the ignorant or simple, it also brings, as it thinks, testimonies of the divine Scriptures, saying that it is proved from the person of Wisdom: "The Lord created me the beginning of his ways for his works." And the apostle confirms that Christ is wisdom, saying: "Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God." It is established, then, that Christ, who is wisdom by the apostle's interpretation, is a creature; "and now," it says, "it follows that he is not true God, being a creature; nor a true Son, not being begotten of God but created; there was, then, when he was not."

II. These are the weapons of wickedness set forth, against which we are challenged to go, so that the impiety of the opposing assertion may be exposed—not indeed, as we said, by our own talent, but by the grace of God, which always helps pious endeavours. Only, I beg you, do not be wearied by our rough speech, but, attending to the force of the matters, give your vote to the truth. We are not writing this as a book, but contending in definite arguments as though with an adversary present. And first of all, against their saying "There was when he was not," we must reply that he always was, and set against it the testimony of the gospel, John saying: "In the beginning was the Word." For as Christ is the wisdom of God and the power of God, so also he is the Word of God. When, then, it says, "In the beginning was the Word," how does the Arian impiety say, "There was when he was not"? "In the beginning," it says, "was the Word"; it did not say, "In the beginning the Word was made"; and certainly what was in the beginning must be believed always to have been. For if, as impiety thinks, the Son is a thing made, divine Scripture would without doubt have declared at the beginning that very thing which was made, according to the pattern by which Moses too spoke, saying: "In the beginning God made heaven and earth." If the Son of God also were a thing made, John would have said: "In the beginning the Word was made." But the evangelist—or rather the Holy Spirit through the evangelist—foreseeing that there would be men of impious mind who would say of the Son, "There was when he was not," therefore began thus: "In the beginning was the Word"; for nothing is earlier than he who is found before the beginning. The divine Scriptures were published so that we might direct our faith according to their sense, not that we might insert our own senses into their sacred words. There may be some chapters which, by their obscurity, are thought to give occasion for ambiguity; certainly in this chapter there is no occasion for ambiguity. An interpreter may not think otherwise than is written; nor is there need for us now to bring in our own senses: it is enough for a full knowledge of the faith to be received that we recite the divine words. "In the beginning," it says, "was the Word." Is there here any notion of time, any suspicion of ages, or any interval of an instant or moment, that you dare to say, "There was when he was not"?

III. "In the beginning was the Word"; and lest you understand "word" as what is the function of a speaker, there follows: "and the Word was with God." It did not say, "the word which God spoke," but "and the Word was with God." Finally it interpreted what the Word is, saying: "and the Word was God." If in the beginning was the Word, and this same Word was with God, and the Word was God, the intention of impiety is confounded. For it is proved from this chapter that Christ the Son of God has always been, always inseparable from the Father, and always God. For as he is without beginning when it is said, "In the beginning was," so also when it is said, "was with God," his inseparability from the Father without beginning is declared. And when this Word is defined as God, there is no ambiguity that he is believed to be God without beginning. For what it said first, "In the beginning," must be referred to all: that is, "In the beginning was the Word"; and when there follows, "and the Word was with God, and the Word was God," without doubt "in the beginning" is to be understood. Indeed he himself concludes thus, saying: "He was in the beginning with God." How, then, "was there when he was not," who always is? How is he "from nothing existing," who is always with the Father? How is he a creature, who is always God—indeed, through whom every creature exists? For there follows: "All things were made through him." How was he "made from nothing existing," through whom all things were made? For if he too was made, how were all things made through him? For when he was being made, he who was not could not be his own author; and therefore he must be believed unmade, through whom all things were made; for it is empty and absurd that he too, when he did not exist, should be said to have been made through himself.

IV. Likewise Paul too teaches that Christ always was, and is God, and equal to the Father. For he is truly God precisely when he is equal to the Father, since he would not be called equal unless he were held to be truly God; it is an injury to the true God if one who is not true God is called his equal. So he sets down in his letter: "Have this mind in you which was in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant." If Christ is truly man, since he takes the form of a servant, he is also truly God, since he is said to be in the form of God; nor would he call him equal for any other reason except that he wished him to be understood as true God in the form of God. And he who is true God certainly always is; and of him who always is God it cannot be said, "There was when he was not." The apostle Paul also says that all things were made through him, writing: "For in him all things were created, whether in heaven or on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things were created through him and in him, and he is before all." Therefore he always is, through whom and in whom all things were made. The psalmist too, singing, says: "In wisdom you have made all things." Yet he did not say that wisdom itself was made; for the apostle too, when he says, "and he is before all," denied that he was made. For if he had wished him who was not to be believed made, he would have put it thus: "and he was made before all"; but when he says, "and he is before all," he gave a beginning to all those whom he precedes—indeed whose maker he is—but he himself is without beginning, who is said not to have been made before all but to be. Likewise the apostle says: "One God the Father, from whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord, our Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him"; and here, when he says all things are through Christ, he most plainly distinguished the maker from the things made, and showed that the nature of a thing made cannot be understood in him who made all things.

V. But let us see whether Moses too taught this same thing which the apostles announced, that is, that all things were made by God through the Son. Among other things, when he relates the making of the world, he says: "And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide between water and water; and it was so. And God made the firmament, and God divided through the middle of the water." When it says, "And God said, Let there be a firmament," the person of the Father is to be understood in the one speaking; but when it says, "And God made," the person of the Son is to be understood in the one making. For if you think it is not to be so understood, the apostle's assertion will be endangered, which says: "One God the Father, from whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord, our Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him." For unless you believe that the whole fabric of the world was made through the Son—indeed all things, invisible and visible—how do you receive in faith the voice of the apostle saying, "One Lord, our Jesus Christ, through whom are all things," and also what we quoted above, "For in him all things were created," and also, "In wisdom you have made all things"? John too pursued this: "All things were made through him." How "all things," if you deny that "and God made the firmament" and "God divided through the middle of the water" were said of the Son of God? Therefore Moses too presents the Son as maker, not made. For if he had learned, by the revelation of the Holy Spirit, that he was made, he would, among the other things he described as made, have mentioned that he too had first been made.

VI. But he proceeds more fully below, where the inhabitant of the world now built is to be made: "And God said, Let us make man in our image and likeness." For it is not of one person to say, "Let us make in our image and likeness," nor yet of a different deity. For the plurality of these words, that is, "let us make" and "our," signifies the persons of the Father and the Son; but that it says "image" in the singular shows one deity, one power, of both persons. If Christ is a creature, how is he employed as a partner with God in the work? For it is to him that "let us make" is said. If he is not a true Son, how has he one image with the Father? An adopted son does not have the image of the one adopting him; he can indeed have his generosity, but he cannot have the nature of his image. I know indeed that there are distinctions of images, which it would be long and unnecessary to go into now. But I claim what bears on the case, saying: in this place there is no distinction of image, where one image of the Father and the Son is declared. For he did not say, "Let us make in our images," but "in our image." And lest perhaps, whoever you are, heretic, with dull mind, you should claim that "let us make" could have been said even of one person—as the disposition of someone thinking to himself, not a designation of persons—there follows: "And God made man; in the image of God he made him." If anyone does not see what is set openly in the light, he is blind: "God," it says, "made; in the image of God he made." Is it not most evident that even then the Holy Spirit through Moses was treating the mysteries of the gospel, saying "God" and "God," yet not two gods, because there is one image of the Father and the Son? And oh, how providently everything was published! Sacred Scripture declares God and God, to exclude Sabellius, who maintains that the Father and the Son are one person; and, lest it introduce two gods, among words that signify a plurality of persons it inserted one image. You will find this to be so if you attend to the testimony that says, "Let us make man in our image." What are you doing, Arian impiety? If Christ is a creature, how is there one image of the creature and the creator?

VII. But lest Arius again, on the pretext of the persons, should bring in differences of natures: a difference of nature does not admit the sharing of one form. There are many sayings in the books of Moses by which the impious can be refuted in regard to the Son—indeed in regard to the Father too. For how does this impiety, which is exercised with a profane spirit against the Son, not also extend to the Father, since they take from the Father what is truly the Father's when they take from the Son what is truly the Son's? For how is he truly Father who, according to them, did not beget? How is Christ truly Son, whom they deny was truly begotten of him? But, as I said, there are many sayings in the books of Moses by which this impiety of theirs can be refuted; but since we are pursuing these things not with the care of one writing a book, but, as if in haste, sketching certain headings on a sheet so as to seem to have obeyed your command in some fashion, the other sayings must be passed over, especially since in the divine sayings it is not the number of testimonies but their authority that is to be sought, which is sufficient even if it is produced in one saying. For the present it is enough that in this one chapter Moses agreed with the gospels and the apostles. Moses proclaims God and God; just as we speak of the testimony above from Genesis, so John too announced God and God, saying: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." No one said two gods, although he said God and God; no one failed to announce one image of the Father and the Son; and therefore the catholic faith knows how to say one God in its confession—yet not so that by the confession of one God the Son is denied to be what God is; for as the Father is God, so also the Son is God. For if the Son is not God as the Father is God, how do they have one image according to Moses, or how, according to Paul, is Christ in the form of God, existing equal to God?

VIII. And when John asserts that the Word, God, was in the beginning with God, not outside God, by this inseparability of the Word of God from God he seems to me to signify the same thing as is in the signification of image and form. For if by one image and the same form the inseparability of the Father and the Son is shown, why should not John, when he announces the inseparability of God and God by saying, "and the Word was with God," and "he was in the beginning with God," be believed to have signified one image and the same form of the Father and the Son? This sense might indeed seem ambiguous, if the same evangelist had not pursued this very point more plainly a little below, saying: "and we saw his glory, glory as of the only-begotten from the Father." As there is one image and the same form, so too the glory of the Son is no other than that which is the Father's. Meanwhile you who say Christ is Son by adoption, how do you understand "his glory, glory as of the only-begotten from the Father"? For you profess that there are many sons of God by adoption; if Christ too is adopted, how is he the only-begotten from the Father, since he would not be only-begotten when there exist other sons by adoption? But if he is truly the only-begotten from the Father because he alone is begotten of that true Father himself, how is he asserted to be adopted, when an adopted son among many adopted cannot have the property of only-begotten from the Father? Even if there are adopted sons, it was said of none of them, "and we saw his glory, glory as of the only-begotten from the Father"; it was said of Christ alone. He, then, is not adopted, of whom is said what cannot be said of the adopted. And rightly he has one image with the Father, because he alone is the only-begotten from the Father. What wonder, then, if the Father's image is stamped in the Son's image? Therefore the Saviour himself said: "He who sees me sees the Father also"—I do not say this, as Sabellius does, as if he said that he himself is the Father who is also the Son. For I confess that he who begot is the Father, and he who was born is the Son. But when he says, "He who sees me sees the Father also," just as he shows that the Father and the Son are not one person, so he shows that there is one deity, since no difference is found in the substance of the Father and the Son.

IX. Again, in this place too I will say: if the Son is a creature, how does he who sees the Son see the Father also? No one sees the Father in the sight of a creature: from looking at a creature the creator can be seen, but the Father is not seen except by looking at the Son. If, then, Christ is a creature and not truly Son, the Father cannot be seen in the sight of a creature; and how does he say, "He who sees me sees the Father also," unless because the Son was truly born of God the Father? And therefore when you have seen the Son, you must have seen the Father also; for without the Son the Father is not, just as the Son is not without the Father. Hence too he added: "I am in the Father and the Father in me"—not, certainly, by some passive confusion, but because it follows that where the Father is, there the Son too is known to be, and where the Son is, there you may know the Father also to exist. There is also another sense of this saying, "He who has seen me has seen the Father also": it is not said that whoever had seen Jesus in the body with bodily eyes had seen the Father; otherwise the Lord's rebuke to Philip would be absurd, when he said, "Have I been with you so long, and you do not know me, Philip?" For according to the body not only Philip saw Jesus, but also all the Jews who opposed him; yet because they saw Jesus according to the body, they are not to be believed to have seen the Father too. What then is "He who has seen me has seen the Father also"? Direct the eye of the heart and see, with the gaze of spiritual faith, that Christ the Son of God is not a creature but the creator; consider that he is truly God, everlasting without beginning; and according to this, that he is God invisible, inestimable, incorruptible, unchangeable, and in all things such as is also his Father who begot him: and so, seeing the Son, there is no doubt that you have seen the Father also.

X. In this sense take also what he says: "I am in the Father and the Father in me." Since the Father is perfect, he begot a perfect Son; and since he is invisible, incomprehensible, inestimable God and true light, the Son too was born such as is he who begot him; and therefore he says, "I am in the Father and the Father in me"; for since all that belongs to the Father's power and deity is held in the Son, the Father is in the Son and the Son in the Father. And therefore he said before: "If you knew me, you would know my Father also"; and here it is shown that the substance of the Father and the Son is the same, because there is one knowledge of both. But there is not one knowledge of the creature and the creator, because there is not one substance. But there is one knowledge of the Father and the Son; therefore the Son is not a creature but creator, as the Father too is creator; and he is God, as the Father is; yet we do not on this account say two gods. Here it is, impious heretic, that with devilish fury you blaze up as if at the folly of this confession, when you hear God and God and yet we do not say two gods. For, puffed up with worldly learning, you are incurably sick in this question, and you think you ought to force us to say two gods when we confess God and God. Unhappy man, do not gather the artful arguments of Aristotle against Christ, the Lord of all creation—you who profess yourself in some fashion a Christian—and do not come against the pious confession of the unspeakable mystery of God as a slanderer with a counting-board, a cheat trained in earthly reckoning. Look rather into the divine books, and use divine words about the divine faith. You have certainly read: "And in your light we shall see light." What distance of light from light is there here? For it would have set down a distance, if there had been one, lest anyone believe there was no distance of light from light; but if there is no distance, then there are not two lights but one light, since in the light of the Father the light of the Son is recognized. This is the light of which Daniel too speaks, saying: "And light is with him"; for this is not said of some creature, but of the splendour of God himself, existing as everlasting light. If the Father is everlasting light, without doubt the Son too is everlasting light. But if it is denied that the Son of God is everlasting light, how is the light of the Son, which is not everlasting, seen in the Father's everlasting light? But in the praises of God this saying of the saints is not false: "And in your light we shall see light." Therefore the light of the Son too is everlasting, which is not distant from the everlasting light of the Father; and therefore, although the Son is light and the Father is light, yet the light of the Father and the Son is one, because in the Father and the Son there is no division, no separation of light—as there is none of image according to Moses, nor of form according to the apostle Paul.

XI. The mystery, then, of inseparable unity lies in this, that both, that is, Father and Son, equally and undividedly, and not by portion, are one God; and of plurality in this, that the Father is one and the Son one. From this chapter too is made plain what we read in the gospel, the Saviour himself saying: "I and the Father are one." For "are" signifies a plurality of persons, because this one is the Father and this one the Son; but "one" marks one and the same substance and deity in the Father and the Son, so that the Father and the Son are truly one God, since both, that is, Father and Son, are one thing according to deity, not one person. "I and the Father are one": by this one saying both Sabellius is excluded and Arius refuted. For Sabellius says that the Father himself is also the Son, as if one had two names, and interprets "one" as said so that the singularity of one person might be believed. Arius, on the contrary, looking at "are" in this saying and understanding plurality, introduced an impious plurality of gods, believing one everlasting God and another who began to be God; one almighty, and another who is not almighty. But oh, the blindness in both! They have before their eyes what they might piously see, and they strive to quarrel impiously with heedless stumbling. Let them at least lend each other their senses, and they will see the truth of the pious faith. Sabellius, in admiration of the miracles that Christ worked, believes that Christ is true God, not one who once began, but one who always was and can do all things: let Arius believe this, and not blaspheme against Christ, whom he confesses as Son. Likewise Arius denies that Christ is the Father: let Sabellius deny this too, and believe piously that Christ is truly God, being not the Father but the Son. I will say it still more plainly. Let Sabellius defeat Arius in this, that Christ is true God; and let Arius defeat Sabellius in this, that Christ, under the confession of true God, is also a true Son: and for me, a catholic, both have won—indeed, let both win together with me against the error of impiety, when with me they have understood the truth of the sacred faith, which understands both the plurality of persons and the unity of deity in this declaration of the Lord: "I and the Father are one." But since the followers of Arius seek to overturn this divine declaration and this pious understanding of it, they interpret it another way and say: "They are one indeed, but not in substance, not in deity, not in power, but in will; that is, because they have one and the same will, therefore he says, 'I and the Father are one.'" Tell me, most impious men: the Word of God is substantial; did he who gave speech to the tongue not know how to speak, and was he ignorant how to set out your profound sense in proper and fitting words, and was he unable to say, "I and the Father will one thing," if in this place he wished the unity of will, not of substance and deity, to be understood?

XII. But now, I beg, Queen, remember the chapters you deigned to write out as the heretics' position. The heretics themselves say: "The Father who sent me himself gave me a command, what to say and what to speak"; and: "I came down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me, the Father." This is the artifice of the heretics: to deny in one place what they confess in another, so that when they see themselves tightly bound by the solutions of the questions in hand, they always slip away with serpentine slipperiness. Certainly, heretics, you say that the Father gave the Son a command what to say and what to speak; and how is it that, as if he did not know how to speak, you correct his words—indeed now the Father's, since what the Son says and speaks he says and speaks according to the command the Father gave him? Do you now understand that, while with a profane spirit you strive to exercise your madness against the deity of the Son, you break out raving against the Father too? The Son cries out: "I and the Father are one"; and you, like grammarians, supplying the supposed inadequacy of the Lord's declaration by changing a word, correct it and say: "This 'are' must be understood as 'will,' so that it was said thus: I and the Father will one thing." But the Son cries back against you too, saying what he said to the Jews, partners of your impiety: "Why do you not recognize my speech?" Let parables and allegories and riddles have their place; yet in this place it is said most plainly and fully, "I and the Father are one"; and how they are one he also declares elsewhere, when he says: "Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me"; and lest he seem to claim for himself what was not his, to show the truth of the saying he said before: "Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak of myself; but the Father abiding in me, he himself speaks, and the works that I do, he himself does." And elsewhere: "As the Father taught me, I speak these things; and he who sent me is with me, and he has not left me alone, because I always do what pleases him." Not that the Son did not know what he should speak—for what is there that the wisdom of God does not know?—but in order to soften the hardness of your untamed faith toward a pious understanding of the divine unity by the authority of the Father as well, he says: "The Father abiding in me himself speaks," or that, "As the Father taught me, I speak these things." As the works of the Son are the works of the Father, because when the Son acts, the Father abiding in him acts, so what the Son speaks, the Father abiding in him speaks—nothing other than what the Son speaks, since the Son too speaks nothing other than what the Father abiding in him speaks. The speech of the Father and the Son, then, is the same, as is their working; and so he said: "Otherwise believe because of the works themselves"—which he did just as the Father did—so that at least by the authority of the works it might be believed that the Son is in the Father and the Father in the Son.

XIII. How "I am in the Father and the Father in me" is to be understood has been explained above; but now I will say it more briefly. "I am in the Father and the Father in me" is to be heard according to the sameness of substance; and also in "I and the Father are one," the Father and the Son are one according to the sameness of substance. I do not want you, then, impious heretic, to take away the sameness of substance of the Father and the Son and thrust in, out of place, a unity of will—which elsewhere you impiously deny, saying: "It is written: I came down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me, the Father." You who in this chapter, ignorant of the mystery of his saying, so impiously deny that the Father and the Son have one will—how shall I believe that you sincerely confess that one and the same will of the Father and the Son is signified in the Lord's declaration, "I and the Father are one"? If you truly believe that the Father and the Son are one in will, I do not see how you can deny that they are one also in substance, divinity, and power. Why should those not have one substance, one divinity and power, who have one will? For if their will is equal, their divinity is equal; if their divinity is not equal, neither is their will. For the will of God and the will of anyone who is not God cannot be equal, because the force of the will of him who is God is one thing, and the force of the will of him who is not God another. The will of God is by nature good, perfect, unchangeable, always existing the same, existing without beginning and continuing without end. But the will of him who is not God, because it has a beginning, as he too who is not God has, can waver, can turn, as he too who is not God can; and therefore it is not truly good, because not good by nature, nor truly perfect, since it can turn and diminish, so that what it willed today it does not will tomorrow, and what it did not will today it wills tomorrow.

XIV. I will say it more plainly by an example. That angel who is now the devil, before he became the devil, had a good will; but when he became the devil, by the agitation of his own choice he lost his good will—because, of course, he subsists as a thing made, and is not God by nature. This must be thought of every rational creature too: for even though some of them have not turned and do not turn from a good will, yet they have in their nature the possibility of turning, because they are creatures and not God. That they do not turn they obtain from the perpetual observance of discipline, not from the truth of an unchangeable nature. But God alone himself is good and perfect and unchangeable without beginning, having also a good, perfect, and unchangeable will—not by institution, nor from progress in observance, but from the truth of the unchangeable nature by which he is good and perfect and unchangeable God. There may perhaps be some heresy that rejects this sense; but you, Arian, especially agree with it, you who say that the Son of God himself, whom you confess as Lord of all creation, is changeable and mutable, because you preach that he was made by God from nothing, not truly born of God. If this is your view, that every creature is changeable and mutable, and you say Christ is a creature, then he too, according to you, existing as changeable and mutable by the condition of his nature, does not have an unchangeable and immutable will. And how do you interpret that the Father and the Son are one in will, when, according to you, the wills of the Father and the Son are different and contrary—since one is immutable and unchangeable, the other mutable and changeable? You are caught and exposed, deceitful heretic, in how you try to get round and capture simple souls. For, constrained and hemmed in by the testimony of the Lord's declaration, "I and the Father are one," in order to escape somehow from this saying, which in clear words shows the unity of deity in the Father and the Son, you have yielded by necessity, not by choice, so far as to thrust in, at least for the moment in the present chapter, with the tips of your lips and, so to speak, on the surface of the words only, a unity of will, so as to exclude the unity of deity more expressly, more vigorously, and to the marrow. For you take away the sense, unity of substance, which is easily believed from the very simplicity of the words, and interpret the sense as unity of will, so that—since the reasoning given above is not easily understood by all—you may meanwhile deceive the simple hearer, while you contrive that he not understand the unity of divinity. For the catholic faith too believes most sincerely and truly in the unity of will in the Father and the Son—not with the lips only but with the whole heart—the faith that acknowledges the unity of substance and divinity as well. For as the Son is of an immutable and unchangeable substance with the Father, so the Son is of an immutable and unchangeable will with the Father. And therefore the will of the Father and the Son is one, as is their power and image—or rather I would say that the Son himself is the will of the Father. For although there is one image of the Father and the Son according to Moses, yet the Son himself is written by the apostle to be the image of the invisible God; so too, although there is one will of the Father and the Son, it is piously defined that the Son is the will of the Father. As he is the image of the invisible God, understand it likewise of power. For the catholic faith says that there is one power of the Father and the Son; and yet the apostle writes that Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God. It is piously said, then, that the Son is the will of the Father, just as he is the wisdom of God. And if this sense still troubles you, attend to what we say: certainly Christ is the wisdom of God. And what is the will of God but the wisdom of God? For in God will is not one thing and wisdom another. In men, indeed, there can be will that is not wisdom, because a man's will reaches the wisdom possible to it by instruction, meditation, and progress. But the will of God does not reach wisdom by instruction, meditation, or progress; needing nothing, it is by nature substantial wisdom. Hence Christ too, being the wisdom of God, is also the will of God; for in God will is not one thing and wisdom another.

