Works (City of God, On the Trinity, etc.) 25 part 1/3

When men seek God and strain their mind toward an understanding of the Trinity, according to the measure of human weakness, having experienced laborious difficulties—whether in the very keenness of the mind striving to gaze upon the inaccessible light, or in the manifold and multiform speech of the sacred letters, where it seems to me that nothing else is done but that Adam is worn away, so that the grace of Christ, being glorified, may shine forth—when, after every ambiguity has been discussed, they have arrived at something certain, they ought most readily to forgive those who err in the investigation of so great a secret. But there are two things which in the error of men are most difficult to tolerate: presumption before the truth is made plain, and, when it has already been made plain, the defense of a presumed falsehood.

From these two vices, most hostile to the finding of truth and to the handling of the divine and holy books, if—as I pray and hope—God shall defend and fortify me with the shield of His good will and by the grace of His mercy, I shall not be slothful in inquiring into the substance of God, whether through His Scripture or through His creation. Both of these are set before us to be contemplated, that He Himself may be sought, He Himself loved, who both inspired the one and created the other. Nor shall I be fearful in bringing forth my own opinion, in which I shall rather love to be examined by the upright than fear to be bitten by the perverse. For most beautiful and modest charity gladly receives the dove's eye;

but the dog's tooth either most cautious humility avoids, or most solid truth blunts. And I shall rather choose to be reproved by anyone than to be praised either by one who errs or one who flatters. For no reprover is to be dreaded by a lover of truth. For either an enemy is to reprove or a friend. If then an enemy insults, he is to be borne; but if a friend errs, he is to be taught; if he teaches, he is to be heard. But a praiser who errs confirms error, and one who flatters entices into error. 'The righteous shall correct me in mercy and shall reprove me; but the oil of the sinner shall not fatten my head.'

[I 2] Wherefore, although we hold most firmly concerning our Lord Jesus Christ—both disseminated through the Scriptures and demonstrated by the learned catholic expositors of those same Scriptures, as a canonical rule—how the Son of God is to be understood as both equal to the Father according to the form of God in which He is, and less than the Father according to the form of a servant which He took; in which form He was found less not only than the Father but even than the Holy Spirit, and not only this but even than Himself—not than Himself who was, but than Himself who is, because the form of a servant which He took did not cause Him to lose the form of God, as the testimonies of the Scriptures which we mentioned in the earlier book have taught;

yet there are certain things in the divine utterances so placed that it is ambiguous to which rule they should rather be referred—whether to that by which we understand the Son to be less in the creature He assumed, or to that by which we understand the Son to be indeed not less but equal to the Father, yet from Him this one is God of God, light of light. For we call the Son God of God; but the Father God only, not 'of God.' Whence it is manifest that the Son has another from whom He is and to whom He is Son; but the Father has not a Son from whom He is, but only one to whom He is Father. For every son is from a father, that which he is, and is a son to the father; but no father is from a son, that which he is, but is a father to the son.

Certain things, then, are so set down in the Scriptures concerning the Father and the Son as to indicate the unity and equality of substance, such as: 'I and the Father are one,' and: 'When He was in the form of God, He did not consider it robbery to be equal to God,' and whatever such things there are. But certain others are so set down as to show the Son less on account of the form of a servant, that is, on account of the assumed creature of a mutable and human substance, such as this which He says: 'For the Father is greater than I,' and: 'The Father judges no man, but has committed all judgment to the Son.' For a little afterward He consequently says: 'And He has given Him power to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of Man.'

Certain other things, moreover, are so set down that He is shown neither less nor equal, but only that He is from the Father is intimated, such as this: 'As the Father has life in Himself, so has He given to the Son to have life in Himself,' and this: 'For the Son cannot do anything of Himself, but what He sees the Father doing.' But if we take this to be said because in the form assumed from the creature the Son is less, it will follow that the Father first walked upon the waters, or opened with spittle and clay the eyes of some other man born blind, and the rest of the things which the Son, appearing in the flesh among men, did—so that He who said that the Son could do nothing of Himself but what He saw the Father doing might be able to do them. But who, even if deranged, would think so?