### Scripture references

- Prov 8:22: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 1:24: quotation, high confidence
- John 1:1: quotation, high confidence
- John 1:2: quotation, high confidence
- John 1:3: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 1:1: quotation, high confidence
- Phil 2:5: quotation, high confidence
- Phil 2:6: quotation, high confidence
- Phil 2:7: quotation, high confidence
- Col 1:16: quotation, high confidence
- Col 1:17: quotation, high confidence
- Ps 104:24 (103:24 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 8:6: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 1:6: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 1:7: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 1:26: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 1:27: quotation, high confidence
- John 1:14: quotation, high confidence
- John 14:9: quotation, high confidence
- John 14:10: quotation, high confidence
- John 14:7: quotation, high confidence
- Ps 36:9 (35:10 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Dan 2:22: quotation, high confidence
- John 10:30: quotation, high confidence
- John 12:49: quotation, high confidence
- John 6:38: quotation, high confidence
- John 8:43: quotation, high confidence
- John 14:11: quotation, high confidence
- John 8:28: quotation, high confidence
- John 8:29: quotation, high confidence
- Col 1:15: allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- The Roman numerals are the chapter divisions of the edition (PL 13). "There was when he was not" is the Arian slogan condemned at Nicaea. Quotations: Prov 8:22 (LXX); 1 Cor 1:24; John 1:1–3; Gen 1:1; Phil 2:5–7; Col 1:16–17; Ps 104:24 (LXX/Vulg. 103:24); 1 Cor 8:6; Gen 1:6–7, 26–27; John 1:14; John 14:9–10, 7; Ps 36:9 (LXX/Vulg. 35:10); Dan 2:22; John 10:30; John 12:49; John 6:38; John 8:43; John 14:10–11; John 8:28–29; Col 1:15. Faustinus's polemic against the Arians and his remark on the Jews ("partners of your impiety", XII) are translated as written. Several Migne footnote numerals and a running head in the digital text are removed by logged corrections.

### Citation (SBL)

Faustinus, Trin. 1 (PL 13:38c–49c; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/faustinus-de-trinitate/1).

## On the Trinity 2

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/faustinus-de-trinitate/2/#p-2
- Source: PL 13:49d–62c
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Against the claim that God made the Son from nothing, Faustinus cites the Father's voice at the baptism and transfiguration, Peter's confession, John's 'only-begotten' texts, God's gift of his Son compared with Abraham's offering of Isaac, and Psalm 110:3, 'from the womb I begot you.'

### Latin text

I. David uno lapidis ictu Goliae frontem percutiens magni corporis fortem stravit inimicum. Sed nostrae non est virtutis de uno lapide vincere; duplici, ut opinor, ex causa: quia nec nos tales vires habemus, quales habuit et David; et isti nimis frontem praeferunt impudentiae impietatibus obduratam: unde jam licet multos lapides non in vacuum miserimus, tamen adhuc in Dei gratia repetendum nobis est, et impudens eorum frons illa quae est sine signo Domini, crebris testimoniorum lapidibus elidenda est; ut, etsi non caro eorum effundit cruorem, multis effossa vulneribus tamen vel pudor suffusione sanguinis erubescat, si etiam ex iis quae illorum esse scripseras, opprimantur. Haec verba haereticorum ais esse. Ex nihilo, inquiunt, Deus sibi filium fecit. Si fecit eum ex nihilo, creatura est, et non filius. Et quid est, quod filium dicis, quem creaturam esse confirmas, cum dicis eum factum ex nihilo esse? non ergo potes et filium eum dicere et creaturam: filius enim ex nativitate consistit, creatura vero ex factura. Quid tibi contraria profiteris? unum elige de duobus: dic aut filium vere filium, aut creaturam vere creaturam. Si ita filium dicis, ut vere filium dicas, negasti eum esse creaturam. Et quomodo de nihilo factum eum esse dicis, quem vere filium confiteris? Si autem dicis eum vere esse creaturam, cur eum filium nominas, cum in eo istius nominis abneges veritatem? II. Sed (de) vivis lapidibus divinae vocis percutiamus frontis ejus impudentiam. Tu dicis eum esse creaturam: ego dico eum esse filium: quis inter nos de professionis veritate pronuntiet? puto, quod libenter habeas, ut ille judicet, a quo tu, renuentibus nobis, factum dicis Christum ex nihilo. Audiamus ergo quid de coelis ipse pronuntiet. Hic est filius meus dilectus, in quo mihi bene complacui. Numquid dixit. Hic est quem ego feci ex nihilo? Et vide, quia hoc tunc primum dixit, quando Jesus ut homo accessit ad baptismum: et, puto, non alia ratione quam quia poterat credi non esse filius Dei, qui corporeus videbatur, et inter caeteros homines ipse quoque ut homo peccator veniebat ad baptismum, cum peccata propria non haberet. Ne ergo, (cum) sacramentum baptismatis in homine assumpto consummat Jesus, non vere Dei filius crederetur, clamat de coelo Pater, Hic est filius meus dilectus. Intellexerat quidem et Joannes suum illum esse Dominum, quando et venienti ad baptismum ait; Ego a te debeo baptizari, et tu venisti ad me? Sed ne forte apud alios Joannis testimonium non tam magnum videretur, ut vinceret fidem carnis et humilitatis in Christo, et omnia omnino quae per carnem ejus agebantur; ipse quo nemo major, ipse quo nemo melior cognitor, dat testimonium de coelis dicens: Hic est filius meus dilectus, in quo bene complacui. In quantum enim manifesta fides erat circa carnem Salvatoris, in tantum et manifesta fides esse debuit circa deitatem Salvatoris: tunc enim et verus Deus est, si sit et verus filius. Carnem quidem ejus, vel potius hominem dicam, nemo ambigebat, quia nec ambigi poterat: sed illud quod in homine erat, et natum cum homine, quia videri per naturam non poterat, ne esset incertum, voce et quasi digito patris ostenditur dicentis: Hic est filius meus dilectus, in quo bene complacui; et interea pari auctoritate fides utriusque substantiae, id est. Dei et hominis commendatur in Christo. Hominis enim in se fidem Dei filius ipse signabat per conceptionem et partum Virginis, per infantiae vagitum, per cunas et involumenta, per ipsa matris ubera, per ipsa materni lactis alimenta, per incrementa corporeae aetatis, per hoc ipsum quod venit, ut baptizaretur. Vides quomodo inierim usque ad baptismum expressit in se hominis veritatem, tanto pressius hoc agens, quanto et difficilius credi poterat, Deum (in) hominem fieri. Et ne forte ad hoc coactum putes, et non sponte filium Dei, filium quoque tactum esse hominis, audi Apostolum dicentem de eo: Qui cum in forma Dei esset constitutus, non rapinam arbitratus est, esse te aqualem Deo, sed semetipsum exinanivit, formam servi accipiens. Si ergo semetipsum exinanivit, formam servi accipiens, non coactus est, sed sponte factus (est) filius hominis, existens in forma Dei, Deo aequalis. Habes igitur filium exprimentem in se fidem hominis. III. Item videamus fidem in eo divinitatis expressam: et licet sufficienter supra de fide ejus divinitatis expressum est, et adhuc sint alia quoque multa copiosiora quibus fides divinitatis apparet; tamen illa nunc taceo: sufficit enim mihi si fidem divinitatis in Christo solus interim pater ostendit dicens: Hic est filius meus dilectus, in quo bene complacui. Quid ais, haeretice? credis sine dubio Christo, quod se filium hominis fecerit: quid censes de patre? estne veridicus apud te, cum Christum filium suum esse testatur? 7 (si non) credis patri, cum Christum filium suum esse testatur, jam majoris apud te auctoritatis est Christus, cui de fide in se hominis credis; et minus idoneus est pater, cui de filii testatione non credis. Et quomodo patrem majorem Deum vindicas, cujus vocem quasi minimi depretias? vel quomodo Christum Deum minorem asseris, cui tantum credis, quantum nec ei, quem majorem praedicas? Magnus iste honor tuus est quem patri defers, ut ei non credas de filio suo profitenti. Qui tamen iterum et alibi profitetur illum suum filium esse, quando cum apostolis Petro et Jacobo et Joanne Dominus ascendit in montem, et refulsit facies ejus sicut sol. Percutiat iterum divinum testimonium tuae frontis impudentiam: Et ecce, inquit nubes lucida inobumbravit eos: et ecce vox de nube dicens: Hic est filius meus dilectus, in quo bene complacui: ipsum audite. Certe Moyses et Elias pariter videbantur cum eo loquentes, quos utique de adoptione factos esse filios Dei negare non poles: et quomodo de solo Christo vox divina testatur dicens; Hic est filius meus dilectus, in quo mihi complacui: ipsum audite? Si enim et Christus de adoptione filius est, cum staret inter duos filios adoptivos, dixisset utique, « Et hic filius meus est, » ne Christus solus filius esse crederetur: at cum dixit, Hic est filius meus dilectus, adoptionis filios separavit, ut proprietas verae nativitatis in Christo solo filio crederetur. Sed non sufficit ut Christum tantummodo filium suum esse profiteretur; addidit etiam quod vero filio debebatur, dicens, ipsum audite. Magnam, immo et parem sibi auctoritatem ostendit in filio, cum ita audiendus est filius, ut audiendus et pater est: Ipsum, inquit, audite. Quidquid ergo jam dixerit Christus, audiendus est. Et videamus, si nusquam se dicit esse filium Dei, si nusquam se Deum patrem habere profitetur. Ipsius vox est: Omnis plantatio quam non plantavit pater meus, eradicabitur. Et iterum: Domum patris mei fecistis domum negotiationis. 9 Alibi quoque: Et tu credis in filio Dei? Numquam praesumeret dicere, Pater meus, patris mei, et tu credis in filio Dei, nisi esset confidentia naturae, quae vindicat vocabulum veritatis In patre, de conscientia propriae nativitatis. Quid enim insolenter ille loqueretur, Qui semetipsum humiliavit factus obediens usque ad mortem crucis. IV. Sunt et alia testimonia plurima: sed nos nunc non librum scribimus ut omnia prosequamur, sed causa brevitatis paucis testimoniis summas claudimus, ut vox ilia obruatur, quae negat Christum esse filium Dei. Sane dicit se Christus filium quoque esse hominis, cum ait: Et videbitis filium hominis. Et, Quem dicunt esse filium hominis? Hoc est enim sacramentum fidei in Christo, ut cum illum filium Dei esse credideris, credas quoque et filium hominis esse eum factum. Illud enim quod filius Dei est, naturaliter possidet; hoc autem quod filius hominis facius est, qua beneficius nobis praestitit: et ideo qui Christum filium Dei esse non credit, impius est; sedet qui Christum filium hominis esse factum confiteri dedignatur, ingratus est. Tu tamen, haeretice, credis quod Christus filius quoque hominis factus est, et cum hoc ipsum de se Salvator dicat, non abnuis. At vero cum dixerit pater, Hic est filius meus, et cum dixerit filius. Pater meus; tu ut cor Pharaonis obduras, et non credis? Superest impudentiae tuae, ut quasi melancholicus non vera perspiciens, patrem et filium dicas esse mentitos. Non, inquit, nego filium; sed nego verum filium: ergo et Petrus ideo beatitudinis vocem promeruit, quia Christum verum filium esse non credidit, licet filium Dei vivi sit confessus. Magnum revera confessae fidei sacramentum est in Petri conscientia, ut cum labiis dicat, Tu es Christus, filius Dei vivi, in corde tamen habeat, quod non sit verus filius Dei vivi. Ego homo sum: verba audio, verba intelligo, interpretationem tacitam cordis audire non possum. Christum filium dixit Dei vivi: nisi et adoptivum adjecerit, ego aliud nihil intelligo, quam quod et loquitur. Viderit si Christus, qua Dominus ei Deus cor aspicit: mihi tamen qui auribus tantum audio, debuit etiam per vocem fieri cordis ejus manifesta confessio, propter quem et Petrus interrogatur: non enim sibi soli Petrus interrogatus est, sed et omnibus (nobis);ut cum ille de Christo bene confitetur, et nos similiter disceremus pari confessione ad beatitudinem pervenire. Et interea videamus si digne Petrus beatitudinis praeconium consequitur, credens in corde quod non sit verus (filius), sed adoptivus: si digna haec patris revelatio est, et non potius carnis et sanguinis. Plurimi certe adoptione sunt filii Dei: ei non solum Jeremias, qui adhuc cum esset in vulva matris, sanctificabis est; neque solus Joannes Baptista, qui in utero matris infans exsultavit iu spiritu: sed neque solus Elias, qui mortem adhuc usque passus non est, vel quilibet ex numero prophetarum, ex quibus unus, ut in Evangelio relatum est, putabatur Christus: sed ad hoc nomen adoptionis, meretrices et publicani, quamvis emendatione venerunt. Et ne quis me putet blasphemare, audiat in Evangelio dici: Meretrices et publicani praecedent vos in regno coelorum, ubi non nisi filii adoptionis sunt. Cum ergo nec blasphemis nec turpibus adoptionis gratia denegatur, si corrigant se: hoc pro magno sacramento Pater Petro revelavit, quod scilicet filius quidem Dei vivi est, sed adoptione potius, et non nativitate, et tantum nomine, non etiam et nominis veritate? Plane qui hoc credit, non beatus ille est, sed miserrimus omnium hominum, habens non solum intelligentiam canis et sanguinis, verum etiam et spiritum diaboli. Sed quaeso, Regina, sentias, quod multa in hoc loco dici poterant, quae ad consequentia festinans praetereo; credens quod data occasione, quasi una de sapientissimis plus possis sentire quam loquimur, secundum sententiam Salomonis: Da sapienti occasionem, et sapientior erit. V. Haec vestra, Ariani, doctrina est, haec vestra interpretatio singularis, hoc secretum fidei vestrae mysterium: Adoptione, inquit, Christus est filius, et non verus filius. Interrogemus et Joannem: potest et hic verum didicisse, sive quia interfuit cum Petri laudata confessio est, sive ex peculiari dilectione Salvatoris, qua ita erat ei proximus, ut etiam supra pectus ejus recumberet. Videamus, quid haerens pectori ejus hauserit. Deum nemo vidit umquam, nisi unigenitus filius qui est in sinu patris. Nulla creatura videt Deum, secundum hoc quod Deus est; et ideo ait: (Deum) nemo vidit umquam. Sed sequitur, et dicit: nisi unigenitus filius: ergo unigenitus filius non est creatura, qui Deum videt quem nulla vidit creatura. Et ne forte unum eum de adoptivis filiis crederes, amputavit sensus impii occasionem, cum eum dixit non solum filium, sed etiam unigenitum filium. Hoc nomen non habet socios: et licet dicantur alii filii; adoptione tamen, non natura sunt filii. Sed Christus solus unigenitus filius est, quia solus verus filius est, non adoptione, sed natura, non nuncupatione tantum, sed et genere: solus (inquam) verus Alius est, qui etiam in sinu patris est. Filii adoptivi in sinu Abrahae sunt: qui autem verus filius est, et unigenitus filius est, in sinu patris est. Intellige tamen et in hoc inseparabilem paternae substantiae filium, quod in sinu patris dicitur esse. Item legimus: Sic enim dilexit mundum Deus, ut filium suum unigenitum daret: ut omnis qui credit in eum, non pereat, sed habeat vitam aeternam. Non video, quomodo dilectio Dei commendetur ad mundum, si non verus et unigenitus est filius, quem dedit pro mundi redemptione. Mundus sine dubio creatura est; si Christus creatura est, quid contulit mundo, dans pro creatura creaturam? Omnis creatura servili conditione censetur: si Christus creatura est, servus est: quomodo redemit ad libertatem, cum servus nullo jure possit conferre libertatem? et tamen Abraham, ut commendaret dilectionem quam habebat ad Deum, proprium et verum unigenitum et dilectissimum filium obtulit in holocaustum, cum hoc ipsum Deus ad probandum cunctis ejus in se dilectionem fieri praecepisset. Et tu dicis, impie, quia Deus volens commendare dilectionem suam mundo, non habuit verum filium quem daret, sed usus est necessitate, more sterilium, ut, quia verum de se genitum filium non habuit per naturam, vel ex nihilo facium daret? VI. Dic, impie, (ergo) majore virtute dilectionem commendavit Abraham, proprium et unigenitum filium offerens, quam Deus qui non habuit proprium, neque vere unigenitum dedit. Et est, quod velit Deus magnopere commendare: et inferius (non) commendat, cum commendaverit homo. Et ille Deus quem majorem praedicas, minor est homine in commendanda dilectione: minus enim commendavit dilectionem, si non verum et unigenitum filium dedit pro mundi dilectione; et Abraham plus commendavit, qui proprium et unigenitum obtulit. Sed absit haec impietas, ut vel in dilectione commendanda minor sit Deus, qui est per omnia inaestimabilis: verum enim et unigenitum filium dedit, diligens mundum. Hoc enim Paulus vas electionis exsequitur, volens Dei in nos commendare dilectionem dicens, Qui suo filio non pepercit, sed pro nobis omnibus tradidit illum; cum dicit, Filio suo, proprietatem veritatis expressit in nomine: et vide tamen, quo sermone usus est, dicens, Qui suo filio non pepercit. Legisti utique dicentem Deum ad Abraham, cum filium pro Dei dilectione vellet occidere: Ne injicias manum tuam in puerum, ne facias illi quidquam: nunc enim cognovi, quia times Deum tuum, et non pepercisti filio tuo dilecto propter me. Discit et Paulus; Qui filio suo non pepercit, sed pro nobis omnibus tradidit eum: dicit Apostolus ex Dei voce, quomodo commendaret dilectionem: improprie usus fuerat verbis divinis, si non et hic de vero filio loqueretur: et tamen, quis nesciat in patre Abraham et Isaac filio ejus imaginem praecessisse futurae veritatis? In Deo patre et Christo unigenito filio ejus sacramentum praecedentis figurae monstravit Apostolus, consignans ipsis sermonibus veritatem, quibus et primum figura signata est, dicens: Qui proprio filio suo non pepercit, sed pro nobis omnibus tradidit eum. Si ergo figura erat in Abraham, cum offerret filium; veritas autem in Deo patre, cum tradidit filium: quid ais doctor impietatis? ubi major vis versari debet, in figura, an in veritate? sine dubio in veritate. Et quomodo tu minorem exhibes veritatem, pleniorem vero figuram? plenior enim est figura, ubi verus filius offertur: ei minor est veritus, ubi secundum te, non verus filius traditur. Sed plane major esi veritas, el minor est figura. 4 Hoc si vis probari, crede verum unigenitum filium Dei; et intelliges, quod multo plus quam Abraham, gessit Deus, dans filium suum unigenitum pro mundi dilectione secundum Evangelium, vel cum secundum Paulum, suo filio non pepercit, sed pro nobis omnibus tradidit eum. Abraham enim licet filium obtulerit, tamen pro Dei dilectione obtulit, cui quidquid obtuleris, non sequas ad quod dignus est; et obtulit filium, quem posteaquam per naturam habere non potuit, per Deum tamen contra naturam est adeptus: obtulit ergo Deo, quod ei contra spem naturae dederat Deus, et obtulit filium. VII. Facit ad causam, si dixero se minorem, et sine illa conditione praesenti quandoque mortalitatis lege moriturum: contra, examina quid Deus praestiterit: filium suum praestitit unigenitum, quem non sero ex alicujus adeptus est gratia, sed semper habet sine initio ex proprietate naturae natum de se talem, qualis et ipse pater est qui eum genuit, invisibilem, inaestimabilem, sempiternum, impassibilem et immortalem et omnipotentem, sicut ipse pater est, et postremo per omnia, secundum hoc quod Deus est, aequalem ei qui eum genuit. Vides qualem dedit filium pater. Ecce jam Deus inaestimabiliter superior invenitur in filio: et nunc considera, quod hunc talem unigenitum filium pro mundi dilectione praestiterit: et expende nunc, quidnam sit mundus; utique creatura est: similiter et Deus quid sit, expende: utique creator est: et nunc jam compara, quem dilexerit Abraham, et quem dilexerit Deus. Abraham quidem Deum. Sed recense quanta Deus Abrahae praestiterit, et invenies, quod Abraham multo minus Deo dilectionis debitum reddidit quam debebat, licet reddiderit quantum reddere potuit. Deus autem mundum diligit pro nulla sibi data ab eo gratia. Vides quia multo est commendabilior dilectio Dei quae non ex debito praestatur, quam illa Abrahae quae praestatur ex debita. Sed vide adhuc supereminentiam dilectionis qua Deus diligit mundum, non solum sibi, qui eum condidit nullo merito justitiae commendatum, verum etiam peccatorem et adversum se impium. Mundum ergo dilexit Deus peccatis et impietatibus reum, non quia peccata et impietates dilexerit mundi, sed dilexit mundum, ut de peccatis et impietatibus mundus ipse liberetur. Et audi Apostolum per haec mire commendantem Dei dilectionem, cum scribit ad Romanos: Ut quid enim Christus, cum adhuc infirmi essemus, secundum tempus pro impiis moruus est? vix enim pro justo quis moritur. Nam pro bono forsitan quis audeat mori. Commendat autem Deus charitatem suam in nobis: quoniam si cum adhuc peccatores essemus, Christus pro nobis mortuus est; multo magis justificati nunc in sanguine ipsius, salvi erimus ab ira per ipsum. VIII. Intelligo quidem, quod hoc testimonium discuti desiderat: sed nunc quod faciat ad causam breviter pandimus. Mundum, habitatores mundi interpretatus Apostolus ostendit, quod pro impiis, et peccatoribus mortuus est Christus, ut suam charitatem commendaret in nobis, qui sumus in mundo: et moritur, inquit, Christus, pro impiis, et peccatoribus; quandoquidem vix pro justo quis moritur, licet forsitan pro bono quis audeat mori. Jamne intelligis quam inenarrabiliter praecellat dilectio Dei ubi est veritatis expressio, et quam minor sit dilectio Abrahae ubi figura signata est? Non hoc dico quasi non multum dilexerit Abraham; immo tantum dilexit Deum quantum et potuit, quantum nemo ex natis mulierum supergredi potest. Sed licet multum dilexerit Deum, et de toto corde et de totis viribus animae suae dilexerit: tamen inenarrabili supereminentia divinae dilectionis in infinitum superatur. Quis enim possit explicare dilectionem quam Deus mundo praestitit, dans unigenitum filium suum ita, ut homo nasceretur qui Deus est; et haberet secundum carnem humana sorte initium nativitatis, qui sine initio de patre natus est; et ille aequalis Deo in forma Dei existens semper, accepta forma servili minor fieret, non solum patre, verum etiam angelis, immo et hominibus, nescio, si non cl mullum infra, vermis quoque comparatione; et postremo, ut secundum naturam susceptae animae, usque ad mortem tristitiam pateretur, qui totus gaudium est, non solum Abrahae, qui diem ejus cupiens videre, vidit et gavisus est, sed et omnium hominum sanctorum. Praestitit ergo mundo unigenitum filium suum, ut qui vera vita est, pendens in ligno secundum carnem, mortem crucis pateretur, occultata interim sempiterna et inviolabili divinitate ejus, quae illi una est cum patre ejus. Vide dilectionem, ut pro mundi salute Dominus majestatis crucufigatur in terra qui se filium Dei credentibus vitam aeternam praestat in coelis. O te beatissimum, patriarcha Abrabam, cujus maxima dilectio in Deum non nisi inexplicabilis divinae dilectionis inundatione submergitur: et nescio si non hoc (totum) pro respectu tuae dilectionis et fidei Deus impio praestitit mundo. Tibi enim et semini tuo promiserat Deus, ut haeres esses mundi per justitiam fidei, sicut docet apostolus Paulus. IX. Sed satis tardo, si hunc locum voluero plenius exsequi: ad te convertar, haeretice, commonens, ut intendas quomodo Deus diligens mundum, dedit unigenitum suum filium, vel, ut ait Apostolus, quomodo suo filio non pepercit, sed pro nobis omnibus tradidit eum. Si sacramentum istius ineffabilis divinae dilectionis agnosceres, numquam adversus filium Dei impias componeres quaestiones; quas qui piae mentis est, per illa quae supra diximus, intelligit absolutas. Sed adhuc reliquam partem propositi testimonii videamus, ut tuae frontis impudentia multo pressius obteratur. Nam cum dixisset: Sic enim dilexit Deus mundum, ut filium suum unigenitum daret, prosequitur, et dicit: Ut omnis qui credit in eum, non pereat, sed habeat vitam aeternam. Iterum dicam, est unigenitus filius; quomodo qui credit in eum, noti perit, sed vitam habebit aeternam, cum credere in creaturam, sit Divinitatis offensio? Respice ad apostolum Paulum; considera, quae opprobria, quas obscenitates de his referat, qui, ut ipse ait, commutaverunt veritatem Dei in mendacio, et coluerunt et servierunt creaturae potius quam Creatori. Tu si sic credis, et sic colis, et servis unigenito filio Dei, ut eum dicas esse creaturam, illa te mala miser exspectant quibus illi puniuntur, qui commutaverunt veritatem Dei in mendacio, et coluerunt et servierunt creaturae potius quam creatori. Adoptione, inquit, Christus filius Dei est, et non verus filius. Omnia leguntur Evangelia, et nusquam scriptura est, quod Christus adoptione sit filius, et non verus filius. Et bene, quod Joannes, ille Joannes recubans supra pectus Domini, causam scripti Evangelii referens posuit, et dixit: Multa quidem et alia signa fecit Jesus coram discipulis suis, quae non sunt scripta in libro hoc: haec autem scripta sunt, ut credatis, quoniam Jesus filius Dei, et ut credentes vitam aeternam habeatis in nomine ipsius. Estne opus adhuc apertius explanare? multa, inquit, et alia signa fecit Jesus: et licet non sint omnia scripta, quia nec scribi poterat infinita rerum copia; tamen haec ipsa ideo scripta sunt, ut credamus, quod Jesus est Christus filius Dei; et ut fidem singulorum provocaret, ostendit et praemium dicens: ut credentes vitam aeternam habeatis in nomine ejus. Si vere adoptione esset filius Dei, et nou natura, si sola nuncupatione, et non etiam quod in nuncupationi intelligentia est; nusquam magis hoc ipsum explanasset, quam in ultimo scriptionis, ne fides in ambiguo derelicta, vitam aeternam perderet per credulitatis incertum. Sed Evangelista, qui ad hoc positus est, ut habens gratiam sancti Spiritus illa maxime lucidius panderet, quae ad vitae aeternae praemia pertinerent, non ambiguo clausit Evangelium, sed manifestissime expressit, ideo scripta Evangelia, ut credatis, inquit, quoniam Jesus est Christus filius Dei, et ut credentes vitam aeternam habeatis in nomine ejus. Etiam ne hic suspicio est creaturae in filio Dei, ubi, qui crediderit quod filius Dei est Christus, aeternam vitam possidet, et non aliter quam in nomine ejus? qui utique non est creatura, sed creator, et non adoptione filius, sed verus filius Dei: in nomine enim creaturae ne quidem vitam temporalem potest quis assequi, nisi si aliquis eam non auferendo praestare dicatur. X. De nihilo, inquit, fecit Deus sibi filium. Praetereo multa testimonia: loquatur Joannes Christi Domini dilectione perspicuus. Scribens Epistolam ait: Omnis qui diligit patrem, diligit eum qui ex eo natus est: numquid ait, diligit eum quem fecit Deus ex nihilo? sed nec patrem omnino nominasset, nisi scisset de eo natum filium. Et fac nunc, quia ita intelligendum est, ut tu, haeretice, interpretaris; quod scilicet ab eo factus sit ex nihilo, quem ex patre natum dicit Joannes: et quaero, numquid secundum te solus Christus factus est ex nihilo? Nonne, ut taceam de aliis, etiam mundus ipse ex nihilo factus est? ergo et mundus a nobis diligendus est, si diligendus est pater. Sed clamat idem Joannes: Nolite diligere mundum. Numquid tam levis est Joannes, ut ipse sibi contraria praedicaret? Absit haec impietas, ut dicatur, Joannes repugnantia sibi loquitur, qui in sancto Spiritu loquebatur. Scit distantiam facti et nati in ipso jam principio Evangelii sui. sicut supra expositum est, curo de ipso capitulo tractaretur: et ideo nou ut facturam intelligit eum, quem dicit ex patre natum; quia nec singulariter poneret, si hoc quod ex patre natum est, facturam voluisset intelligi, sciens multos factos esse ex nihilo; sed singulariter ponens, de solo vero filio posuit dicens, quod ex patre natus est, quia ipse solus ex patre natus est, caeteri autem omnes facti sunt ut a conditore. Noli ergo facere divinis sermonibus vim: quid infers, quod ille non loquitur? quid doces, quod ille nou docuit? Si Christianus es, et si apud te verus doctor est Joannes, crede quod docuit. Ex patre, inquit, natus est: hoc (si) credideris, si diligis patrem, et diligendo patrem, diligis filium qui ex eo natus est: quod si non credideris, quia ex patre natus est; quod neque patrem diligis, neque eum qui ex eo natus est: non autem diligis hoc modo, cum in patre negas esse quod patris est, id est generare, et in filio negas esse quod filii est, id est nasci. Et audi nunc, quale tibi beatus Joannes nomen imposuit dicens: Hic est antichristus, qui negat patrem et filium. Tu quidem falso Christiani libi cognomen imponis; sed a veridico Joanne pro sectae tuae merito antichristus vocitaris. Mentior, si non tu in patris vocabulo intelligis creatorem, si non in filii nomine asseris creaturam. Joannes patrem et filium nuncupat: et tu in his nominibus creatorem et creaturam interpretaris. Merito ergo vocaris antichristus, qui negas patrem et filium sub interpretatione impia. XI. Sed adhuc audi, o quisquis ille es insolens et contumax in filium, et de patris persona gloriaris: et intellige, quia patrem habere non potes, st non confitearis et filium. Idem prosequitur Joannes: Qui negat filium, neque patrem (habet): qui confitetur filium, (et filium) et patrem habet. Vides ubique Joannes ipsa nomina ponere, ut nihil aliud intelligatur, quam quod est in natura nominum: et tamen, si adhuc frons impudentiae tuae potest ictus lapidum sustinere, et si tanta obstinatio duritiae tuae est, ut cum audis patrem et filium, non tamen verum patrem neque verum filium credas; ecce idem Joannes qui est dilectus a Domino, vicem reddens dominicae dilectioni, fortiori lapide jam non tantum frontem, sed ipsum caput serpentinum tuae conquassat impietatis, scribens in ultimo epistolae suae: Scimus quia filius Dei venit, et incarnatus est propter nos, et passus est, et resurgens de mortuis assumpsit nos, et dedit nobis intellectum bonum, ut cognoscamus ipsum verum, et simus in ipso vero filio ejus Jesu Christo. Hic est (Deus) verus et vita aeterna, et resurrectio nostra in ipso. Explicari non potest, quantos adversum te sermonum lapides et saxa congessit sub uno hoc testimonio. Scimus, inquit, quia filius Dei venit. Habes unam de filio confessionem, et paululum infra post sacramenta incarnationis et passionis ejus et resurrectionis, quae utique propter nos exercuit, subsequitur dicens: et dedit nobis intellectum bonum: sine dubio quia ipse dator bonus est, dans intellectum bonum. Non impie intelligimus, si hunc intellectum bonum dixerimus Spiritum sanctum esse, qui et dicitur Spiritus intelligentiae, in quo cognoscimus ipsum verum. Sine Spiritu enim sancto non potest veritas cognosci: habes testimonium in Evangelio, ubi et Deum ipsum sanctum Spiritum pollicetur, et de ipso ait, quod ipse mihi testimonium perhibebit; utique per apostolos, vel per quoslibet filii Dei praedicatores, dans eis intelligentiam, qua Spiritus intelligentiae verum cognoscendi. Unde et apostolus Paulus scribens ad Corinthios ait: Nos autem non spiritum hujus mundi accepimus, sed spiritum qui ex Deo est: ut sciamus, quae a Deo donata sunt nobis. Dedit ergo intellectum bonum, id est Spiritum sanctum, ut cognoscamus ipsum verum. XII. Adhuc si non intelligis de tot supra editis dictionibus, vel ex consequentibus animadverte omnes suspiciones impiae interpretationis exclusas: Ut simus, inquit, in ipso vero filio ejus Jesu Christo. Et adhuc amplius densat piam fidem dicens: Hic est verus Deus: et nondum tacuit, sed cumulat et exaggerat, ut impius sensus sophisticis confidens argumentationibus obruatur: subsequens enim ait, Et vita aeterna, et resurrectio nostra in ipso. Ubi sunt nunc illa impia vestra sophismata quae Aristotelis episcopi vestri magisterio didicistis dicentes: Filius est, sed non est verus filius: Deus est, sed non est verus Deus? Ecce uno testimonio tot modis filii verum nomen expressum est, immo quia et verus Deus est. Quomodo enim non verus Deus, qui verus est filius? quandoquidem non solum de veri filii nomine Deus verus probatur, sed etiam per hoc, quod vita aeterna est. Vita enim aeterna non habet initium neque finem: ergo Deus verus est Christus, non habens initium neque finem, existens ipse vita aeterna, quae est sine initio et fine. Sed et cum resurrectio nostra est, potestas in eo verae divinitatis agnoscitur, cum mortem per virtutem resurrectionis excludit, exemplo sui quem assumpsit hominis, in quo et de Virgine nasci dignatus est, in quo et nos jam resurreximus, habituri unusquisque nostrum specialem resurrectionem pro merito fidei ac vitae, sive ad refrigerium, sive ad ustionem. Vide, miser, ne adhuc non credas verum esse filium, et incipias habere resurrectionem ad poenam perpetuam gehennae in tenebris exterioribus, ubi erit fletus oculorum et stridor dentium, si tamen non adhuc aliquid tetrius manet impios in filium. XIII. Satis, ut opinor, licet pauculis testimoniis comprobatum est, quod sit verus Dei filius, natus de patre, non factus ex nihilo. Sed adhuc quaeso, exhibe infatigabilem patientiam, ut boc ipsum de veteri Scriptum vel uno testimonio comprobemus. Dicis, haeretice, ex nihilo filium facium, cum hoc nusquam legeris: negas illud quod scriptura est: quia ex patre natus est. Dic mihi, cujus verba sunt: Ex utero ante luciferum genui te? Si ambigis, respice ad initium Psalmi ejus, et lege scriptum: Dixit Dominus Domino meo, Sede ad dexteram meam, donec ponam inimicos tuos scabellum pedum tuorum. Hoc testimonio ipse Salvator usus est, ut cum vult se Dominum credi, loquens ad eos qui illum solum hominem natum ex semine putabant David, non etiam et Deum qua Dei filium. Sed et Paulus apostolus hoc ipsum credens, quod et olim Spiritus sanctus in David loculus est et postea exposuit, ait in Epistola sua: Ad quem autem angelorum dixit aliquando, sede ad dexteram meam? hoc explanans, quia nemo de angelis talis est, qualis et filius: omnes enim angeli ficti sunt, solus autem filius natus est, cui et dicit, sede ad dexteram meam; quia et solus ipse est unigenitus filius qui est in sinu patris. Non autem nunc expositio totius psalmi necessaria est, sed illud solum probandum, quia Dominus Pater dicit Filio Domino meo, Sede ad dexteram meam; ut et illud quod in sequenti dicitur, non alius quam pater dixisse credatur, id esi, Ex utero ante luciferum genui te. Nonne etiam hoc testimonio verissime probatum est, sepultam vocem impiam esse dicentium, quod ex nihilo fecerit Deus filium? Quomodo enim ex nihilo, cum ipse pater clamet, Ex utero ante luciferum genuit te? Et vide, ne putes nos intelligere, quod Deus membrorum partiumve compositione consistat. Absit haec impietas. Deus enim, quodcumque illud est, simplex est; totus idem est secundum substantiam, non pars et pars, non membrum et membrum; sed, ut diximus, simplex nescio quid, quod sit integrum, et perfectum, et inaestimabile tamen et inexplicabile. Licet ergo talis est, ut non membris partibusve subsistat, tamen Scriptura divina cum vult nobis fabricatoris veram intelligentiam commendare, ex his quae novimus, loquitur dicens: Opera manuum ejus esse coelos, vel unamquamque creaturam: quia apud homines vere et proprie opus vel fabrica intelligitur, quod efficitur (manibus): denique cum visum est arte aliquid fabricatum, ad manus refertur artificis. Similiter autem inter nos volentes filii designare naturam, uteri facimus mentionem: nemo enim de veris filiis non dc utero nascitur. Et Deus ergo volens ex se natum filium demonstrare, dixit quod eum ex utero genuerit, ne tu, haeretice, calumniareris ex nihilo. Sed sicut cum Deus manibus fecisse dicitur, ut Deo dignum intelligendum est: ita et cum ex utero genuit, non contra quam Deo dignum est, opinemur. Illud tamen certissime confitendum est, quod verus est conditor in significatione operis manuum, et verus est pater in significatione uteri gignentis, etsi nihil in se membrorum habeat· XIV. Sed quia soletis dicere, o Ariani, « In Deo id ipsum est facere, quod et generare, » opportune et hanc vestram perversitatem de praesenti occasione convincam. Multa sunt nempe opera manuum, sed unus est unigenitus filius ventris: non ergo id ipsum est facere, quod et generare: et omnia quidem per Verbum, et in sapientia facta sunt; Verbum autem sive sapientia, non per aliquem, sed ex Deo nata sunt: unde non id ipsum est facere, quod et generare. Nisi enim esset distantia inter facere et generare, nihil prohibebatur dicere, manus meae generaverunt te, et coeli ventris mei sunt opera. (Sed) sicut dictio multam habet differentiam, ita et res quas dictio determinat. Ex utero, inquit, ante luciferum genui te. Hoc autem dicit pater ad filium, non quod filius ignoraret, sed ut nos scire possemus proprietatem patris ad filium, vel filii ad patrem: ideo ita scriptum est, sicut et ipse unigenitus filius existens sapientia ait: Ante omnes autem colles genuit me. Unde et hoc loco ante luciferum genitus esse dicitur. In luciferi vocabulo omnis ubi ibi lucidior creatura signatur: unde cum dicitur, ex utero ante luciferum genitus hoc, specialiter docetur, quod vere ex patre sit natus, et non factus: quod autem ait, ante luciferum, ante omnem creaturam significat, secundum quod dictum est, Et ipse est ante omnes.

### English translation (Claude)

I. David, striking Goliath's forehead with a single blow of a stone, laid low a strong enemy of great body. But it is not within our strength to win with one stone, for two reasons, I think: because we do not have such strength as David had, and because these people carry before them a forehead too much hardened by the impieties of impudence. So, although we have already thrown many stones not in vain, yet we must throw again, by the grace of God, and that impudent forehead of theirs, which is without the sign of the Lord, must be crushed by frequent stones of testimonies; so that, even if their flesh does not pour out blood, yet, dug into by many wounds, at least shame may blush with the suffusion of blood, if they are overwhelmed even by the things you had written were theirs. You say these are the heretics' words: "God made himself a Son out of nothing. If he made him out of nothing, he is a creature, and not a son." And what is it that you call him son whom you affirm to be a creature, when you say he was made out of nothing? You cannot, then, call him both son and creature; for a son consists by birth, but a creature by making. Why do you profess contrary things? Choose one of the two: call him either son, truly son, or creature, truly creature. If you call him son in such a way as to call him truly son, you have denied that he is a creature; and how do you say that he was made from nothing, whom you confess truly son? But if you say he is truly a creature, why do you name him son, when you deny in him the truth of that name?

II. But let us strike the impudence of his forehead with the living stones of the divine voice. You say he is a creature; I say he is a son: who shall pronounce between us on the truth of our profession? I think you will gladly accept that he should judge by whom you say, against our denial, Christ was made from nothing. Let us hear, then, what he himself declares from heaven: "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." Did he say, "This is he whom I made from nothing"? And see that he said this for the first time when Jesus came as a man to baptism—for no other reason, I think, than that he who appeared bodily, and who also came to baptism like a sinful man among other men, though he had no sins of his own, could be believed not to be the Son of God. So that, then, when Jesus fulfilled the mystery of baptism in the man he had taken, he might not be believed not truly the Son of God, the Father cries from heaven: "This is my beloved Son." John indeed had understood that he was his Lord, when he said to him as he came to baptism, "I ought to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?" But lest John's testimony seem to others not great enough to overcome the evidence of flesh and humility in Christ, and all that was done through his flesh, he himself, than whom none is greater, he than whom none knows better, gives testimony from heaven, saying: "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." For as plain as was the evidence concerning the Saviour's flesh, so plain ought the evidence to be concerning the Saviour's deity: for then he is truly God if he is also truly Son. His flesh—or rather, let me say, the man—no one doubted, for it could not be doubted; but that which was in the man and born with the man, because it could not be seen by its nature, is shown, lest it be uncertain, by the voice and, as it were, the finger of the Father, saying: "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased"; and so with equal authority belief in both substances, that is, of God and of man, is commended in Christ. For the Son of God himself marked the belief in the man in himself by the conception and childbearing of the Virgin, by the wailing of infancy, by the cradle and swaddling clothes, by his mother's very breasts, by the nourishment of his mother's milk, by the growth of bodily age, by the very fact that he came to be baptized. You see how, up to his baptism, he expressed in himself the truth of the man, doing this the more emphatically the harder it could be believed that God became man. And lest you think he was forced to it, and that the Son of God did not of his own will become also son of man, hear the apostle saying of him: "Who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant." If, then, he emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, he was not forced, but of his own will became son of man, existing in the form of God, equal to God. You have, then, the Son expressing in himself belief in the man.

III. Likewise let us see belief in his divinity expressed in him; and although enough has been said above about belief in his divinity, and there are still many other, richer things by which belief in his divinity appears, I pass them over now; for it is enough for me if, for the present, the Father alone shows belief in the divinity in Christ, saying: "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." What do you say, heretic? You believe Christ without doubt that he made himself son of man: what do you think of the Father? Is he truthful in your eyes when he testifies that Christ is his Son? If you do not believe the Father when he testifies that Christ is his Son, then Christ is of greater authority with you, whom you believe about belief in the man in him, and the Father less trustworthy, whom you do not believe about his testimony to the Son. And how do you claim the Father as the greater God, whose voice you disparage as that of the least? Or how do you assert Christ the lesser God, whom you believe so much more than him whom you proclaim greater? Great indeed is this honour you pay the Father, not to believe him when he declares his Son! Yet he declares him again elsewhere to be his Son, when the Lord went up the mountain with the apostles Peter and James and John, and his face shone like the sun. Let the divine testimony strike the impudence of your forehead again: "And behold," it says, "a bright cloud overshadowed them, and behold, a voice from the cloud, saying: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; listen to him." Certainly Moses and Elijah were seen speaking with him together, whom you cannot deny were made sons of God by adoption; and how does the divine voice testify of Christ alone, saying, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; listen to him"? For if Christ too is son by adoption, since he stood between two adopted sons, it would certainly have said, "And this one is my son," lest Christ alone be believed to be the Son; but when it said, "This is my beloved Son," it set apart the sons of adoption, so that the property of true birth might be believed in Christ alone as Son. And it was not enough for him merely to declare Christ his Son; he added also what was due to a true Son, saying, "listen to him." He showed great—indeed equal—authority with himself in the Son, since the Son is to be listened to as the Father is to be listened to: "Listen to him," he says. Whatever Christ has said, then, is to be listened to. And let us see whether he nowhere says that he is the Son of God, nowhere professes to have God as Father. His is the saying: "Every plant which my Father has not planted will be uprooted"; and again: "You have made my Father's house a house of trade"; elsewhere too: "And do you believe in the Son of God?" He would never have presumed to say "My Father," "my Father's," and "do you believe in the Son of God?" unless he had the confidence of a nature which, from the consciousness of its own birth, claims the word of truth in the Father. For why would he speak arrogantly, who humbled himself, becoming obedient even to the death of the cross?

IV. There are many other testimonies too; but we are not now writing a book so as to pursue them all, but for brevity's sake we bring the headings to a close with a few testimonies, so that the voice which denies that Christ is the Son of God may be overwhelmed. Christ indeed says that he is also son of man, when he says, "And you will see the Son of Man," and, "Whom do they say the Son of Man is?" For this is the mystery of faith in Christ: that, having believed him to be the Son of God, you also believe that he was made son of man. For what he is as Son of God he possesses by nature; but that he was made son of man is the kindness he showed us; and therefore whoever does not believe Christ to be the Son of God is impious, but whoever disdains to confess that Christ was made son of man is ungrateful. You, however, heretic, believe that Christ was also made son of man, and when the Saviour says this of himself you do not refuse it. But when the Father has said, "This is my Son," and the Son has said, "My Father," do you harden your heart like Pharaoh and not believe? It remains for your impudence, like a melancholic who does not see true things, to say that the Father and the Son have lied. "I do not deny the Son," he says, "but I deny a true Son." Then Peter, too, earned the word of blessedness because he did not believe Christ to be a true Son, though he confessed him Son of the living God! A great mystery of confessed faith, truly, in Peter's conscience, that he should say with his lips, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God," yet hold in his heart that he is not the true Son of the living God! I am a man: I hear words, I understand words; I cannot hear the silent interpretation of the heart. He called Christ the Son of the living God: unless he added "adopted," I understand nothing other than what he says. Christ may see to it, who, as Lord and God, looks on the heart; but for me, who hear only with my ears, the confession of his heart ought to have been made plain by his voice too—for it was on my account that Peter was questioned. For Peter was not questioned for himself alone, but for all of us, so that, as he confesses rightly about Christ, we too might likewise learn to come to blessedness by an equal confession. Meanwhile let us see whether Peter worthily obtains the proclamation of blessedness while believing in his heart that he is not a true son but an adopted one; whether this is a revelation worthy of the Father, and not rather of flesh and blood. Very many, certainly, are sons of God by adoption—not only Jeremiah, who was sanctified while still in his mother's womb; nor only John the Baptist, who as an infant leapt in the Spirit in his mother's womb; nor only Elijah, who to this day has not suffered death; or any of the number of the prophets, one of whom, as the gospel relates, Christ was thought to be: but even harlots and tax collectors, though by amendment, have come to this name of adoption. And lest anyone think I blaspheme, let him hear it said in the gospel: "Harlots and tax collectors will go before you into the kingdom of heaven," where there are none but sons of adoption. Since, then, the grace of adoption is not denied even to the blasphemous and the shameful if they correct themselves—did the Father reveal to Peter as a great mystery that he is indeed the Son of the living God, but rather by adoption and not by birth, and in name only, not also in the truth of the name? Plainly, whoever believes this is not blessed but the most miserable of all men, having not only the understanding of flesh and blood but also the spirit of the devil. But I beg you, Queen, to perceive that many things could be said in this place which I pass over, hastening to what follows, believing that, given the occasion, as one of the wisest of women you can perceive more than we say, according to the saying of Solomon: "Give occasion to a wise man, and he will be wiser."

V. This is your doctrine, Arians, this your singular interpretation, this the secret mystery of your faith: "Christ is son by adoption, and not a true son." Let us question John too; he too can have learned the truth, either because he was present when Peter's confession was praised, or from the Saviour's special love, by which he was so close to him that he even reclined upon his breast. Let us see what he drew in as he clung to his breast: "No one has ever seen God, except the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father." No creature sees God as he is God; and therefore he says, "No one has ever seen God." But he goes on and says, "except the only-begotten Son"; therefore the only-begotten Son, who sees God whom no creature has seen, is not a creature. And lest you believe him one of the adopted sons, he cut off the occasion for the impious sense when he called him not only Son but only-begotten Son. This name has no partners: and although others are called sons, they are sons by adoption, not by nature. But Christ alone is the only-begotten Son, because he alone is the true Son—not by adoption but by nature, not by naming only but by birth; he alone, I say, is the true Son, who is even in the bosom of the Father. The adopted sons are in the bosom of Abraham; but he who is the true Son, and the only-begotten Son, is in the bosom of the Father. Understand in this too that the Son is inseparable from the Father's substance, since he is said to be in the Father's bosom. Likewise we read: "For God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son, that everyone who believes in him may not perish but have eternal life." I do not see how God's love toward the world is commended if he whom he gave for the world's redemption is not a true and only-begotten Son. The world without doubt is a creature: if Christ is a creature, what did he give the world, giving a creature for a creature? Every creature is reckoned in the condition of a slave: if Christ is a creature, he is a slave; how did he redeem to freedom, when a slave can by no right confer freedom? And yet Abraham, to commend the love he had toward God, offered as a burnt offering his own, true, only-begotten and most beloved son, when God had commanded this very thing to prove to all his love toward himself. And you say, impious man, that God, wishing to commend his love to the world, had no true son to give, but, like the barren, acted out of necessity, so that, since he did not by nature have a true son begotten of himself, he gave at least one made out of nothing?

VI. Say, then, impious man, that Abraham commended his love with greater power, offering his own only-begotten son, than God, who did not have his own and did not give one truly only-begotten. And there is something God especially wishes to commend, and he commends it less than a man has commended it! And that God whom you proclaim greater is less than a man in commending love: for he commended love less if he did not give a true and only-begotten Son for love of the world, and Abraham commended it more, who offered his own and only-begotten son. But far be this impiety, that God, who is in all things beyond estimation, should be less even in commending love: for, loving the world, he gave a true and only-begotten Son. This is what Paul, the vessel of election, pursues, wishing to commend God's love toward us, saying: "He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all"; when he says "his own Son," he expressed the property of truth in the name. And see what word he used, saying: "He who did not spare his own Son." You have certainly read God saying to Abraham, when he wished to kill his son for love of God: "Do not lay your hand on the boy, do not do anything to him; for now I know that you fear your God, and you have not spared your beloved son for my sake." Paul too says: "He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all"; the apostle uses God's own voice to show how he commended his love; he would have used the divine words improperly if here too he were not speaking of a true son. And yet who does not know that in the father Abraham and Isaac his son an image of the future truth went before? The apostle showed in God the Father and Christ his only-begotten Son the mystery of the preceding figure, sealing the truth with the very words with which the figure was first marked, saying: "He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all." If, then, the figure was in Abraham when he offered his son, but the truth in God the Father when he gave up his Son, what do you say, teacher of impiety? Where ought the greater power to lie, in the figure or in the truth? Without doubt in the truth. And how do you present the truth as lesser and the figure as fuller? For the figure is fuller, where a true son is offered, and the truth lesser, where, according to you, a son not true is given up. But plainly the truth is greater and the figure lesser. If you want this proved, believe that the only-begotten Son of God is true, and you will understand that God did far more than Abraham, giving his only-begotten Son for love of the world, according to the gospel, or, according to Paul, not sparing his own Son but giving him up for us all. For although Abraham offered his son, he offered him for love of God, to whom, whatever you offer, you do not equal what he is worthy of; and he offered a son whom, after he could no longer have one by nature, he had obtained through God against nature: he offered to God, then, what God had given him against the hope of nature—and he offered a son.

VII. It bears on the case if I say that the son was lesser, and would in any case at some time have died by the law of mortality, even without that present circumstance. On the other hand, examine what God gave: he gave his only-begotten Son, whom he did not obtain late from anyone's favour, but always has, without beginning, born of himself by the property of nature, such as the Father himself is who begot him—invisible, inestimable, everlasting, impassible and immortal and almighty, as the Father himself is, and finally in all things, as he is God, equal to him who begot him. You see what kind of Son the Father gave. Here already God is found inestimably superior in the Son: and now consider that he gave such an only-begotten Son for love of the world; and weigh now what the world is: certainly a creature; likewise weigh what God is: certainly the creator; and now compare whom Abraham loved and whom God loved. Abraham indeed loved God. But reckon how much God had given Abraham, and you will find that Abraham paid God much less of the debt of love than he owed, even though he paid as much as he could. But God loves the world for no favour given him by it. You see that the love of God, which is given not from debt, is far more to be commended than that of Abraham, which is given from debt. But see further the surpassing greatness of the love with which God loves the world, not only commended to him who made it by no merit of righteousness, but even sinful and impious against him. God loved the world, then, guilty of sins and impieties—not because he loved the world's sins and impieties, but he loved the world so that the world itself might be freed from sins and impieties. And hear the apostle wonderfully commending God's love by these things, when he writes to the Romans: "For why did Christ, while we were still weak, at the right time die for the ungodly? For scarcely will anyone die for a righteous man; though perhaps for a good man someone might dare to die. But God commends his love toward us in that, while we were still sinners, Christ died for us; much more, then, being now justified by his blood, shall we be saved from wrath through him."

VIII. I understand indeed that this testimony asks to be discussed; but now we briefly set out what bears on the case. Interpreting the world as the inhabitants of the world, the apostle shows that Christ died for the ungodly and sinners, to commend his love toward us who are in the world: and Christ dies, he says, for the ungodly and sinners, since scarcely will anyone die for a righteous man, though perhaps for a good man someone might dare to die. Do you now understand how unspeakably the love of God surpasses where the expression of the truth is, and how much less is the love of Abraham, where the figure was marked? I do not say this as though Abraham did not love much; indeed he loved God as much as he could, as much as no one born of women can surpass. But although he loved God much, with his whole heart and with all the strength of his soul, he is yet infinitely surpassed by the unspeakable superiority of the divine love. For who could explain the love that God showed the world, giving his only-begotten Son in such a way that he who is God should be born a man; and should have, according to the flesh, a beginning of birth by the human lot, he who was born of the Father without beginning; and that he, equal to God, always existing in the form of God, having taken the form of a servant, should become less not only than the Father but also than the angels—indeed than men, and, I do not know whether not far below, even in comparison with a worm; and finally that, according to the nature of the soul he had taken, he should suffer sorrow even unto death, he who is wholly joy, not only for Abraham, who, longing to see his day, saw it and rejoiced, but for all holy men. He gave, then, his only-begotten Son to the world, so that he who is true life, hanging on the tree according to the flesh, should suffer the death of the cross, his everlasting and inviolable divinity, which is one with his Father, being meanwhile hidden. See the love: that for the world's salvation the Lord of majesty should be crucified on earth, who gives eternal life in heaven to those who believe him to be the Son of God. O most blessed patriarch Abraham, whose very great love toward God is overwhelmed only by the flood of the inexplicable divine love! And I do not know whether God did not grant all this to an impious world out of regard for your love and faith. For God had promised to you and to your seed that you would be heir of the world through the righteousness of faith, as the apostle Paul teaches.

IX. But I delay too long if I wish to pursue this passage more fully. I will turn to you, heretic, warning you to consider how God, loving the world, gave his only-begotten Son—or, as the apostle says, how he did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all. If you recognized the mystery of this unspeakable divine love, you would never compose impious questions against the Son of God—questions which whoever is of pious mind understands to be answered by what we have said above. But let us see the remaining part of the testimony set out, so that the impudence of your forehead may be crushed much more firmly. For having said, "For God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son," he continues and says, "that everyone who believes in him may not perish but have eternal life." I say again: he is the only-begotten Son; how does he who believes in him not perish but have eternal life, if to believe in a creature is an offence against the Godhead? Look at the apostle Paul; consider what reproaches, what obscenities he reports of those who, as he says, "exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator." If you so believe, and so worship and serve the only-begotten Son of God, that you say he is a creature, those evils await you, wretch, with which they are punished who exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the creator. "Christ," he says, "is Son of God by adoption, and not a true son." All the gospels are read, and nowhere is it written that Christ is son by adoption and not a true son. And well did John—that John who reclined on the Lord's breast—giving the reason for the gospel he wrote, set it down, saying: "Jesus did many other signs before his disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and that believing you may have eternal life in his name." Is there need to explain more plainly? "Jesus did many other signs," he says; and although not all are written, since the infinite abundance of things could not be written, yet these were written for this purpose, that we may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and to rouse the faith of each, he shows the reward too, saying, "that believing you may have eternal life in his name." If he were truly Son of God by adoption and not by nature, by naming only and not also what is understood in the naming, he would have explained this nowhere more than at the end of his writing, lest faith left in doubt should lose eternal life through the uncertainty of belief. But the evangelist, who was appointed for this, that, having the grace of the Holy Spirit, he might set out most clearly the things that belong to the rewards of eternal life, did not close his gospel ambiguously but expressed it most plainly: the gospels were written "that you may believe," he says, "that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have eternal life in his name." Is there here any suspicion of a creature in the Son of God, where he who believes that Christ is the Son of God possesses eternal life, and in no other way than in his name? He is certainly not a creature but creator, and not son by adoption but true Son of God: for in the name of a creature no one can obtain even temporal life—unless someone is said to grant it by not taking it away.

X. "God made himself a Son out of nothing," he says. I pass over many testimonies: let John speak, distinguished by the love of Christ the Lord. Writing his letter he says: "Everyone who loves the Father loves him who was born of him." Did he say, "loves him whom God made from nothing"? He would not have named the Father at all unless he had known a Son born of him. And suppose now that it is to be understood as you, heretic, interpret it—namely, that he whom John says was born of the Father was made by him from nothing: then I ask, according to you, was Christ alone made from nothing? Was not, to say nothing of other things, the world itself made from nothing? Then the world too is to be loved by us, if the Father is to be loved. But the same John cries: "Do not love the world." Is John so fickle as to preach contradictions? Far be the impiety of saying that John, who spoke in the Holy Spirit, contradicts himself. He knows the difference between made and born at the very beginning of his gospel, as was explained above when that chapter was treated; and therefore he does not understand as a thing made him whom he says was born of the Father—for he would not have put it in the singular if he had wished what was born of the Father to be understood as a thing made, knowing that many things were made from nothing; but putting it in the singular, he put it of the true Son alone, saying that he was born of the Father, because he alone was born of the Father, while all others were made as by a maker. Do not, then, do violence to the divine words: why do you bring in what he does not say? Why do you teach what he did not teach? If you are a Christian, and if John is a true teacher for you, believe what he taught. "He was born of the Father," he says: if you believe this, you love the Father, and by loving the Father you love the Son who was born of him; but if you do not believe that he was born of the Father, you love neither the Father nor him who was born of him: you do not love in this way, since you deny in the Father what is the Father's, that is, to beget, and you deny in the Son what is the Son's, that is, to be born. And hear now what name blessed John gave you, saying: "This is the antichrist, who denies the Father and the Son." You falsely give yourself the surname of Christian; but by truthful John you are called antichrist, as your sect deserves. I lie if you do not understand the creator in the word "Father," and assert a creature in the name "Son." John names Father and Son, and you interpret in these names creator and creature. Rightly, then, are you called antichrist, who deny the Father and the Son under an impious interpretation.

XI. But hear further, whoever you are, insolent and defiant toward the Son, who boast about the person of the Father: understand that you cannot have the Father if you do not confess the Son too. The same John continues: "Whoever denies the Son does not (have) the Father either; whoever confesses the Son has (both the Son and) the Father." You see that everywhere John sets down the names themselves, so that nothing else may be understood than what is in the nature of the names. And yet, if the forehead of your impudence can still bear the blows of stones, and if the obstinacy of your hardness is so great that, when you hear Father and Son, you still do not believe a true Father and a true Son, see: the same John who was loved by the Lord, returning the Lord's love, with a stronger stone crushes now not only the forehead but the very serpent's head of your impiety, writing at the end of his letter: "We know that the Son of God has come, and became flesh for our sake, and suffered, and rising from the dead took us up, and gave us a good understanding, that we may know him who is true, and that we may be in his true Son Jesus Christ. This is the true (God) and eternal life, and our resurrection is in him." It cannot be explained how many stones and rocks of words he has heaped up against you in this one testimony. "We know," he says, "that the Son of God has come." You have one confession concerning the Son; and a little later, after the mysteries of his incarnation, passion, and resurrection, which he certainly performed for our sake, he goes on to say: "and gave us a good understanding"—without doubt because he himself is a good giver, giving a good understanding. We do not understand impiously if we say that this good understanding is the Holy Spirit, who is also called the Spirit of understanding, in whom we know him who is true. For without the Holy Spirit the truth cannot be known: you have the testimony in the gospel, where God promises the Holy Spirit himself and says of him, "He will bear witness to me"—certainly through the apostles, or through any preachers of the Son of God, giving them understanding as the Spirit of understanding for knowing the truth. Hence the apostle Paul too, writing to the Corinthians, says: "But we have not received the spirit of this world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we may know the things given us by God." He gave, then, a good understanding, that is, the Holy Spirit, that we may know him who is true.

XII. If you still do not understand from so many sayings set out above, at least from what follows notice that all suspicions of impious interpretation are excluded: "that we may be," he says, "in his true Son Jesus Christ." And he makes the pious faith still denser, saying: "This is the true God"; and he is not yet silent, but heaps it up and adds to it, so that the impious sense, trusting in sophistical arguments, may be overwhelmed; for he continues: "and eternal life, and our resurrection is in him." Where now are those impious sophisms of yours that you learned under the teaching of your bishop Aristotle, saying: "He is son, but not a true son; he is God, but not true God"? See, in one testimony the true name of the Son is expressed in so many ways—indeed that he is also true God. For how is he not true God who is true Son? Since the true God is proved not only from the name of true Son but also by the fact that he is eternal life. For eternal life has neither beginning nor end; therefore Christ is true God, having neither beginning nor end, being himself eternal life, which is without beginning and end. And since he is our resurrection, the power of true divinity is recognized in him, since he shuts out death by the power of resurrection, by the example of the man whom he took, in whom he deigned to be born of the Virgin, and in whom we too have already risen—each of us to have his own resurrection according to the merit of faith and life, either to refreshment or to burning. See, wretch, lest you still not believe him to be the true Son and begin to have a resurrection to the perpetual punishment of hell in the outer darkness, where there will be weeping of eyes and gnashing of teeth—if indeed something still more dreadful does not await those impious toward the Son.

XIII. It has been sufficiently proved, I think, though with very few testimonies, that he is the true Son of God, born of the Father, not made from nothing. But still, I beg, show untiring patience, so that we may prove this same thing from the old Scripture by even one testimony. You say, heretic, that the Son was made from nothing, though you have read this nowhere; you deny what is written, that he was born of the Father. Tell me, whose are the words: "From the womb before the morning star I begot you"? If you doubt, look at the beginning of his psalm and read what is written: "The Lord said to my Lord: Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies the footstool of your feet." The Saviour himself used this testimony when he wished to be believed Lord, speaking to those who thought him only a man born of the seed of David, and not also God as Son of God. And the apostle Paul, believing this same thing which the Holy Spirit long ago spoke in David and later explained, says in his letter: "To which of the angels did he ever say, Sit at my right hand?"—explaining that none of the angels is such as the Son is; for all the angels were made, but the Son alone was born, to whom also he says, "Sit at my right hand," because he alone is the only-begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father. An exposition of the whole psalm is not now necessary, but only this is to be proved: that the Lord, the Father, says to the Son, "to my Lord: Sit at my right hand," so that what is said in what follows may be believed to have been said by none other than the Father, that is: "From the womb before the morning star I begot you." Is it not most truly proved by this testimony too that the impious voice of those who say God made the Son from nothing is buried? For how from nothing, when the Father himself cries, "From the womb before the morning star I begot you"? And see that you do not think we understand that God consists of a composition of members or parts. Far be this impiety. For God, whatever he is, is simple; wholly the same according to substance, not part and part, not member and member, but, as we said, something simple, which is whole and perfect, and yet inestimable and inexplicable. Although, then, he is such as not to subsist in members or parts, yet divine Scripture, when it wishes to commend to us a true understanding of the maker, speaks from what we know, saying that the heavens are the works of his hands, or each creature; for among men a work or construction is truly and properly understood as what is done with the hands; so when something is seen made by art, it is referred to the hands of the craftsman. Likewise, when we wish among ourselves to designate the nature of a son, we mention the womb; for no true son is born otherwise than from the womb. God, then, wishing to show a Son born of himself, said that he begot him from the womb, lest you, heretic, should slander that it was from nothing. But just as, when God is said to have made with his hands, it is to be understood in a way worthy of God, so too when he begot from the womb, let us not think anything contrary to what is worthy of God. This, however, must be most certainly confessed: that he is truly creator in the signification of the work of hands, and truly Father in the signification of the begetting womb, even though he has no members in himself.

XIV. But since you are accustomed to say, Arians, "In God to make is the same as to beget," I will fittingly refute this perversity of yours too on the present occasion. There are many works of the hands, certainly, but there is one only-begotten Son of the womb: so to make is not the same as to beget. All things indeed were made through the Word and in wisdom; but the Word, or wisdom, was born not through anyone but from God; hence to make is not the same as to beget. For unless there were a difference between making and begetting, nothing prevented saying, "My hands begot you, and the heavens are the works of my womb." But as the expression has much difference, so too have the things that the expression determines. "From the womb," he says, "before the morning star I begot you." The Father says this to the Son, not because the Son did not know it, but so that we might know the property of the Father toward the Son, and of the Son toward the Father; therefore it is written so, as the only-begotten Son himself, being wisdom, says: "Before all the hills he begot me." Hence in this place too he is said to have been begotten before the morning star. In the word "morning star" every brighter creature is signified; so when it is said, "From the womb before the morning star" he was begotten, it is specially taught that he was truly born of the Father and not made; and "before the morning star" signifies before every creature, according to what is said: "And he is before all."

### Scripture references

- 1 Sam 17:49: allusion, high confidence
- Matt 3:17: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 3:14: quotation, high confidence
- Phil 2:6: quotation, high confidence
- Phil 2:7: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 17:5: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 15:13: quotation, high confidence
- John 2:16: quotation, high confidence
- John 9:35: quotation, high confidence
- Phil 2:8: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 26:64: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 16:13: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 16:16: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 16:17: allusion, high confidence
- Jer 1:5: allusion, high confidence
- Luke 1:41: allusion, high confidence
- Matt 21:31: quotation, high confidence
- Prov 9:9: quotation, high confidence
- John 13:23: allusion, high confidence
- John 1:18: quotation, high confidence
- Luke 16:22: allusion, medium confidence
- John 3:16: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 22:12: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 8:32: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 5:6: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 5:7: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 5:8: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 5:9: quotation, high confidence
- Ps 22:6 (21:7 LXX): allusion, medium confidence
- Matt 26:38: allusion, high confidence
- John 8:56: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Cor 2:8: allusion, high confidence
- Rom 4:13: allusion, high confidence
- Rom 1:25: quotation, high confidence
- John 20:30: quotation, high confidence
- John 20:31: quotation, high confidence
- 1 John 5:1: quotation, high confidence
- 1 John 2:15: quotation, high confidence
- 1 John 2:22: quotation, high confidence
- 1 John 2:23: quotation, high confidence
- 1 John 5:20: quotation, high confidence
- John 15:26: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Cor 2:12: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 8:12: allusion, high confidence
- Ps 110:1 (109:1 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Ps 110:3 (109:3 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Matt 22:44: allusion, high confidence
- Heb 1:13: quotation, high confidence
- Ps 102:25 (101:26 LXX): allusion, medium confidence
- Prov 8:25: quotation, high confidence
- Col 1:17: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- 1 Sam 17:49; Matt 3:17; Matt 3:14; Phil 2:6–7; Matt 17:1–5; Matt 15:13; John 2:16; John 9:35; Phil 2:8; Matt 26:64; Matt 16:13, 16–17; Jer 1:5; Luke 1:41; Matt 16:14; Matt 21:31; Prov 9:9 (LXX); John 13:23; John 1:18; Luke 16:22; John 3:16; Gen 22:12, 16; Rom 8:32; Rom 5:6–9; Ps 22:6; Matt 26:38; John 8:56; 1 Cor 2:8; Rom 4:13; Rom 1:25; John 20:30–31; 1 John 5:1; 1 John 2:15; 1 John 2:22–23; 1 John 5:20 (in an expanded Old Latin form); John 15:26; 1 Cor 2:12; Matt 8:12; Ps 110:1, 3 (LXX/Vulg. 109:1, 3); Matt 22:44; Heb 1:13; Ps 102:25; Prov 8:25; Col 1:17. "Your bishop Aristotle" is Faustinus's gibe at the Arians' use of logic.

### Citation (SBL)

Faustinus, Trin. 2 (PL 13:49d–62c; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/faustinus-de-trinitate/2).

## On the Trinity 3

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/faustinus-de-trinitate/3/#p-3
- Source: PL 13:62c–67c
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Faustinus proves the Son almighty and unchangeable from Zechariah, Revelation, Wisdom, the Psalms, and Isaiah, and explains Christ's weaknesses as belonging to the human nature he assumed.

### Latin text

I. Percutiamus et aliam eorum blasphemiam, per quam, ut scribis, dicunt quod non sit omnipotens filius. Et hoc breviter faciam, ne longius extendens, laborem legenti tribuam. Dicant, quando non est omnipotens, per quem, ut ipsi quoque confitentur, omnia facta sunt: dent unum opus patris quod non fecerit et filius, ut probent non esse omnipotentem filium: at cum nullum sit opus, quod non patris existat et filii, sine dubio omnipotens est filius, faciens quacumque facit omnipotens pater. Sufficit, si hoc ipsum etiam divinis testimoniis approbemus. Apud prophetam Zachariam legimus: O, o, fugite a terra Aquilonis, dicit Dominus, quoniam a quatuor ventis coeli colligam vos in Sion: resalvamini, qui inhabitatis filiam Babylonis, quoniam haec dicit Dominus omnipotens: Post honorem misit me super gentes quae exspoliaverunt vos; quoniam qui tangit vos, sicut qui tangit pupillam oculi ipsius: quoniam ecce ego infero manum meam super eos; et erunt spolia, qui spoliaverunt illos: et scietis quia Dominus omnipotens misit me. Si intendas huic capitulo, Invenies quod filius omnipotens a patre omnipotente sit missus, ut positis in captivitate subveniat. Considera enim prophetam dicere: Haec dicit Dominus omnipotens: et audiamus, propheta referente, quid dicit Dominus omnipotens: Post honorem, inquit, misit me super gentes: sine dubio filius est, qui post honorem missum esse se dicit super gentes, quem propheta dicit Dominum omnipotentem. Hic ergo filius existens Dominus omnipotens in ultimo testimonio, et scietis quia Dominus omnipotens misit me, ut supra dictum est, ab omnipotente missus est patre. Sed et apostolus Joannes in Apocalypsi haec dicit: Amen, testis fidelis, initium creatum Dei, qui est, et qui erat, et qui venturus est Dominus Deus omnipotens. Et Salomon inter caetera ait de sapientia, quae utique Christus filius Dei est: Splendor est enim lucis aeternae, et speculum sine macula; Dominus omnipotens, nomen est ei: Item: Ipse et qui redemit illos, Dominus omnipotens nomen est illi. Item in Mach.: Nondum enim omnipotentis, et omnia possidentis Dei judicium, majestatis, et imago bonitatis illius, et cum sit una, omnia potest. Quomodo non omnipotens est, cum possit omnia? Nam et supra de eadem sapientia dixerat, omnem habens virtutem: ergo omnipotens est, omnem habens virtutem. Sed adhuc ipse Salomon ait de eadem sapientia: Et permanens in semetipsa manet. Et alibi Salomon: Non enim impossibilis est omnipotens tua manus. Item ipse: Omnipotens sermo tuus exsiliens de regalibus sedibus. II. Agnosce omnipotentiam ejus, cum omnia innovat: agnosce interea et quod indemutabilis est, cum in semetipsa permanet omnia innovans: id est, licet omnia innovet, ipsa tamen indemutabilis perseverat; quod nisi non Dei omnipotentis est. Sed quia vere indemutabilis est filius et conditor omnium, etiam his Psalmistae versibus approbatur: In initio tu Domine terram fundasti, et opera manuum tuarum sunt coeli: ipsi peribunt, tu autem permanebis, et omnes sicut vestimentum veterascent: et sicut opertorium mutabis eos, et mutabuntur: tu autem idem es, et anni tui non deficient. Hoc de filio Dei scriptum interpretatus est Paulus scribens ad Hebraeos. Habes ergo per haec capitula et omnipotentem filium, et indemutabilem, et omnium conditorem, sicut et omnium artificem, dicente Salomone: Omnium enim artifex docuit me sapientia. Sed ne duos omnipotentes intelligas, praecavendum est: licet enim et pater sit omnipotens et filius, tamen unus est omnipotens, sicut et unus est Deus: quin Patris et Filii eadem omnipotentia est, sicut et eadem deitas, secundum quod supra pro viribus et conditione temporis coarctantis expressum est. Sed et nunc inferius explanabitur testimonio Esaiae prophetae: Fatigata est AEgyptus, et negotiatio AEthiopum, et Sabaim viri excelsi ad te transibunt, et tui erunt servi et post te sequentur alligati vinculis, et adorabunt te, et in te deprecabuntur: quoniam in te est Deus, et non est Deus praeter te. Tu enim es Deus, et nesciebamus, Deus Israel Salvator. Erubescent et confundentur omnes, qui adversantur ei, et ibunt cum confusione.. Intende, quia ad filium dicitur, et tui erunt servi, et post te sequentur alligati vinculis, et adorabunt te, et in te deprecabuntur. Ergo et hinc Deus verus ostenditur filius, cum adoratur. Dei enim est adorari: siquidem et alibi docet Apostolus de filio Dei esse scriptum: Et adorent eum omnes angeli Dei: scilicet quia vere Deum et Dominum. Sed in praesenti testimonio Esaiae, sicut ipse Deus, sic etiam in ipso Deus est: ait enim, Quoniam in te Deus est, et non est Deus praeter te. Et cum dixerit in Deo Deum esse, subsequitur, et dicit: Tu enim es Deus, et nesciebamus, Deus Israel Salvator. Ergo cum Deus in Deo est, et non est Deus praeter eum in quo Deus est, et ipse est Deus Salvator Israel; ostenditur unitas divinitatis in Patre et Filio, sicut et omnipotentiae, et quidquid omnino divinae substantiae est: hoc solo differens a patre filius, quod ille pater est, et hic filius; id est, quod ille genuit, et hic natus est: non tamen quia natus est, minus habet aliquid, quam quod in Deo patre est, imago Dei invisibilis existens, et splendor gloriae, et character substantiae ejus. Hoc qui de filio Dei non credunt, Esaiae sententiam sustinebunt dicentis: Erubescent, et confundentur omnes qui adversantur ei, et ibunt cum confusione. Sed et Jeremias de filii deitate exprimit dicens: Hic Deus noster est, et non deputabitur alius absque eo: qui invenit omnem viam prudentiae, et dedit eam Jacob puero suo, et Israel dilecto sibi: post (haec) in terra visus est, et cum hominibus conversatus est. Non utique pater Deus, sed filius factus homo in terra visus est, et conversatus est cum hominibus, naturam in se hominis exercens sine peccato propter nostram salutem; de quo et legimus: Et Verbum caro factum est, et habitavit in nobis: et vidimus gloriam ejus. gloriam quasi unigeniti a patre. III. Si ergo Verbum caro factum est, et habitavit in nobis, natus ex virgine nobiscum Deus; quo nunc, haeretice, proficis? Si infirmitates assumptae carnis objicias, si animae humanae quam cum carne susceperat, utiles nobis aestus describas; cum constet cum, secundum quod Deus est et Dei filius, esse per omnia ut Patrem impassibilem. Ideo enim et illa quae sunt deitatis ejus promisimus, ut jam si quid humilitatis et infirmitatis in Christo legitur, non deitas ejus violata credatur, sed naturae suscepti hominis, et disciplinae quam tradebat, exsecutio probetur. Vanum est enim noluisse ut hominem nasci, licet ex virgine tamen hominem, nec infirmam hominis in se designare naturam. Vanum est praecepta dare, quibus homines viverent, et ipsam jam, quia semel homo esse dignatus est, sine praeceptorum observatione concurrisse. Ille si non hominis infirmitatem factus homo exercere voluisset, quis crederet, quod homo factus fuerat ex originis nostrae matrice, licet sine viri complexu? quandoquidem hodieque non desunt, qui negent eum nostram gestasse corpulentiam, etiam postea quam infirmitatem carnis exercuit. Ille si factus homo non servasset, quam docere venerat disciplinam, non bonum magisterii dedisset exemplum. Quis enim discipulorum servare conaretur, quod non magister ipse servasset factus ut homo; cum hodie jam quicumque servat ipsius exemplo, relevatur ut servet? Vides quia et infirmitates pati debuit, ut homo natus probaretur; et factus homo observare quodcumque docuisset, ut caeteros invitaret; magis autem dixerim ut caeteros sublevaret: jam enim caro nostra didicit ejus carne relevari. Si enim infirmitates hominis pati noluisset, ut quid et de virgine homine natus est? et si nolebat observare praecepta, quia Dominus; ut quid et formam servi acceperat, quae praeceptis et obedientiae obnoxia est? 5 atquin totum sacramentum a Deo assumpti hominis hoc, quod in Adam non est de inobedientia servatum, in Christo homine de obedientia servaretur. Hoc ipsum Apostolus Paulus inter caetera quae divine tractat, asserit: Sicut enim per inobedientiam unius hominis peccatores constituti sunt multi, ita et per unius obeditionem justi constituuntur multi. (Sicut enim per unius hominis contemptum peccatores constituti sum multi, ita et per sacramentum obauditionis in Christo, quam non ex infirmitate, sed ex bonitate deitatis praestat in salutarem hominis disciplinam, salvantur multi). IV. Videamus nunc et sacramentum passionis. Totus Adam peccaverat; totus Adam expulsus de paradiso fuerat: totum suscipere debuit expulsum, qui totum salvare venerat. Non autem videbatur totum expulsum in se suscepisse, nisi illum suscepisset per substantiam carnis et animae: hoc enim totus homo est per naturam. Hoc autem tunc probari potuit, si ipsas infirmitates carnis ejus et animae sustineret, licet sine vitio peccatorum; ut vere non aliam substantiam carnis et animae suscepisse putaretur: ut cum in se hominem ab infirmitatibus et passionibus liberat, etiam hos qui secundum vestigia ejus sectantur, liberatos esse crederemus. Sed patrocinetur huic sensui gentium doctor Apostolus vivacius, et ut mysticus scribens: Sicut enim in Adam omnes moriuntur, ita et in Christo omnes vivificantur. Sed naturam suscepti in eo hominis melius describat Esaias: Domine quis credidit auditui nostro? et brachium Domini cui revelatum est? Annuntiavimus coram ipso sicut puer, sicut radix inveterata sitienti: non est species ei neque honor formae: et vidimus eum, et non habebat speciem neque decorem: sed species ejus sine honore, deficiens praeter caeteros homines: homo in plaga positus, et sciens ferre infirmitatem, quia aversa est facies: depretiatus est, nec aestimatus est. Hic peccata nostra fert, et pro nobis dolet: et aestimavimus eum in dolore esse et in plaga et in malo: ipse autem vulneratus est propter iniquitates nostras, et infirmatus est propter peccata nostra: doctrina pacis nostrae super eum: plaga ejus nos sanati sumus. Omnes sicut oves erravimus: homo a via sua erravit, et Dominus tradidit eum pro peccatis nostris: et ipse propter quod male tractatus est, non aperuit os. Sicut ovis ad occisionem adductus est, et sicut agnus coram tondente se, sic non aperuit os suum: in humilitate judicium ejus sublatum est. Generationem ejus quis enarrabit? quia auferetur a terra vita ejus: ab iniquitatibus plebis meae adductus est ad mortem; et dabo malos pro sepultura ejus, et ipsos divites pro morte ejus. 9 Quia iniquitatem non fecit, neque dolum in ore suo locutus est. V. Sufficit hoc testimonio probatum, quod omnem in se hominis naturam peregit, sine peccato tamen suo, licet peccata nostra portaret. Sed ne homo tantummodo crederetur, interposuit, et dixit: Generationem ejus quis enarrabit? illam utique quia de Deo patre generatus est, quae sine initio est: et ideo de ea ait, Generationem ejus quis enarrabit? non quasi ignorabilem, sed quasi inexplicabilem dicens. Omnes enim catholici scimus, quia de Deo patre natus est, sed inenarrabiliter: et ideo ait, Generationem ejus quis enarrabit? Hanc autem generationem qua de virgine nascitur secundum carnem, refert Evangelium, ejus quoque tempora describens. Divinae autem generationis initium, ut diximus, investigari non potest, sicut nec divinitatis quae illi una cum patre est: et ideo ait, Generationem ejus quis enarrabit? Si ergo in sacramento fidei hoc accepimus, ut Christum Deum credamus et hominem; Deum quidem, de Deo sine initio tantum; hominem autem, quia de virgine in temporibus natum: non calumniemur divinitati ejus, cum pro nostra medela quae sunt hominis exsequitur, habens in se acceptam hominis naturam: quia nec homo negandus est, cum propriae divinitatis naturalem exerit potestatem, accepta in se forma servili. Si ergo et orat patrem, et si nihil a se facere se dicit, nisi quod patrem viderit facientem; ut nihil nunc aliud dicam, certe humanae extollentiae modum, qua magister imponit; ut tanto magis discat homo Deo deferre, quanto detulit et verus filius, qui causam subjectionis propriam non habebat, qui et formam orandi dederat, ut non tam fieri nostram voluntatem rogaremus, sed voluntatem Patris qui in coelis est. Et ideo quod docuerat ut impleret, ait: Non veni meam voluntatem facere, sed voluntatem ejus qui misit me· Sed et quod minor factus est, quod crescit, quod proficit, quod esurit, quod sitit, quod laborat, quod flet, quod dolet, quod tristis est, postremo quod moritur: ad naturam assumpti hominis referendum est, quam pro nostrae sacramento salutis mystice exercuit, sub intelligentia qua supra in testimonio Esaiae relatum est. Sub hoc fidei sacramento non solum illa capitula solvuntur de quibus interrogare dignata es, sed el omnes quaestiones quas contra filii divinitatem coaptant impii haeretici.

### English translation (Claude)

I. Let us strike another blasphemy of theirs too, by which, as you write, they say that the Son is not almighty. And I will do this briefly, so as not to burden the reader by going on at length. Let them say when he is not almighty, through whom, as they too confess, all things were made: let them produce one work of the Father that the Son has not done also, to prove that the Son is not almighty. But since there is no work that is not both the Father's and the Son's, without doubt the Son is almighty, doing whatever the almighty Father does. It is enough if we also prove this by divine testimonies. In the prophet Zechariah we read: "Oh, oh, flee from the land of the north, says the Lord, for from the four winds of heaven I will gather you into Zion; be saved, you who dwell with the daughter of Babylon; for thus says the Lord almighty: After the glory he sent me against the nations that plundered you; for he who touches you is as one who touches the pupil of his eye; for behold, I bring my hand upon them, and they will be spoil for those who plundered them; and you will know that the Lord almighty has sent me." If you attend to this chapter, you will find that the almighty Son was sent by the almighty Father to help those placed in captivity. For consider that the prophet says, "Thus says the Lord almighty"; and let us hear, as the prophet reports, what the Lord almighty says: "After the glory," he says, "he sent me against the nations." Without doubt it is the Son who says that after the glory he was sent against the nations, whom the prophet calls the Lord almighty. This Son, then, being Lord almighty, was, in the last testimony, "and you will know that the Lord almighty has sent me," as was said above, sent by the almighty Father. And the apostle John too says in the Apocalypse: "The Amen, the faithful witness, the beginning of God's creation, who is and who was and who is to come, the Lord God almighty." And Solomon among other things says of wisdom, which is certainly Christ the Son of God: "For she is the radiance of eternal light and a spotless mirror; the Lord almighty is his name." Likewise: "He who redeemed them, the Lord almighty is his name." Likewise in …: "[She is the breath of the power of God and a pure emanation of the glory] of the almighty God, who possesses all things, [the mirror] of his majesty and the image of his goodness, and, being one, she can do all things." How is he not almighty, when he can do all things? For above too he had said of the same wisdom, "having all power": therefore he is almighty, having all power. And Solomon still says of the same wisdom: "And remaining in herself she renews all things." And elsewhere Solomon: "For your almighty hand is not powerless." Likewise he: "Your almighty word leaping down from the royal thrones."

II. Recognize his omnipotence when he renews all things; recognize meanwhile also that he is unchangeable, since, renewing all things, he remains in himself—that is, though he renews all things, he himself continues unchangeable; which belongs to none but the almighty God. And that the Son is truly unchangeable and the founder of all things is proved also by these verses of the psalmist: "In the beginning, Lord, you founded the earth, and the heavens are the works of your hands; they will perish, but you will remain; and all will grow old like a garment, and like a cloak you will change them and they will be changed; but you are the same, and your years will not fail." Paul, writing to the Hebrews, interpreted this as written of the Son of God. You have, then, by these chapters, a Son almighty, unchangeable, and founder of all things, as also maker of all things, Solomon saying: "For wisdom, the maker of all things, taught me." But one must take care not to understand two almighties: for although both the Father and the Son are almighty, yet there is one almighty, as there is one God, because the omnipotence of the Father and the Son is the same, as is the deity, according to what was expressed above as far as strength and the constraint of time allowed. And it will now be explained further below by the testimony of the prophet Isaiah: "Egypt is wearied, and the merchandise of the Ethiopians, and the Sabaeans, tall men, will pass over to you and be your servants, and they will follow behind you bound in chains, and they will worship you and pray in you, for God is in you, and there is no God besides you. For you are God, and we did not know it, the God of Israel, the Saviour. All who oppose him will be ashamed and confounded, and will go in confusion." Notice that it is said to the Son: "and they will be your servants, and they will follow behind you bound in chains, and they will worship you and pray in you." Therefore from here too the Son is shown to be true God, since he is worshipped; for to be worshipped belongs to God—since elsewhere too the apostle teaches that it is written of the Son of God, "And let all the angels of God worship him"—because he is truly God and Lord. But in the present testimony of Isaiah, as he himself is God, so also God is in him; for it says, "For God is in you, and there is no God besides you." And having said that God is in God, it continues: "For you are God, and we did not know it, the God of Israel, the Saviour." Since, then, God is in God, and there is no God besides him in whom God is, and he himself is God the Saviour of Israel, the unity of divinity in the Father and the Son is shown, as also of omnipotence and of whatever at all belongs to the divine substance—the Son differing from the Father only in this, that the one is Father and the other Son; that is, that the one begot and the other was born. Yet because he was born he does not have anything less than what is in God the Father, being the image of the invisible God, the radiance of glory and the imprint of his substance. Those who do not believe this of the Son of God will bear the sentence of Isaiah, who says: "All who oppose him will be ashamed and confounded, and will go in confusion." Jeremiah too expresses the deity of the Son, saying: "This is our God, and no other will be reckoned beside him, who found every way of understanding and gave it to Jacob his servant and to Israel his beloved; afterward he was seen on earth and lived among men." Not God the Father, certainly, but the Son, made man, was seen on earth and lived among men, exercising in himself the nature of man without sin for our salvation; of whom we also read: "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we saw his glory, glory as of the only-begotten from the Father."

III. If, then, the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, God with us born of a virgin, what do you gain now, heretic? If you object the weaknesses of the flesh he assumed, if you describe the stirrings of the human soul which he took together with the flesh—stirrings useful to us—it is still established that, as he is God and Son of God, he is in all things impassible like the Father. For this is why we set out first the things that belong to his deity: so that now, if anything of humility and weakness is read in Christ, his deity may not be believed violated, but it may be proved to be the carrying out of the nature of the man he took and of the discipline he was handing on. For it is empty to have willed to be born a man—born of a virgin, yet a man—and not to show in himself the weak nature of man. It is empty to give precepts by which men should live, and yet, having once deigned to be man, to have gone on without observing the precepts. If, made man, he had not willed to exercise man's weakness, who would believe that he had been made man from the womb of our origin, though without a man's embrace? Since even today there are those who deny that he bore our bodily substance, even after he exercised the weakness of the flesh. If, made man, he had not kept the discipline he had come to teach, he would not have given a good example of teaching. For which of the disciples would try to keep what the master himself, made man, had not kept—when today whoever keeps it is helped to keep it by his example? You see that he had to suffer weaknesses, so that he might be proved to have been born a man; and, made man, to observe whatever he had taught, so that he might invite others—or rather, I would say, so that he might lift others up: for now our flesh has learned to be lifted up by his flesh. For if he had not been willing to suffer man's weaknesses, why was he born a man of a virgin? And if he was not willing to observe the precepts, because he was Lord, why had he taken the form of a servant, which is subject to precepts and obedience? Indeed the whole mystery of the man assumed by God is this: that what was not kept in Adam through disobedience should be kept in Christ the man through obedience. The apostle Paul asserts this very thing among the other things he treats divinely: "For as by the disobedience of one man many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one many are made righteous." (For as by the contempt of one man many were made sinners, so too through the mystery of obedience in Christ—which he shows not from weakness but from the goodness of his deity, for the saving discipline of man—many are saved.)

IV. Let us now see the mystery of the passion too. The whole Adam had sinned; the whole Adam had been expelled from paradise: he who had come to save the whole had to take up the whole that was expelled. But he would not have been seen to take up into himself the whole that was expelled unless he had taken it up in the substance of flesh and soul; for this is the whole man by nature. And this could be proved only if he bore the very weaknesses of his flesh and soul, though without the fault of sins, so that he might not be thought to have taken another substance of flesh and soul; so that, as he frees the man in himself from weaknesses and sufferings, we might believe that those too who follow in his footsteps have been freed. Let the apostle, the teacher of the nations, support this sense more vividly, writing as one who speaks in mysteries: "For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all are made alive." But let Isaiah describe better the nature of the man taken up in him: "Lord, who has believed our report, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? We announced before him as a child, as a root aged in thirsty ground; he has no beauty nor honour of form; and we saw him, and he had no beauty nor comeliness, but his appearance was without honour, failing beyond other men; a man placed under a stroke, and knowing how to bear weakness, because his face was turned away; he was despised and not esteemed. He bears our sins and suffers pain for us; and we reckoned him to be in pain and under a stroke and in affliction; but he was wounded for our iniquities and weakened for our sins; the teaching of our peace was upon him; by his stroke we have been healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; a man has strayed from his way, and the Lord gave him up for our sins; and he, because he was ill-treated, did not open his mouth. Like a sheep he was led to the slaughter, and like a lamb before its shearer, so he did not open his mouth; in humiliation his judgment was taken away. Who will declare his generation? For his life is taken from the earth; because of the iniquities of my people he was led to death; and I will give the wicked for his burial and the rich for his death; because he did no iniquity, nor was deceit found in his mouth."

V. It is sufficiently proved by this testimony that he went through the whole nature of man in himself, yet without sin of his own, though he bore our sins. But lest he be believed to be only a man, the prophet put in between: "Who will declare his generation?"—that generation, certainly, by which he was begotten of God the Father, which is without beginning; and therefore he says of it, "Who will declare his generation?"—calling it not unknowable but inexplicable. For all of us catholics know that he was born of God the Father, but unspeakably; and therefore he says, "Who will declare his generation?" The generation by which he is born of a virgin according to the flesh the gospel relates, describing its times too. But the beginning of the divine generation, as we said, cannot be searched out, as neither can that of the divinity which he has as one with the Father: and therefore he says, "Who will declare his generation?" If, then, in the mystery of faith we have received this—to believe Christ God and man: God, of God, without beginning; man, because born of a virgin in time—let us not slander his divinity when, for our healing, he carries out the things of man, having in himself the nature of man that he received; for neither is the man to be denied when he exerts the natural power of his own divinity, having received in himself the form of a servant. If, then, he prays to the Father, and if he says that he does nothing of himself but what he sees the Father doing—to say nothing else now—certainly the master is setting a limit to human pride, so that man may learn to defer to God all the more as the true Son deferred, who had no reason of his own for subjection, and who had also given a form of prayer, so that we should ask not so much that our will be done as the will of the Father who is in heaven. And therefore, to fulfil what he had taught, he says: "I did not come to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me." And that he was made lower, that he grows, that he advances, that he hungers, that he thirsts, that he labours, that he weeps, that he grieves, that he is sorrowful, and finally that he dies, is to be referred to the nature of the man he assumed, which he exercised in a mystery for the sacrament of our salvation, according to the understanding given above in the testimony of Isaiah. Under this mystery of faith not only are those chapters solved about which you deigned to inquire, but also all the questions that impious heretics fit together against the divinity of the Son.

### Scripture references

- Zech 2:6: quotation, high confidence
- Zech 2:8: quotation, high confidence
- Zech 2:9: quotation, high confidence
- Rev 3:14: quotation, high confidence
- Rev 1:8: quotation, high confidence
- Jer 50:34 (27:34 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Ps 102:25 (101:26 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Ps 102:26 (101:27 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Ps 102:27 (101:28 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Heb 1:10: allusion, high confidence
- Isa 45:14: quotation, high confidence
- Isa 45:15: quotation, high confidence
- Isa 45:16: quotation, high confidence
- Heb 1:6: quotation, high confidence
- Col 1:15: allusion, high confidence
- Heb 1:3: allusion, high confidence
- John 1:14: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 5:19: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 15:22: quotation, high confidence
- Isa 53:1: quotation, high confidence
- Isa 53:2: quotation, high confidence
- Isa 53:3: quotation, high confidence
- Isa 53:4: quotation, high confidence
- Isa 53:5: quotation, high confidence
- Isa 53:6: quotation, high confidence
- Isa 53:7: quotation, high confidence
- Isa 53:8: quotation, high confidence
- Isa 53:9: quotation, high confidence
- John 5:19: allusion, high confidence
- Matt 6:10: allusion, high confidence
- John 6:38: quotation, high confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Wis 7:26 (Wisdom of Solomon): quotation, high confidence
- Wis 7:25-27 (Wisdom of Solomon): quotation, high confidence
- Wis 11:17 (Wisdom of Solomon): quotation, high confidence
- Wis 18:15 (Wisdom of Solomon): quotation, high confidence
- Wis 7:21 (Wisdom of Solomon): quotation, high confidence
- Bar 3:36-38 (Baruch): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Zech 2:6–9 (LXX/Vulg. 2:6–13 numbering differs slightly); Rev 3:14 with 1:8 ("the beginning of God's creation" in the Old Latin form); Wis 7:26; Jer 50:34 (LXX 27:34); Wis 7:25–27, 23; Wis 11:17; Wis 18:15; Ps 102:25–27 (LXX/Vulg. 101:26–28; Heb 1:10–12); Wis 7:21; Isa 45:14–16 (LXX); Heb 1:6; Col 1:15; Heb 1:3; Bar 3:36–38 (cited as Jeremiah); John 1:14; Rom 5:19; 1 Cor 15:22; Isa 53:1–9 (Old Latin, from the LXX); John 5:19; Matt 6:10; John 6:38. The quotation introduced "in Mach." is in fact a garbled form of Wis 7:25–27; the words in square brackets are supplied from that passage, and the source label is left as "…". The parenthesis after Rom 5:19 is printed in the edition as a paraphrase.

### Citation (SBL)

Faustinus, Trin. 3 (PL 13:62c–67c; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/faustinus-de-trinitate/3).

## On the Trinity 4

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/faustinus-de-trinitate/3/#p-4
- Source: PL 13:67c–69c
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: 'The Father is greater than I' refers to the Son's emptying of himself in the form of a servant, or, as some catholics hold, to the Father's being the source of the Son, not to any inequality of deity.

### Latin text

De hoc quod ait Filius: PATER MAJOR ME EST. I. Accipe nunc et has quaestiones, quas ex diversa parte proposueras fortiores, specialiter absolutas. Dicunt, inquis, haeretici ad depretiandam filii perpetuam et perfectam in omnibus deitatem, Pater major me est. Sed requirendum est, quando hoc filius dixit: nonne quando impletum est in eo quod scriptum est: Minorasti eum paulo minus ab angelis, gloria et honore coronasti eum? Quomodo minoratus est, exponat apostolus Paulus tertii coeli conscius: Paulo minus, inquit, ab angelis minoratum videmus Jesum propter passionem mortis; gloria et honore coronatum, ut gratia Dei mortem gustaret pro omnibus. Pro omnibus, ait, non pro se: ergo qui pro omnibus gustavit mortem, quid mirum si pro omnibus et minoratus est? Pro omnibus (autem) gustavit mortem; non pro se, eo quod pro omnibus in peccati reatu positis ipse homo factus, nullo proprio peccato tenebatur obnoxius. Et vide quomodo hoc ipsum, quod minoratus est propter passionem mortis, et quod gratia Dei pro omnibus gustavit mortem, ad decorem operis interpretatur sapientissimus Paulus ita subsequens: Decebat enim eum propter quem omnia, et per quem omnia, multis filiis in gloriam adductis, ducem salutis eorum per passiones consummare. Vides quam pulchrum, quam ve decorum nostrae salutis sacramentum in eo, quod filius est, minoratus ostenditur. Quomodo ergo ad offuscandam divinitatem ejus improperas, quod exsequitur ad decorem? Pater major me est: hoc tunc dixit, postea quam Verbum caro factum est, et habitavit in nobis. II. Et vide ne demutabilem credas, quasi desierit esse Verbum, postea quam caro factum est; sed manens semper Verbum Deus, el caro quoque factum est. Etsi enim dixit, Et Verbum caro factum est, pressius loqui voluit, ne quis in eo non veram carnem crederet. Siquidem et post tam pressam locutionem non desunt qui dicunt, carnem illum habuisse putativam. Ut autem manifestum sit Verbum carnem factum, non demutatione divinae substantiae, sed susceptione carnis humanae, intende quid sequitur: Et habitavit in nobis. Non ergo interceptum est Verbum demutatione, quod per carnem assumptam habitavit in nobis: habitatio enim probat perseverantiam Verbi. Hoc ideo interposui, ne quis filium Dei demutabilem credat, cum legit: Et Verbum caro factum est. Dicit ergo filius, Pater major me est, postea quam Verbum caro factum est, et suscepit officium ministrantis. Venit enim non ministrari, sed ministrare. Pater major me est. Quid ais deitas? quomodo dicis patrem te esse majorem? certe una tibi et patri imago est secundum Moysen, eademque forma secundum apostolum Paulum, qui me etiam docuit, quod sis splendor gloriae et character substantiae ejus. Sed et tu ipse docuisti dicens: Qui me vidit, vidit patrem; et ego in patre et pater in me. Ego et pater unum sumus. Sed et quaecumque facit pater, facis et tu similiter: tua enim verba sunt: Quaecumque enim ille facit, haec et filius similiter facit: et sicut pater suscitat mortuos et vivificat, sic et filius, quos vult, vivificat, et ut honorificent filium, sicut honorificant patrem. Cum ergo eadem tibi Imago est, eadem forma eademque substantia, eadem naturae unitas, eadem potestas, eadem libertas voluntatis, idem honor, et omnia omnino quae patris sunt, tua sunt, quia quae tua sunt, patris sunt; quomodo dicis, Pater major me est, cum in omnibus quae sunt deitatis, talis es qualis el pater? Loquatur apostolus Paulus in quo Christus loquebatur, secundum quod ipse ait: An experimentum quaeritis, qui in me loquitur Christi? Quid dicit Apostolus? qui cum in forma Dei esset constitutus, non rapinam arbitratus est, esse se aequalem Deo. Ergo secundum hoc, quod in forma Dei est et quod aequalis est Deo, non est major pater. Et quomodo major est pater, subsequentia demonstrant (??) Sed semetipsum, inquit, exinanivit, formam servi accipiens. III. Vide ne et hic interceptionem divinitatis intelligas, cum audis, semetipsum exinanivit: intende enim ad hoc quod sequitur, formam servi accipiens. Manere ergo in suo statu ostenditur, qui formam servi dicitur accepisse. Sed quamvis maneat et perseveret in eo status divinus; tamen semetipsum exinanivit, scilicet per occultationem divinitatis, formam servi accipiens in similitudine hominum factus, et habitu inventus ut homo. Humiliavit seipsum factus obediens usque ad mortem, mortem autem crucis· Jam talis est si dicat, Pater major me est: Non impugnat aequalitatem divinitatis, sed designat sacramentum humanitatis per hoc quod semetipsum exinanivit formam servi accipiens. Jam talis si dicat, Qui misit me Pater, mandatum mihi dedit, quid dicam, et quid loquar; et: Descendi de coelo, non ut faciam voluntatem meam, sed voluntatem ejus qui me misit; ostendit, quod semetipsum exinanivit, formam servi accipiens, in similitudinem hominum factus, et habitu inventus ut homo: humiliavit se ipsum factus obediens usque ad mortem: et tamen quae est in his diminutio ejus divinitatis, si ad amputandam in hominibus arrogantiam ipse non sibi arrogans loqueretur? Mentior, si non hoc ipsum testimonium ideo potuit apostolus Paulus, ut ad humilitatem Salvatoris exemplo singulos provocaret. Hoc Ita invenies, si eamdem Epistolam quam scribit ad Philippenses, intentius legeris. Sed et haeretici nolunt ob sacramentum exinaniti Dei per acceptionem formae servilis esse dictum, Pater major me est. Dicamus et nos patrem majorem de solo sacramento generationis: et hunc enim pium sensum nonnulli catholici prosecuti sunt dicentes, patrem et filium ejusdem sub(??)tantiae, et ideo secundum substantiam alterum altero non esse majorem. Qualis enim paler est Deus, talis et Deus filius est: nihil enim minus et se genuit, quam ipse est: perfectus enim existens perfectum genuit. Etsi ergo, qua Deus, Deo aequalis est filius; tamen, qua filius, minor dicitur patre: id est, quia filius de patre sit, et plenitudo existens plenitudinem genuit: pater autem genuit filium, et Ideo non dixit, « Deus major me est, » sed, Pater major me est.

### English translation (Claude)

On the Son's saying, "The Father is greater than I."

I. Receive now also these questions, which you had put forward from the opposing side as the stronger ones, answered one by one. The heretics say, you write, in order to belittle the everlasting and in all things perfect deity of the Son: "The Father is greater than I." But we must ask when the Son said this: was it not when what is written was fulfilled in him: "You made him a little lower than the angels; you crowned him with glory and honour"? How he was made lower, let the apostle Paul explain, who knew the third heaven: "We see Jesus," he says, "made a little lower than the angels because of the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for all." "For all," he says, not for himself; so what wonder if he who tasted death for all was also made lower for all? He tasted death for all, not for himself, because he who was made man for all who were held guilty of sin was himself bound by no sin of his own. And see how the most wise Paul interprets this very thing—that he was made lower because of the suffering of death, and that by the grace of God he tasted death for all—as belonging to the fittingness of the work, continuing thus: "For it was fitting that he, for whom are all things and through whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the leader of their salvation perfect through sufferings." You see how beautiful, how truly fitting the mystery of our salvation is shown to be in this, that the Son is made lower. How then do you throw up, to darken his divinity, what he carries out for its fittingness? "The Father is greater than I": he said this then, after the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.

II. And see that you do not believe him changeable, as though he ceased to be the Word after he became flesh; but, remaining always the Word, God, he also became flesh. For although he said, "And the Word became flesh," he wished to speak emphatically, lest anyone believe that the flesh in him was not true—since even after so emphatic a statement there are those who say that he had an apparent flesh. But to make it plain that the Word became flesh not by a change of the divine substance but by taking up human flesh, notice what follows: "and dwelt among us." The Word, then, was not cut off by change, since it dwelt among us through the flesh it assumed; for dwelling proves the continuance of the Word. I have put this in so that no one may believe the Son of God changeable when he reads, "And the Word became flesh." The Son, then, says, "The Father is greater than I," after the Word became flesh and took up the office of one who serves; for he came not to be served but to serve. "The Father is greater than I." What do you say, Godhead? How do you say that the Father is greater than you? Certainly you and the Father have one image according to Moses, and the same form according to the apostle Paul, who also taught me that you are the radiance of his glory and the imprint of his substance. And you yourself taught it, saying: "He who has seen me has seen the Father"; and, "I am in the Father and the Father in me"; "I and the Father are one." And whatever the Father does, you also do likewise; for these are your words: "For whatever he does, the Son also does likewise; and as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will, that all may honour the Son as they honour the Father." Since, then, you have the same image, the same form and the same substance, the same unity of nature, the same power, the same freedom of will, the same honour, and all things whatever that are the Father's are yours, because what is yours is the Father's—how do you say, "The Father is greater than I," when in all that belongs to deity you are such as the Father is? Let the apostle Paul speak, in whom Christ spoke, as he himself says: "Or do you seek proof of Christ who speaks in me?" What does the apostle say? "Who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God." Therefore, as he is in the form of God and equal to God, the Father is not greater. And how the Father is greater, what follows shows: "But he emptied himself," he says, "taking the form of a servant."

III. See that here too you do not understand a cutting-off of divinity when you hear, "he emptied himself": attend to what follows, "taking the form of a servant." He who is said to have taken the form of a servant is shown, then, to remain in his own state. But although the divine state remains and continues in him, he nevertheless emptied himself—namely, by hiding his divinity—"taking the form of a servant, made in the likeness of men, and found in appearance as a man; he humbled himself, becoming obedient even to death, the death of the cross." If such a one says, "The Father is greater than I," he does not attack the equality of divinity, but marks the mystery of humanity, in that he emptied himself, taking the form of a servant. If such a one says, "The Father who sent me gave me a command, what to say and what to speak," and, "I came down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me," he shows that he emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, made in the likeness of men and found in appearance as a man; he humbled himself, becoming obedient even to death. And yet what diminution of his divinity is there in these things, if, to cut away arrogance in men, he spoke without arrogating anything to himself? I lie if the apostle Paul did not set down this very testimony in order to rouse each one to humility by the Saviour's example. You will find this to be so if you read more attentively the same letter which he writes to the Philippians. But the heretics will not have "The Father is greater than I" said because of the mystery of God emptied by taking the form of a servant. Let us too say that the Father is greater solely because of the mystery of generation; for some catholics too have followed this pious sense, saying that the Father and the Son are of the same substance and therefore, according to substance, neither is greater than the other. For as the Father is God, such also is the Son God; for he begot nothing less than he himself is: being perfect, he begot a perfect one. Although, then, as God, the Son is equal to God, yet, as Son, he is said to be less than the Father; that is, because the Son is from the Father, and, being fullness, the Father begot fullness: but the Father begot the Son, and therefore he did not say, "God is greater than I," but, "The Father is greater than I."

### Scripture references

- John 14:28: quotation, high confidence
- Ps 8:5 (8:6 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Heb 2:7: allusion, high confidence
- Heb 2:9: quotation, high confidence
- Heb 2:10: quotation, high confidence
- John 1:14: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 20:28: quotation, high confidence
- Heb 1:3: allusion, high confidence
- John 14:9: quotation, high confidence
- John 14:10: quotation, high confidence
- John 10:30: quotation, high confidence
- John 5:19: quotation, high confidence
- John 5:21: quotation, high confidence
- John 5:23: quotation, high confidence
- 2 Cor 13:3: quotation, high confidence
- Phil 2:6: quotation, high confidence
- Phil 2:7: quotation, high confidence
- Phil 2:8: quotation, high confidence
- John 12:49: quotation, high confidence
- John 6:38: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- John 14:28; Ps 8:5 (LXX/Vulg. 8:6; Heb 2:7); Heb 2:9–10; John 1:14; Matt 20:28; Heb 1:3; John 14:9–10; John 10:30; John 5:19, 21, 23; 2 Cor 13:3; Phil 2:6–8; John 12:49; John 6:38. The heading is the edition's. Many OCR slips in the digital text are corrected by logged corrections.

### Citation (SBL)

Faustinus, Trin. 4 (PL 13:67c–69c; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/faustinus-de-trinitate/4).

## On the Trinity 5

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/faustinus-de-trinitate/5/#p-5
- Source: PL 13:69d–73c
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Acts 2:36, 'God made him Lord and Christ,' refers to Jesus according to the flesh, who became Lord of those who serve him and Christ, King and Priest, by the anointing of the Spirit, not to the making of the Word's substance.

### Latin text

Quod in Actibus Apostolorum legitur: CERTISSIME ITAQUE SCIAT OMNIS DOMOS ΙSRAEL, QUIA DOMINUM ILLUM ET CHRISTUM DEUS FECIT NUNC JESUM, QUEM VOS CRUCIFIXISTIS· I. Inter caetera haereticorum, ut scilicet Dei filius factura credatur, etiam hoc ex persona diversae partis posui(??)(??)i(??),· quod legimus in Actibus Apostolorum beato Petro dicente: Certissime itaque sciat omnis domus Israel, quia et Dominum illum el Christum Deus fecit hunc Jesum, quem vos crucifixistis. Sed hujus quoque quaestionis absolutio manifesta est secundum superiorem expositionem, in qua diximus filium Dei etiam filium hominis factum. Qui etsi pati non potest, quia filius Dei est Verbum et sapientia Dei existens, quia secundum hoc semper impassibilis perseverat sicut et pater ejus; tamen per hoc quod homo factus est, natus de Maria virgine, passibilis est: quippe qui et mortem sustinuit, et mortem crucis, manens in se semper, quia Deus inviolabilis, etiam cum versatur in homine et crucifigitur. Hunc ergo Jesum qui est secundum carnem, Dominum Illum et Christum fecit Deus. Nam secundum hoc quod est unigenitus filius Dei, qui est Verbum et sapientia Dei, non est aliqua factura, neque exspectans promotiones, quippe existens in omnibus Deus perfectus, sicut et pater ejus. Hic autem Jesus, secundum carnem Christus factus est, quando primum forma illa servilis quam acceperat de Adae peccato, liberata est. Adam enim de dominio in servitutem recidit ex commissione peccati: Omnis enim qui facit peccatum, servus est. Salvator autem renovavit multo firmius, immo et incorruptibilius in assumpto homine dominium, cum in eo ipsum peccatum quod per Adam fuerat causa abjectae servitutis, abstersit. Sed factus est iterum Vere Dominus, cum in illum populi credentes se ejus dominio subdiderunt. Provocatus enim per hortamenta sacrae Scripturae dicentis, Servite Domino in timore; unusquisque jam cognoscens in Christo salutare dominium ait: Nonne Deo subdita est anima mea? Hujus servum fieri summi decoris est, et quasi quaedam supereminens mundo nobilitas. Ideo et Apostolus gloriam suam scribit: Paulus servus Jesu Christi. Vides quomodo sit factus Dominus, quando illum et is qui persecutus fuerat, suum Dominum pro summa sibi gloria confitetur. II. Factus est autem Jesus secundum carnem non solum Dominus, sed et Christus. In Christi autem nomine, regis sacerdotisque sacramenta versantur. Legimus in veteri sacerdotes et reges apud Israelitas olei unctione consignatos, atque ideo dicitur vocabantur. Christus enim quod Graece dicitur, hoc apud Latinos unctus sive linitus est Interpretatus. Sed Salvator noster vere Christus secundum carnem factus est, existens verus Rex, Verus et Sacerdos: utrumque idem ipse, ne quid In Salvatore minus haberetur. Audi itaque ipsum regem factum cum dicit: Ego autem constitutus sum rex ab eo super Sion montem sanctum ejus. Audi quod etiam sacerdos sit de patris testimonio dicentis: Tu es sacerdos in aeternum secundum ordinem Melchisedech. Aaron primus in lege ex unctione chrismatis factus est sacerdos; ut non dixit, secundum Aaron, ne et Salvatoris s(??)(??)(??)(??)- dotium successione haberi posse crederetur. Illud enim sacerdotium quod fuit in Aaron, successione constabat: sacerdotium vero Salvatoris non in alterum successione transfertur, eo quod ipse sacerdos jugiter perseveret, secundum quod scriptum est: Tu es sacerdos in aeternum secundum ordinem Melchisedech. Est ergo Salvator secundum carnem, et Rex et Sacerdos, sed non corporaliter unctus, sed spiritualiter. Illi enim apud Israelitas reges et sacerdotes olei unctione corporaliter uncti, reges erant et sacerdotes; non utrumque unus, sed singuli quoque eorum aut rex erat aut sacerdos: soli enim Christo perfectio in omnibus et plenitudo debetur, qui et legem venerat adimplere. Sed licet non utrumque singuli eorum essent, tamen regali aut sacerdotali oleo uncti corporaliter christi vocabantur. Salvator autem qui vere Christus est, Spiritu sancto unctus est, ut adimpleretur quod de eo scriptum est: Propterea unxit te, Deus, Deus tuus oleo laetitiae prae consortibus tuis. In hoc enim plus quam consortes istius nominis unctus est, cum est unctus oleo laetitiae, quo non aliud significatur, quam Spiritus sanctus. III. Hoc verum esse, ab ipso Salvatore cognoscimus. Nam cum accepisset librum Esaiae, et legisset, Spiritus Domini super me, propter quod unxit me, adimpletam tunc dixit prophetiam in auribus auditorum. Sed et Petrus princeps Apostolorum illud chrisma unde Salvator Christus ostenditur, docuit esse Spiritum sanctum, id ipsum et virtutem Dei, quando in Actibus Apostolorum ad fidelissimum et misericordem (Cornelium) qui erat tunc Centurio, loquebatur. Nam inter caetera ait: Incipiens a Galilaea post baptismum quod praedicavit Joannes, Jesum Nazareth, quem unxit Deus Spiritu sancto et virtute, hic circuivit faciens virtutes et magnalia, atque omnes liberans obsessos a diabolo. Vides quia et Petrus dixit hunc Jesum secundum carnem unctum esse Spiritu sancto et virtute. Unde et vere ipse Jesus secundum carnem factus est Christus: qui unctione sancti Spiritus et rex factus est et sacerdos in aeternum. Haec autem ideo prosecutus sum, ut liquido appareat Jesum filium Dei non secundum quod est Verbum et sapientia Dei, crucifixum, vel factum esse Dominum et Christum; sed secundum hoc quod assumpsit de Maria: quamvis per assumpti hominis passionem, et unigenitum filium Dei passum esse dicamus; non quia vere ipse unigenitus filius, qua est Verbum et sapientia Dei, passus est, sed quia quidquid in assumptum hominem ejus injuriae vel passionis illatum est, id totum ad ipsum unigenitum impassibilem Deum quadam ratione revocatur. Unde et apostolus Paulus scribens ad Corinthios ait: Si enim cognovissent, scilicet principes hujus saeculi, numquam Dominum majestatis crucifixissent. Si ista manifesta sunt, apparet jam quomodo dictum sit, Certissime itaque sciat omnis Israel, quia et Dominum illum et Christum Deus fecit, hunc scilicet Jesum quem vos crucifixistis; quem et idem Petrus supra virum nominavit dicens: Viri Israelitae audite verba haec: Jesum Nazarenum, virum a Deo probatum in vobis virtutibus et prodigiis et signis; hunc scilicet Jesum Christum, quem et Paulus hominem dixit scribens ad Timotheum: Unus Deus, unus et mediator Dei et hominum, homo Jesus Christus. Qui et dicebat in Evangelio: Nunc autem quaeritis me occidere, hominem qui veritatem locutus sum vobis. IV. Non pro impio Photino haec loquimur, qui nudum vult esse hominem sine Dei Verbi incarnatione, sed contra Arium antichristum recitamus, qui vult ipsum unigenitum filium, qui est Verbum et sapientia Dei, qua Deum, et non qua hominem crucifixum, et ipsum esse factum Dominum et Christum. Sed etsi durissima obstinatione contendunt dicentes de ipso Deo Verbo scriptum esse, quod Deus illum fecerit et Dominum et Christum; nec sic pertimescimus fiducia veritatis, ne forte per hoc quod scriptum est, Verbum Dei factura credatur. Fac enim Verbum Dei factum esse Dominum et Christum; quid hoc praejudicat ejus substantiae, qua semper est Verbum Dei? Intende enim quia non substantiam Verbi Dei dixit esse factam, sed hoc ipsum Verbum quod semper est filius Dei, factum esse Dominum et Christum. Non enim id ipsum est, hoc quod omnino non erat, fieri, et id quod erat, aliquid fieri. Nam et Deus fit aliquoties adjutor et protector, non tamen quia factus est adjutor et protector, jam etiam hoc quod Deus est, factus esse credendus est. Nam et Moyses postea quam divinum sensit auxilium et protectionem, de Deo qui (eum) contra Pharaonem adjuverat et protexerat, dixit: Adjutor, et protector factus est mihi in salutem; et multa simillima testimonia invenies, quae ego, ne multum adhuc prolongem, praetereo. Si ergo cum Deus sit adjutor, et protector, non hoc quod Deus est, fieri creditur, sed hoc ipsum quod adjutor et protector esse designatur: quid est quod cum Verbum Dei factum esse Dominum et Christum dicant, putemus Dei Verbi substantiam factam? Numquid quia legimus, Et Verbum caro factum est, ideo ipsum quoque Verbum factam esse credendum est? Sed manifestissime expressum est, non taro Verbum dsse factum quod erat in principio apud Deum; sed ipsum Verbum quod semper erat, postea factum esse carnem, ut factura; non hoc, quod caro factum est. Ita ergo et cum dicitur Verbum Dei factum esse Dominum et Christum, non eam substantiam Verbi Dei faciam esse intelligendum est; sed quia Dominus et Christus factum est hoc ipsum Verbum, quod semper Deus erat. V. Fit autem Dominus eorum, qui se eidem mancipant proposito serviendi. Et da mihi veniam, beatissime Matthaee, si dixero, quod nondum tibi Christus Deus erat Dominus, quando adhuc telonio serviebas. Sed et Apostolis universis tunc primum Dominus factus est, quando derelictis omnibus eidem servire maluerunt. Ipsarum quoque gentium tunc Dominus factus est, quando idolorum vana superstitione derelicta, ipsae gentes se ejus dominio tradiderunt: in quantum enim quis peccati servus est vel mammonae, in tantum Dei servus esse non potest. Cum ergo peccato et mammonae quis abrenuntiaverit, faciens justitiam habendique cupiditatem respuens; tunc Jesus Dominus ejus efficitur. Eadem quoque ratione cum etiam Christum fieri intelligitur: siquidem, ut supra dictum est, reges et sacerdotes Christi vocabulo taxabantur. Factus est ergo Salvator rex eorum, qui regno mortis ulterius non tenentur adstricti; in quorum mortali corpore cessavit regnare peccatum, postea quam per divina magisteria didicerunt docentibus Apostolis: Non ergo regnet peccatum in vestro mortali corpore. Sed et cum fungitur pro nobis sacerdotis officio, Christus verissime factus est, maxime defensor et advocatus pro nobis semper assistens, interpellans quoque patrem, qua solus purissimus sacerdos; ut expiata labe delinquentiae, divina ejus propitiatione servemur. Per haec ergo, quod Jesus factus est Christus et Dominus, non tam substantiae ejus divinae aliquid confertur, quam prospectum est, quibus regni ejus et sacerdotii ac dominii potestas velut munus salutare collatum est. Non videtur absurdum, si illud similiter intelligas, quod ait: Ego autem constitutus sum rex ab eo supra Sion montem sanctum ejus: etsi enim constitutus rex dicitur, tamen cum addidit, supra Sion montem sanctum ejus, ostenditur, quod non de illo regno ejus dicat quod habuit etiam ante quam constitueretur rex supra Sion montem sanctum ejus. Rex enim est ante omnia aera aevorum, continens (potestate sua omnem quam condidit, creaturam; unde et omnipotens) approbatur, quod possit omnia continere quae facta sunt.

### English translation (Claude)

On what is read in the Acts of the Apostles: "Let all the house of Israel therefore know most assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."

I. Among the other points of the heretics, in order that the Son of God may be believed a thing made, I have set down from the opposing party's position this too, which we read in the Acts of the Apostles, blessed Peter saying: "Let all the house of Israel therefore know most assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ." But the answer to this question too is plain from the earlier exposition, in which we said that the Son of God was also made son of man. Although he cannot suffer, because he is the Son of God, being the Word and wisdom of God—for in this respect he always remains impassible, as his Father is—yet by having been made man, born of the virgin Mary, he is passible, since indeed he endured death, and the death of the cross, remaining always in himself, because God is inviolable, even while he dwells in the man and is crucified. This Jesus, then, who is according to the flesh, God made Lord and Christ. For according to his being the only-begotten Son of God, who is the Word and wisdom of God, he is not any thing made, nor awaiting promotions, since he exists in all things as perfect God, as his Father is. But this Jesus, according to the flesh, was made Christ when first that form of a servant which he had received was freed from Adam's sin. For Adam fell from lordship into slavery by committing sin: "For everyone who commits sin is a slave." But the Saviour renewed lordship much more firmly—indeed more incorruptibly—in the man he assumed, when he wiped away in him the very sin that through Adam had been the cause of base slavery. And he was made truly Lord again when the peoples believing in him subjected themselves to his lordship. For each one, roused by the exhortations of sacred Scripture, which says, "Serve the Lord in fear," now recognizing the saving lordship in Christ, says: "Will not my soul be subject to God?" To become his servant is the highest honour, and a kind of nobility surpassing the world. Therefore the apostle too writes his glory: "Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ." You see how he was made Lord, when even he who had persecuted him confesses him as his Lord for his own highest glory.

II. And Jesus according to the flesh was made not only Lord but also Christ. In the name of Christ the mysteries of king and priest are contained. We read in the old Scripture that priests and kings among the Israelites were marked by anointing with oil, and therefore they were called christs. For what is said in Greek "Christ" is interpreted among the Latins as "anointed" or "smeared." But our Saviour was truly made Christ according to the flesh, being true King and true Priest—the same one being both, so that nothing should be found lacking in the Saviour. Hear him, then, made king, when he says: "But I have been established king by him upon Zion, his holy mountain." Hear that he is also priest, from the testimony of the Father, saying: "You are a priest for ever according to the order of Melchizedek." Aaron was the first in the law to be made priest by the anointing of chrism; but it did not say "according to Aaron," lest it be believed that the Saviour's priesthood too could be held by succession. For the priesthood that was in Aaron rested on succession; but the priesthood of the Saviour is not passed by succession to another, since he himself continues priest perpetually, according to what is written: "You are a priest for ever according to the order of Melchizedek." The Saviour, then, according to the flesh, is both King and Priest—anointed not bodily but spiritually. For those kings and priests among the Israelites, anointed bodily with oil, were kings and priests—not one man both, but each of them either king or priest; for perfection and fullness in all things is due to Christ alone, who had come to fulfil the law. But although each of them was not both, yet, anointed bodily with royal or priestly oil, they were called christs. But the Saviour, who is truly Christ, was anointed with the Holy Spirit, so that what is written of him might be fulfilled: "Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows." For in this he was anointed more than the fellows of this name, since he was anointed with the oil of gladness, by which nothing else is signified than the Holy Spirit.

III. That this is true we learn from the Saviour himself. For when he had taken the book of Isaiah and read, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me," he then said that the prophecy was fulfilled in the ears of the hearers. And Peter too, the chief of the apostles, taught that the chrism by which the Saviour is shown to be Christ is the Holy Spirit—the same also the power of God—when in the Acts of the Apostles he was speaking to the most faithful and merciful (Cornelius), who was then a centurion. For among other things he says: "Beginning from Galilee after the baptism which John preached, Jesus of Nazareth, whom God anointed with the Holy Spirit and with power—he went about doing mighty works and great deeds, and freeing all who were oppressed by the devil." You see that Peter too said that this Jesus according to the flesh was anointed with the Holy Spirit and with power. Hence Jesus himself according to the flesh was truly made Christ, who by the anointing of the Holy Spirit was made both king and priest for ever. I have pursued these things so that it may clearly appear that Jesus the Son of God was crucified, or made Lord and Christ, not according to his being the Word and wisdom of God, but according to what he assumed from Mary—although, through the passion of the man assumed, we also say that the only-begotten Son of God suffered; not because the only-begotten Son himself, as he is the Word and wisdom of God, truly suffered, but because whatever injury or suffering was inflicted on the man he assumed is all referred, in a certain way, to the only-begotten impassible God himself. Hence the apostle Paul too, writing to the Corinthians, says: "For if they had known"—namely, the rulers of this age—"they would never have crucified the Lord of majesty." If these things are plain, it now appears how it was said, "Let all Israel therefore know most assuredly that God has made him both Lord and Christ"—this Jesus, namely, whom you crucified; whom the same Peter above called a man, saying: "Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved by God among you by mighty works and wonders and signs"; this Jesus Christ, namely, whom Paul too called a man, writing to Timothy: "One God, and one mediator of God and men, the man Jesus Christ"; who also said in the gospel: "But now you seek to kill me, a man who has spoken the truth to you."

IV. We do not say these things in favour of the impious Photinus, who wants him to be a bare man without the incarnation of the Word of God; but we recite them against Arius the antichrist, who wants the only-begotten Son himself, who is the Word and wisdom of God, to have been crucified as God and not as man, and himself to have been made Lord and Christ. But even if they contend with the hardest obstinacy, saying that it was written of the God the Word himself that God made him both Lord and Christ, not even so do we fear, confident in the truth, that because of what is written the Word of God may be believed to be a thing made. For suppose the Word of God was made Lord and Christ: what does this prejudge about his substance, by which he is always the Word of God? Notice that he did not say that the substance of the Word of God was made, but that this very Word, which is always the Son of God, was made Lord and Christ. For it is not the same thing for what did not exist at all to be made, and for what existed to be made something. For God too sometimes becomes a helper and protector; yet, because he has become helper and protector, it is not to be believed that he has also been made what God is. For Moses too, after he had experienced divine help and protection, said of God, who had helped and protected him against Pharaoh: "He has become my helper and protector for salvation"; and you will find many very similar testimonies, which I pass over so as not to lengthen this further. If, then, when God is helper and protector, it is not believed that what God is was made, but only that he is designated helper and protector, why, when they say that the Word of God was made Lord and Christ, should we think that the substance of God the Word was made? Because we read, "And the Word became flesh," is it therefore to be believed that the Word itself was made? But it is most plainly expressed that the Word which was in the beginning with God was not made; rather the Word itself, which always was, afterward became flesh, as a thing made—not that what became flesh was made. So too, then, when the Word of God is said to have been made Lord and Christ, it is not to be understood that the very substance of the Word of God was made, but that this very Word, which was always God, was made Lord and Christ.

V. He becomes Lord of those who bind themselves to him with the purpose of serving. And pardon me, most blessed Matthew, if I say that Christ, God, was not yet your Lord when you were still serving at the tax office. Indeed he first became Lord to all the apostles when, having left everything, they chose to serve him. He became Lord of the nations themselves too when, having abandoned the vain superstition of idols, the nations gave themselves to his lordship: for in so far as anyone is a slave of sin or of mammon, so far he cannot be a servant of God. When, then, someone has renounced sin and mammon, doing righteousness and rejecting the desire to possess, then Jesus becomes his Lord. By the same reasoning he is understood also to become Christ, since, as was said above, kings and priests were marked by the word "christ." The Saviour became king, then, of those who are no longer held bound by the kingdom of death, in whose mortal body sin has ceased to reign, after they learned through the divine teaching, the apostles teaching them: "Let not sin, therefore, reign in your mortal body." And when he performs the office of priest for us, he was most truly made Christ—above all as our defender and advocate, always standing by for us, interceding also with the Father, as the only most pure priest, so that, the stain of our wrongdoing being expiated, we may be preserved by his divine propitiation. Through these things, then—that Jesus was made Christ and Lord—not so much is anything conferred on his divine substance, as provision is made for those on whom the power of his kingdom, priesthood, and lordship is conferred as a saving gift. It does not seem absurd if you understand in the same way what he says: "But I have been established king by him upon Zion, his holy mountain"; for although he is said to have been established king, yet when he added, "upon Zion, his holy mountain," it is shown that he is not speaking of that kingdom of his which he had even before he was established king upon Zion, his holy mountain. For he is king before all the ages of ages, holding together (by his power every creature he made; hence he is also) proved almighty, because he can hold together all things that have been made.

### Scripture references

- Acts 2:36: quotation, high confidence
- John 8:34: quotation, high confidence
- Ps 2:11: quotation, high confidence
- Ps 62:1 (61:2 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Rom 1:1: quotation, high confidence
- Ps 2:6: quotation, high confidence
- Ps 110:4 (109:4 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Matt 5:17: allusion, high confidence
- Ps 45:7 (44:8 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Luke 4:18: quotation, high confidence
- Luke 4:21: allusion, high confidence
- Isa 61:1: quotation, high confidence
- Acts 10:37: quotation, high confidence
- Acts 10:38: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 2:8: quotation, high confidence
- Acts 2:22: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Tim 2:5: quotation, high confidence
- John 8:40: quotation, high confidence
- Exod 15:2: quotation, high confidence
- John 1:14: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 9:9: allusion, high confidence
- Matt 6:24: allusion, high confidence
- Rom 6:12: quotation, high confidence
- 1 John 2:1: allusion, medium confidence
- Rom 8:34: allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Acts 2:36; John 8:34; Ps 2:11; Ps 62:1 (LXX/Vulg. 61:2); Rom 1:1; Ps 2:6; Ps 110:4 (LXX/Vulg. 109:4); Matt 5:17; Ps 45:7 (LXX/Vulg. 44:8); Luke 4:18–21 (Isa 61:1); Acts 10:37–38; 1 Cor 2:8; Acts 2:22; 1 Tim 2:5; John 8:40; Exod 15:2; John 1:1, 14; Matt 9:9; Matt 6:24; Rom 6:12; 1 John 2:1; Rom 8:34. Photinus held Christ to be a mere man. The sentence "non taro Verbum dsse factum" is corrupt in the text and is rendered by sense. The words in round brackets near the end are the edition's.

### Citation (SBL)

Faustinus, Trin. 5 (PL 13:69d–73c; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/faustinus-de-trinitate/5).

## On the Trinity 6

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/faustinus-de-trinitate/5/#p-6
- Source: PL 13:73c–76c
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Proverbs 8:22, 'the Lord created me,' does not make Wisdom (Christ) a creature: Wisdom was begotten before it was 'created' for God's works, and 'created' can mean being made something for others, as God is 'made' our refuge.

### Latin text

De hoc quod Salomon: DOMINUS CREAVIT ME INITIUM VIARUM SUARUM IN OPERA SUA. I. Tangamus et illam in ultimo quaestionem, quam inter ceteras addidisti: Dominus, inquit, creavit me initium viarum suarum in opera sua. Dicit haereticus: Vides creaturam esse sapientiam, quae utique interprete Paulo apostolo Christus est. Ergo Christus, inquit, qui est sapientia, non est verus filius, sed creatura factus adoptione exsistens filius. Hoc venenum Arianorum est. Sed o quam caeca impietas ad id videre, quod pium est! Jam semel quia, ut scriptum est, Oderunt sapientiam Domini et verbum non assumpserunt, nihil in illa sincerissimi decoris aspiciunt: sicut et lippientibus oculis nulla est visio veritatis, quandoquidem aliter eorum renuntiat aspectus, quam in fide rerum est; sed et cui saporem proprium redundans sui fellis amaritudo vitiavit, si dulcia mella degustet, ut amaram dulcedinem mellis infamat, non recognoscens malum propriae amaritudinis. Sed, o miser haeretice, quid potes veri luminis videre, cum caecutias vel ambules in viis tenebrarum, omnia quae sunt impietatis excogitans? Clamet licet vir ille spiritualis suavissimo experimento divinae epulationis invitans: Gustate, et videte quam suavis est Dominus: sed tibi, si gustaveris, nihil suave sentitur in Domino, eo quod, sicut scriptum est, venenum aspidum sub labiis tuis est, eo quod os tuum maledictione et amaritudine plenum est. Denique cum infinita et ipse Salomon de Dei sapientia praedicaverit, et ita divine de ea fuerit prosecutus, ut non aliud in illa crederetur, quam quod in natura Dei est: in illis omnibus haereticus caecutiens hoc solum videre se credidit, per quod probaret eam esse creaturam. Sed scriptum est, inquit, Dominus creavit me initium viarum suarum in opera sua. Sed nos non ibimus longius, neque de aliis libris Salomonis, quae sunt pro sempiterna Dei sapientia, proferemus. Sufficit nunc, si de hoc ipso loco unde testimonium protulit, pars diversa superetur. II. Ais, haeretice, scriptum: Dominus creavit me initium viarum tuarum in opera sua: sed intende quia haec ipsa sapientia nihilominus ait: Ante omnes autem colles genuit me. Quomodo ergo haec Ipsa sapientia in eodem loco et creatam se esse dicit, et genitam? Prius est, ut videamus, quid primum sit: utrum quod genita est, an quod creata est. Sed licet primum dixerit: Dominus creavit me initium viarum suarum in opera sua; tamen, ne se creaturam putares, recurrit ad illud quod prius est, in sequenti dicens: Ante omnes autem colles genuit me. Vide enim ne putes postea genitam, quia primum praemiserit se creatam. Etsi enim in ordine sermonum primum positum est quod creata est, deinde autem quod genita; tamen sensus hoc judicat, quod primum est genita, quam creata, ut sit sensus ita sapientiae dicentis: Dominus creavit me initium viarum suarum in opera sua. Sed ne quis me putet per hoc esse creaturam, aut tunc primum esse coepisse, quando me creavit initium viarum suarum in opera sua, subsequor et dico: Ante omnes autem colles genuit me; ut scias prius me genitam, quam creatam. Cum enim dicit: Ante omnes autem colles genuit me, fecit illud esse postea quod creata est, ut praecedat et sit anterius illud, quod genita est. Si ergo sic creata est, ut ante fuerit genita; sensus impietatis exclusus est, qua eam dixerat creatam; ut tunc primum substitisse sapientia crederetur, quando et retulit se creatam a Domino initium viarum suarum in opera sua. Ecce enim sensus manifestat, etiam ante quam crearetur, sapientiam substitisse, quippe quae prius est genita, quam creata. III. Sed magis commendabitur hic sensus catholicus, si et ipsa verba, prout nobis possibile est, discutiantur, quibus vel genitam se referat sapientia vel creatam. Dominus, inquit, creavit me initium viarum suarum in opera sua. Intende, quia cum dixerit: Dominus creavit me, non tacuit, ne vere creatura putaretur, sed prosequitur explanans quid sit creata, et ob quam causam sit Creata. Ait enim, creavit me initium viarum suarum: et cum sequitur, in opera sua, palam est, quod ostendit et causas cur creata sit initium viarum Domini. Non ergo sapientia, quasi quae non esset, creata est ad hoc ut esset; sed cum semper substantialiter fuerit, tunc creata est secundum dispensationem initium viarum Domini, et in opera Domini creata est. Initium ergo viarum Domini creata est, et in opera Domini creata est sapientia: non tamen, quia substantialiter ante non erat, ideo creata est sapientia. At vero cum dicit se ante omnes colles genitam, non propter (aliquam rem dicit se esse genitam; sed exsistens semper) patris sempiterna progenies, ob quasdam causas creatam se dicit, initium viarum Domini, id est, in opera Domini. Ergo et ex hoc manifestum est non esse creaturam sapientiam, quae in aliud creata est, id est, in opera Domini; cum ipsa sit genita, non in opera, sed de patre, ut diximus, exsistens sempiterna progenies. IV. Sed et hoc intendendum est, quod aliud est dicere creari sapientiam, et aliud est dicere quod sit creatura. Quamvis enim legatur creata esse sapientia, nusquam tamen legitur quod sit creatura. Non enim omne quod creatum est, jam creatura dicendum est, licet omnis creatura creata sit: sicut nec omne quod factum est, jam factura asseveranda est, licet omnis factura facta sit. Si videtur obscurum, exemplo dilucidabo. Legimus quemdam gratulari, ac dicere ad Deum: Ego autem cantabo virtutem tuam, exaltato mane misericordiam tuam, quia factus es susceptor meus, et refugium meum in die tribulationis meae. Ecce Deus factus est susceptor et refugium; non tamen Deus factura est: et hoc est, quod dixi: Non omne quod factum est, jam factura dicendum est. Deus enim non exsistens factura, qui semper est, factus est susceptor et refugium in die tribulationis homini; ut quod factus est susceptor et refugium in die tribulationis homini, videatur contulisse, quod fictus est; non tamen quia susceptor et refugium homini factus est, etiam Deus quoque factura esse credendus est, cujus divina substantia sempiterna est. Similiter et sapientia si creata dicatur, non tamen creatura est, quae semper est: sed cum exsistat semper, creatur ad aliquid ut prosit, non ut creatura dicatur quasi facta, quae non fuit. Erat enim inseparabilis a Deo Dei sapientia: et haec ipsa exsistens Dei sempiterna progenies, creata est initium viarum Domini. V. Sed adhuc apertius edisseram. Certe sapientia Dei ipsa est, quae et Verbum esse scribitur, ut in superioribus ostensum est. Et numquid quia de Verbo Dei scriptum est: Et Verbum caro factum est, jam et Verbum facturam asseveramus, quasi tunc primum esse coeperit, cum caro factum est? Sed bene, quia apertissime demonstratum est per Verbum omnia facta, et in ultimis temporibus hoc ipsum Verbum carnem factum. Non ergo factura est Verbum Dei, licet facium caro esse dicatur: ita et sapientia licet dicatur creata esse initium viarum et in opera (ejus), non tamen creatura est; quam constat ante omnem esse creaturam, quandoquidem omnia in sapientia facta sint. Addo et hoc, quia non omne quod creari dicitur, quasi fiat in substantia, intelligendum est. Denique quidam vir videns cor suum quibusdam sordibus infectum, precem fundit ad Dominum dicens: Cor mundum crea in me, Deus: non utique cordis substantiam in se fieri precabatur, sed ut hoc ipsum cor in eo exsistens, quod ei erat sordidum, creari mundum. Non omne quod creari dicitur, jam statim et secundum substantiam fieri intelligendum est: quandoquidem cor quod erat, id ipsum, ut mundum crearetur a Domino, precabatur. Ergo et sapientia cum creata dicitur, non tam substantia ejus, quasi quae non erat, facta est; sed ipsa exsistens, ut saepius dictum est, creata est initium viarum in opera ejus, Ergo quod creata est sapientia, ad mysterium vel rerum creandarum vel humanae dispensationis intellige, quam cum Dei sapientia dignanter assumit, creata dicitur: quod vero se genitam dicit, ut nihil in illa minus divinitatis agnoscas, quam habet ille qui genuit. Valde enim impium est credere, quod aliquando Deus sine sua fuerit sapientia. Unde et quia vere genita est a Deo sapientia, (idem) exsistens secundum substantiam quod est genitor; sapientia autem ipsa Christus est: ergo Christus qui est sapientia, non est adoptione filius, sed verus filius, exsistens Dei progenies, et non factura.

### English translation (Claude)

On Solomon's saying: "The Lord created me the beginning of his ways for his works."

I. Let us touch, last of all, that question too which you added among the others: "The Lord," it says, "created me the beginning of his ways for his works." The heretic says: "You see that wisdom is a creature, and wisdom, by the interpretation of the apostle Paul, is certainly Christ. Therefore Christ, who is wisdom, is not a true son, but, made a creature, is son by adoption." This is the poison of the Arians. But oh, how blind impiety is to see what is pious! Once, as it is written, they "have hated the wisdom of the Lord and have not received the word," they see in it nothing of its most sincere beauty—just as bleary eyes have no sight of the truth, since their view reports otherwise than things truly are; and one whose own taste has been spoiled by the overflowing bitterness of his gall, if he tastes sweet honey, slanders the sweetness of the honey as bitter, not recognizing the evil of his own bitterness. But, wretched heretic, what can you see of the true light, when you are blind, or walk in the ways of darkness, devising all things of impiety? That spiritual man may cry out, inviting by the most delightful experience of the divine banquet: "Taste and see how sweet the Lord is"; but if you taste, nothing sweet is perceived by you in the Lord, because, as it is written, "the poison of asps is under your lips," because "your mouth is full of cursing and bitterness." In short, although Solomon himself proclaimed countless things about the wisdom of God, and pursued them so divinely that nothing else might be believed in it than what is in the nature of God, in all those things the blind heretic believed he saw only this, by which to prove that it is a creature. "But it is written," he says, "The Lord created me the beginning of his ways for his works." But we will not go further afield, nor bring forward from the other books of Solomon what supports the everlasting wisdom of God. It is enough now if the opposing party is overcome from the very passage from which it brought its testimony.

II. You say, heretic, that it is written, "The Lord created me the beginning of his ways for his works"; but notice that this same wisdom nonetheless says: "But before all the hills he begot me." How then does this same wisdom say in the same passage both that it was created and that it was begotten? We must first see which is first: that it was begotten, or that it was created. Although it said first, "The Lord created me the beginning of his ways for his works," yet, so that you would not think it a creature, it goes back to what is prior, saying in what follows, "But before all the hills he begot me." See that you do not think it begotten later because it put first that it was created. For although in the order of the words its being created is placed first and then its being begotten, yet the sense judges that it was begotten before it was created; so that the sense of wisdom speaking is this: "The Lord created me the beginning of his ways for his works; but lest anyone think that I am therefore a creature, or that I first began to be when he created me the beginning of his ways for his works, I go on and say: But before all the hills he begot me—so that you may know that I was begotten before I was created." For when it says, "But before all the hills he begot me," it makes its being created come afterward, so that its being begotten precedes and is earlier. If, then, it was created in such a way that it had been begotten before, the sense of impiety is excluded, by which he had called it created, so that wisdom might be believed to have first come into being when it reported that it was created by the Lord the beginning of his ways for his works. For see, the sense makes plain that wisdom existed even before it was created, since it was begotten before it was created.

III. But this catholic sense will be commended more if the very words by which wisdom reports itself begotten or created are also examined, as far as we can. "The Lord," it says, "created me the beginning of his ways for his works." Notice that when it had said, "The Lord created me," it was not silent, lest it be thought truly a creature, but goes on explaining what it was created as, and for what reason it was created. For it says, "he created me the beginning of his ways"; and when there follows, "for his works," it is plain that it shows the reasons why it was created the beginning of the Lord's ways. Wisdom, then, was not created, as though it did not exist, in order that it might exist; but, since it always existed substantially, it was then created, according to the dispensation, the beginning of the Lord's ways, and it was created for the Lord's works. Wisdom, then, was created the beginning of the Lord's ways and was created for the Lord's works; yet wisdom was not created because it did not exist substantially before. But when it says that it was begotten before all the hills, it does not say that it was begotten for the sake of anything; but, existing always as the everlasting offspring of the Father, it says that it was created for certain reasons, the beginning of the Lord's ways, that is, for the Lord's works. From this too, then, it is plain that wisdom is not a creature, which was created for something else, that is, for the Lord's works, since it was itself begotten not for works but of the Father, existing, as we said, as his everlasting offspring.

IV. And this too must be noticed: that it is one thing to say that wisdom is created and another to say that it is a creature. For although we read that wisdom was created, we nowhere read that it is a creature. For not everything that has been created must therefore be called a creature, although every creature has been created; just as not everything that has been made is to be declared a thing made, although every thing made has been made. If this seems obscure, I will make it clear by an example. We read of someone giving thanks and saying to God: "But I will sing of your power, and in the morning I will extol your mercy, because you have been made my upholder and my refuge in the day of my trouble." See, God was made upholder and refuge; yet God is not a thing made; and this is what I said: not everything that has been made is to be called a thing made. For God, who is not a thing made, who always is, was made upholder and refuge to man in the day of trouble; so that what he became—upholder and refuge to man in the day of trouble—may be seen as what he conferred; yet because he became upholder and refuge to man, God is not to be believed also a thing made, whose divine substance is everlasting. Likewise wisdom, if it is said to be created, is still not a creature, since it always is; but, while always existing, it is created for something, in order to be of use, not so as to be called a creature, as if made when it was not. For the wisdom of God was inseparable from God; and this very wisdom, existing as the everlasting offspring of God, was created the beginning of the Lord's ways.

V. But I will explain still more plainly. Certainly the wisdom of God is the same as that which is written to be the Word, as was shown above. And because it is written of the Word of God, "And the Word became flesh," do we therefore assert that the Word is a thing made, as if it first began to be when it became flesh? But it is well, since it has been shown most plainly that all things were made through the Word, and that in the last times this very Word became flesh. The Word of God, then, is not a thing made, although it is said to have become flesh; so too wisdom, although it is said to have been created the beginning of the ways and for (his) works, is still not a creature, since it is established that it is before every creature, inasmuch as all things were made in wisdom. I add this too: not everything that is said to be created is to be understood as made in its substance. In short, a certain man, seeing his heart infected with certain impurities, poured out a prayer to the Lord, saying: "Create in me a clean heart, O God"; he was certainly not praying that the substance of a heart be made in him, but that this very heart existing in him, which was unclean to him, be created clean. Not everything that is said to be created, then, is at once to be understood as made according to substance, since he was praying that the very heart that existed be created clean by the Lord. So too, when wisdom is said to be created, it is not so much that its substance was made, as though it did not exist; but, itself existing, as has often been said, it was created the beginning of the ways for his works. Understand, then, that wisdom's being created refers to the mystery either of things to be created or of the human dispensation, which the wisdom of God graciously assumed and so is said to be created; but its saying that it was begotten means that you should recognize in it nothing less of divinity than he has who begot it. For it is most impious to believe that God was ever without his wisdom. Hence, because wisdom was truly begotten of God, existing according to substance (the same) as he who begot it, and wisdom itself is Christ, therefore Christ, who is wisdom, is not son by adoption but true Son, existing as God's offspring and not a thing made.

### Scripture references

- Prov 8:22: quotation, high confidence
- Prov 8:25: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 1:24: allusion, high confidence
- Ps 34:8 (33:9 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Ps 140:3 (139:4 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Rom 3:13: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 3:14: quotation, high confidence
- Ps 59:16 (58:17 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- John 1:14: quotation, high confidence
- John 1:3: allusion, high confidence
- Ps 104:24 (103:24 LXX): allusion, medium confidence
- Ps 51:10 (50:12 LXX): quotation, high confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Bar 3:12-13 (Baruch): allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Prov 8:22, 25 (LXX); 1 Cor 1:24; Bar 3:12–13 (the edition's reference "Baruch III" is removed from the text); Ps 34:8 (LXX/Vulg. 33:9); Ps 140:3 and Ps 10:7 (Rom 3:13–14); Ps 59:16 (LXX/Vulg. 58:17); John 1:14; John 1:3; Ps 104:24; Ps 51:10 (LXX/Vulg. 50:12). Faustinus quotes Prov 8:22 once as "of your ways"; rendered "his" as elsewhere.

### Citation (SBL)

Faustinus, Trin. 6 (PL 13:73c–76c; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/faustinus-de-trinitate/6).

## On the Trinity 7

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/faustinus-de-trinitate/7/#p-7
- Source: PL 13:76c–80b
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Faustinus briefly confesses the Holy Spirit as truly holy, of the same substance with the Father and the Son, not a creature, and explains his refusal of communion with heretics and those who compromised the faith.

### Latin text

I. Universas quas de Patre et Filio scripseras quaestiones, prout Dei gratia praestitit, arbitror absolutas: si tamen hoc apud te verum est, tua religiosa prudentia judicabit: quamvis fatear et coarctatione temporis, et rei festinatione, et ipso arido angusti mei sermonis eloquio, summas earum me potius tetigisse quam plenitudinem prosecutum; quia non ut librum, sicut praedixi, scribere coeperam, sed ut quasi cujusdam abbreviationis de fide quaedam taxatio signaretur; ne ad hoc me tua mira benevolentia provocatum infidelem crederes, si tacerem. Sed nunc de sancto Spiritu, etsi breviter, confitendum est: ne si non aliquid de eo specialiter dixerimus, credamur similiter blasphemare, sicuti et illi qui dicunt illum esse creaturam. Horum tamen miramur insaniam, quod impie sentiant de eo quem sanctum Spiritum confitentur. Si enim Spiritus sanctus est, quomodo creatura est? non enim sic sanctus est, ut caeteri, qui ad sancti vocabulum fide et Deo placita conversatione atque ipsius sancti Spiritus signatione venerunt: sed ipse naturaliter semper sanctus est ita, ut alios sanctificet, non tamen ut ipse, quasi ita qui ante non habuerit, extrinsecus acceperit sanctitatem. Hoc nomen sancti ita possidet Spiritus, ut possidet Pater et Filius: possidet autem, non ipse aut Pater exsistens aut Filius, sed Spiritus Dei. Si autem Spiritus Dei dicitur, non ut angelus Dei, neque ut homo Dei, quorum natura a divina substantia inaestimabiliter discreta est: sed sic est Spiritus Dei, ut sit ejusdem substantiae cum Patre et Filio: quia et una sanctitas est Patris et Filii el Spiritus sancti: quandoquidem idem Spiritus sanctus usque adeo vere et naturaliter sanctus est, ut hoc ei naturaliter et verum sit vocabulum. Intende enim ad verba Salvatoris dicentis: Euntes ergo nunc, docete omnes gentes, baptizantes eos in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti. Sicut enim verum vocabulum est Patris, et verum vocabulum Filii est; Ita verum est vocabulum Spiritus sancti. Et quomodo verum vocabulum Patris dicatur, Scire poterimus, si animadvertamus quomodo verus Deus dicatur. II. Multi dicuntur dii, sed non sunt vere dii; et taceo nunc de satana ac daemoniis eorumque similibus, qui usurpatione impia dii vocantur. Dicti sunt quidem et homines dii secundum hoc testimonium: Ego dixi: dii estis, et filii Excelsi omnes: sed quam non vere sint dii, subsequentia manifestant, quae ita se habent: Vos autem sicut homines moriemini, et sicut unus de principibus cadetis Si ergo ubi quilibet sancti, dii vocantur; hoc illis pie et cum justitia viventibus ex Dei gratia provenit, maxime cum in eis Spiritus sanctus inhabitet; de quo quidem vocabulo excidunt, si non ambulare in viis Domini perseverent: nemo ergo de creaturis verus est Deus, quia nemo naturaliter Deus est. Solus autem Deus naturaliter verus Deus est, hoc ipsum exsistens sine initio et fine. Per hanc nunc veri Dei intelligentiam intelligamus et verum vocabulum patris. Apud homines exinde pater quis dicitur, ex quo genuit filium: Sed licet ex se genuerit filium, tamen non proprie verus est pater, cui accessit hoc vocabulum, et hoc ipsum a Deo praestitum: qui quidem et tam diu pater dicitur, quam diu ejus vivit filius. Sicut enim nato ex se filio vocabulum patris adeptus est, ita et morte filii vocabulum patris amittit. Deus autem solus proprie verus est Pater, qui sine initio et fine Pater est. Non enim aliquando coepit esse quod Pater est; sed semper Pater est, semper habens Filium ex se genitum; sicut et semper verus est Deus, sine initio et fine perseverans. Ergo sicut vocabulum veri Dei solus obtinet, qui sine initio et fine solus Pater vocatur; ita intelligamus et verum vocabulum Filii Dei. Apud homines enim qui filius est; coepit esse quod filius est, et morte patris amittit hoc vocabulum. Frequenter autem et de filii vocabulo transit in vocabulum patris, cum genuerit filium: non est ergo proprium et verum vocabulum filii in creatura, qui et esse coepit filius, et potest hoc vocabulum non habere vel patris occasu, vel cum idem ipse transfertur in vocabulum patris, etiam ante quam conditio mortis obveniat. Solus autem Filius Dei verus est filius, exsistens hoc sine initio, sine fine, semper habens Patrem, et numquam ipse, ut est unigenitus, generatis accipit vocabulum patris. Unde et proprium et verum vocabulum filii in solo Filio Dei est, habens hoc naturaliter, sicut et naturaliter verus Deus est. Si ergo cognovimus quomodo proprium et verum vocabulum patris est, et quomodo proprium et verum vocabulum filii est; sequitur, ut intelligamus ita, quomodo proprium et verum vocabulum est Spiritus sancti. III. Scilicet cum hoc ipsum est naturaliter Spiritus sanctus, sine initio, sine fine; numquam enim ex aequa nominis auctoritate cum Patris et Filii veris vocabulis sancti Spiritus vocabulum jungeretur; si non et sancti Spiritus proprium verumque vocabulum probaretur. Si ergo hoc ei proprium et verum et naturaliter, sine initio et fine vocabulum est; non est igitur creatura Spiritus sanctus, qui ita proprium et verum vocabulum sancti Spiritus habet, sicut nulla potest habere creatura. Sed et cum praecipit Dominus, ut gentes in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti baptizentur; apertissimum est Spiritum sanctum non esse creaturam, vel ex ipsa societate quae illi una cum Patre et Filio est; vel quod numquam praeciperet Dominus, ut in creaturae nomine aliquis baptizaretur: multum enim divinae potentiae derogaretur, si cum confessione divini nominis par quoque creaturae confessio poneretur. Et bene, quod unum nomen posuit dicens: In nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti; ut una principalis auctoritas crederetur indivisibilis et perfectae Trinitatis. Quomodo enim Spiritus sanctus a principali auctoritate discretus esse credatur, quando de ipso scriptum legimus in quinquagesimo Psalmo: Et spiritu principali confirma me? Ergo et per hoc ostenditur, quod una est principalitas Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti: siquidem et in omni conditione Patri et Filio consors invenitur. Accipe inierim vel unum testimonium: Verbo Domini coeli firmati sunt, et Spiritu oris ejus omnis virtus eorum. Et per hoc ergo ostenditur Spiritum sanctum non esse creaturam; siquidem et ipse cum Patre et Filio conditor approbatur. Dicam plene et Deum, et Dominum Spiritum sanctum, doctus a majoribus ecclesiasticis viris, qui et ipsi testimonia Scripturarum divinarum prius a vieris apostolis eruditi, suis posteris tradiderunt. Exsequerer et ego singula illa quaeque testimonia, nisi apud animam fidelem de his quoque quae supra breviter intimata sunt, sancti Spiritus divinitas eluceret: maxime quia et nunc mihi non tam disputatio de Spiritu sancto proposita est, quam ut de divino ejus nomine pia confessio signaretur. Hoc tamen ad compendium probandae divinitatis ejus subdam, quod etiam per hoc ipsum Deus probatur Spiritus sanctus, per quod ostenditur nou esse creatura. Omne enim quod est, aut divinitas est. aut creatura: sed Spiritus sanctus hoc ipsum exsistens, sine initio et fine, non est creatura: ergo Spiritus sanctus res est divinitatis, quia incorruptibilis et indemutabilis et sempiternus Spiritus Dei. Una est ergo divinitas Patris et Filii el Spiritus sancti, sicut et una sanctitas ejusdem perfectae et inseparabilis Trinitatis. IV. Sed hic finem faciamus: in quantum enim quis intentior ad sacras Scripturas de fide loqui voluerit, in tantum non deerit quod loquatur. Hoc autem non ambigo, quod si quis forte eloquens haec ipsa legerit, delinquentiam incompti sermonis inveniet; non tamen, si fidelis est, piae confessionis errorem, quam quidem in nobis ex Dei gratia praestitam cupimus usque ad mortem, auxilio ejus qui praestitit, vindicare sine labe communionis haereticorum atque praevaricatorum, quia et Deo teste metuimus eorum damnationis participes inveniri. Viderit si quis putat se de eorum societate reum non posse fieri, habens conscientiae propriae fiduciam, quia fidem integram vindicat ita, ut numquam ipse ejus fidei praevaricator exstiterit: tamen ego in causa Dei cautius timere compellor; siquidem et de ipsis cautum legimus: Haereticum hominem post unam correptionem devita, sciens quoniam perversus est hujusmodi, et peccat, et est a semetipso damnatus. Sed et de poena praevaricatorum legimus, dicente Esaia: Et veniet omnis caro in conspectu meo adorare in Hierusalem, dicit Dominus Deus. Et procedent sancti, et videbunt membra hominum qui praevaricati sunt in me. Vermis eorum non morietur, et ignis eorum non exstinguetur: et erunt in visione omni carni. Sed et Apostolus ait: Nolite jugum ducere cum infidelibus; quia et alibi idem Apostolus post descriptionem malorum: Non solum, inquit, qui faciunt ea, sed etiam qui consentiunt facientibus ea. Et multa alia sunt testimonia divina, quibus supradictorum consortium prohibetur. Sed ego haec ipsa, licet breviter, intimavi, ne nos de vana superstitione credat aliquis nolle communicare cum talibus, quos perspicit per divinam sententiam reprobari. Divinitas te incolumem ac beatam in fide sui nominis etiam in regno coelorum praestet cum tuis omnibus affectibus inveniri.

### English translation (Claude)

I. All the questions you had written about the Father and the Son I consider answered, as far as the grace of God has granted; whether this is true in your view, your religious prudence will judge—although I admit that, through the constraint of time, the haste of the matter, and the very dry style of my narrow speech, I have touched on their headings rather than pursued them fully; for, as I said before, I had not begun to write a book, but to mark out a kind of outline of the faith, as a sort of abridgement, so that you would not think me unfaithful if, challenged by your wonderful kindness, I kept silent. But now something must be confessed about the Holy Spirit, even if briefly, lest, if we say nothing specifically about him, we be believed to blaspheme in the same way as those who say he is a creature. We wonder, though, at their madness, that they think impiously of him whom they confess as the Holy Spirit. For if he is the Holy Spirit, how is he a creature? For he is not holy as others are, who have come to the name of saints by faith and a way of life pleasing to God and by the sealing of the Holy Spirit himself; but he himself is always holy by nature, so as to sanctify others—not as though, not having it before, he received holiness from outside. The Spirit possesses this name "holy" as the Father and the Son possess it; he possesses it, not being himself either the Father or the Son, but the Spirit of God. And if he is called the Spirit of God, it is not as an angel of God or as a man of God, whose nature is inestimably distinct from the divine substance; but he is the Spirit of God in such a way as to be of the same substance with the Father and the Son, because the holiness of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit is one; since the same Holy Spirit is so truly and naturally holy that this name is his by nature and truly. For attend to the words of the Saviour, saying: "Go, therefore, now and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." For as the name of the Father is true and the name of the Son is true, so the name of the Holy Spirit is true. And how the name of the Father is said to be true we shall be able to know if we notice how the true God is so called.

II. Many are called gods, but they are not truly gods; and I say nothing now of Satan and the demons and their like, who by impious usurpation are called gods. Men too have been called gods, according to this testimony: "I said, You are gods, and all of you sons of the Most High"; but how they are not truly gods what follows makes plain, which runs thus: "But you will die like men, and fall like one of the princes." If, then, wherever any saints are called gods, this comes to them by the grace of God, as they live piously and justly, especially since the Holy Spirit dwells in them—a name from which they fall if they do not persevere in walking in the ways of the Lord—then no creature is true God, because none is God by nature. But God alone is by nature true God, existing as this very thing without beginning and end. Through this understanding of true God let us now understand also the true name of Father. Among men someone is called father from the time he begets a son; but although he has begotten a son from himself, he is not properly a true father, since this name came to him, and was itself granted by God; and he is called father only as long as his son lives. For as he obtained the name of father when a son was born of him, so by the death of the son he loses the name of father. But God alone is properly true Father, who is Father without beginning and end. For he did not at some time begin to be what the Father is; but he is always Father, always having the Son begotten of himself, as he is also always true God, continuing without beginning and end. Therefore, as he alone holds the name of true God who alone is called Father without beginning and end, so let us understand also the true name of Son of God. Among men, he who is a son began to be what a son is, and by his father's death loses this name. And often he passes from the name of son to that of father, when he begets a son: so the name of son is not proper and true in a creature, who began to be a son and can cease to have this name, either by the death of his father or when he himself is transferred to the name of father, even before the condition of death befalls him. But the Son of God alone is a true son, existing as this without beginning, without end, always having the Father, and never himself, since he is only-begotten, receiving the name of father by begetting. Hence the proper and true name of son is in the Son of God alone, who has this by nature, as he is also by nature true God. If, then, we have learned how the name of father is proper and true, and how the name of son is proper and true, it follows that we should understand likewise how the name of the Holy Spirit is proper and true.

III. Namely, since the Holy Spirit is this very thing by nature, without beginning, without end: for the name of the Holy Spirit would never be joined with equal authority of name to the true names of the Father and the Son unless the name of the Holy Spirit too were proved proper and true. If, then, this name is proper and true and natural to him, without beginning and end, then the Holy Spirit is not a creature, who has the proper and true name of Holy Spirit in a way that no creature can have it. And when the Lord commands that the nations be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, it is most plain that the Holy Spirit is not a creature—either from the very fellowship he has as one with the Father and the Son, or because the Lord would never command that anyone be baptized in the name of a creature: for much would be taken from the divine power if an equal confession of a creature were set beside the confession of the divine name. And it is well that he set down one name, saying, "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," so that one sovereign authority of the indivisible and perfect Trinity might be believed. For how could the Holy Spirit be believed to be separate from the sovereign authority, when we read written of him in the fiftieth psalm: "And strengthen me with your sovereign Spirit"? By this too, then, it is shown that the sovereignty of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is one, since in all creation too he is found a partner with the Father and the Son. Take meanwhile even one testimony: "By the word of the Lord the heavens were made firm, and by the Spirit of his mouth all their power." By this too, then, it is shown that the Holy Spirit is not a creature, since he too is proved to be creator with the Father and the Son. I will say fully that the Holy Spirit is both God and Lord, as I have been taught by the elder men of the church, who themselves, taught first the testimonies of the divine Scriptures by the true apostles, handed them on to their successors. I would go through each of those testimonies myself, were it not that to a faithful soul the divinity of the Holy Spirit shines out even from what has been briefly indicated above—especially since my present task is not so much a disputation about the Holy Spirit as to mark a pious confession of his divine name. This, however, I will add as a short proof of his divinity: that the Holy Spirit is proved God by the very thing by which he is shown not to be a creature. For everything that is, is either divinity or creature; but the Holy Spirit, existing as this very thing without beginning and end, is not a creature: therefore the Holy Spirit belongs to divinity, because he is the incorruptible, unchangeable, and everlasting Spirit of God. One, then, is the divinity of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, as one is the holiness of the same perfect and inseparable Trinity.

IV. But let us make an end here: for the more intently anyone wishes to speak about the faith with attention to the sacred Scriptures, the more he will not lack things to say. But I do not doubt that if some eloquent person reads these things, he will find the faults of unpolished speech—but not, if he is faithful, any error of pious confession; which, granted to us by the grace of God, we desire to maintain until death, with the help of him who granted it, without the stain of communion with heretics and prevaricators, because, God is witness, we fear to be found sharers in their condemnation. Someone may think that he cannot become guilty by fellowship with them, trusting in his own conscience because he maintains the faith whole and has never himself been a prevaricator of the faith; but I, in the cause of God, am compelled to fear more cautiously, since we read a warning about them: "Avoid a heretical man after one admonition, knowing that such a one is perverted and sins, being condemned by himself." And we read of the punishment of prevaricators too, Isaiah saying: "And all flesh will come before me to worship in Jerusalem, says the Lord God; and the saints will go out and see the limbs of the men who have transgressed against me; their worm will not die and their fire will not be quenched, and they will be a spectacle to all flesh." And the apostle says: "Do not be yoked with unbelievers"; and elsewhere the same apostle, after describing evils: "Not only those who do them, but also those who consent to those who do them." And there are many other divine testimonies by which fellowship with the persons mentioned above is forbidden. But I have indicated these, though briefly, so that no one may think that we refuse to communicate, out of empty superstition, with such as he sees to be rejected by divine sentence. May the Godhead grant that you, safe and blessed in the faith of his name, be found also in the kingdom of heaven together with all who are dear to you.

### Scripture references

- Matt 28:19: quotation, high confidence
- Ps 82:6 (81:6 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Ps 82:7 (81:7 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Ps 51:12 (50:14 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Ps 33:6 (32:6 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Titus 3:10: quotation, high confidence
- Titus 3:11: quotation, high confidence
- Isa 66:23: quotation, high confidence
- Isa 66:24: quotation, high confidence
- 2 Cor 6:14: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 1:32: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Matt 28:19; Ps 82:6–7 (LXX/Vulg. 81:6–7); Ps 51:12 (LXX/Vulg. 50:14, "the fiftieth psalm"); Ps 33:6 (LXX/Vulg. 32:6); Titus 3:10–11; Isa 66:23–24; 2 Cor 6:14; Rom 1:32. The "prevaricators" are, in the Luciferian view Faustinus held, bishops who had compromised with Arianism (as at Ariminum, 359) and those who received them back into communion; his refusal of their communion is translated as written.

### Citation (SBL)

Faustinus, Trin. 7 (PL 13:76c–80b; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/faustinus-de-trinitate/7).