It remains, therefore, that these things were said for this reason: because the life of the Son, like that of the Father, is immutable, and yet is from the Father; and the operation of the Father and the Son is inseparable, but yet for the Son so to operate is from Him from whom He Himself is, that is, from the Father; and the Son so sees the Father that by the very fact that He sees Him He is thereby the Son. For to Him, to be from the Father—that is, to be born of the Father—is nothing other than to see the Father; nor is it another thing to see Him operating than to operate together with Him; but therefore not of Himself, because He is not of Himself, and therefore what He sees the Father doing, because He is of the Father. For neither does He do other things in a like manner, as a painter paints other panels in the way he has seen others painted by another; nor the same things in an unlike manner, as the body forms the same letters which the mind has thought; but:

'Whatsoever things,' He says, 'the Father does, these same things the Son also does likewise.' And He said 'these same things' and 'likewise,' and hence the operation of the Father and the Son is inseparable and equal, but it is from the Father to the Son. Therefore the Son cannot do anything of Himself but what He sees the Father doing. From this rule, then, by which the Scriptures so speak as to wish to show not one less than another but only who is from whom, some have conceived a notion as if the Son were said to be less. But certain of our own people, rather unlearned and least instructed in these matters, while they try to take these things according to the form of a servant and a right understanding does not follow them, are thrown into confusion.

Lest this happen, this rule too must be held, by which not that the Son is less but that He is from the Father is intimated—by which words not His inequality but His nativity is shown. [II 4] There are, then, certain things in the holy books, as I had begun to say, so placed that it is ambiguous to which they are to be referred: whether to that whereby the Son is less on account of the assumed creature, or to that whereby, although equal, He is nevertheless indicated as being from the Father. And to me indeed it seems that if it is ambiguous in such a way that it cannot be explained and distinguished, it can be understood without peril by either rule, such as this which He says: 'My doctrine is not mine, but His who sent me.'

For it can be taken both from the form of a servant, as we have already treated in the earlier book, and from the form of God, in which He is equal to the Father in such a way that He is nevertheless from the Father. For in the form of God, just as the Son is not one thing and His life another, but that very life is the Son, so the Son is not one thing and His doctrine another, but that very doctrine is the Son. And hence, just as what was said, 'He gave life to the Son,' is understood as nothing other than 'He begot the Son who is life,' so also when it is said, 'He gave doctrine to the Son,' it is rightly understood: 'He begot the Son who is doctrine'; so that what was said, 'My doctrine is not mine, but His who sent me,' may be understood as if it were said:

'I am not from myself, but from Him who sent me.' [III 5] For also concerning the Holy Spirit, of whom it was not said, 'He emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant,' the Lord Himself nevertheless says: 'But when that Spirit of truth shall come, He will teach you all truth. For He will not speak of Himself, but whatsoever He shall hear, that will He speak, and the things that are to come He will announce to you. He shall glorify me, because He shall receive of mine and shall announce it to you.' Unless after these words He had immediately followed by saying: 'All things whatsoever the Father has are mine; therefore I said, that He shall receive of mine and shall announce it to you,' it might perhaps be believed that the Holy Spirit was so born of Christ as He of the Father. For of Himself He had said:

'My doctrine is not mine, but His who sent me'; but concerning the Holy Spirit: 'For He will not speak of Himself, but whatsoever He shall hear, that will He speak,' and: 'For He shall receive of mine and shall announce it to you.' But because He rendered the reason why He said 'He shall receive of mine'—for He says, 'All things whatsoever the Father has are mine; therefore I said, that He shall receive of mine'—it remains that the Holy Spirit too is understood to have of the Father's, just as the Son also does. In what way, except according to that which we said above: 'But when the Paraclete shall come, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He shall bear witness of me'? By proceeding, therefore, from the Father, He is said not to speak of Himself; and just as it does not thereby follow that the Son is less because He said:

'The Son cannot do anything of Himself, but what He sees the Father doing' (for He said this not from the form of a servant, but from the form of God, as we have already shown; and these words do not indicate that He is less, but that He is from the Father); so neither is it hereby brought about that the Holy Spirit is less because it was said of Him: 'For He will not speak of Himself, but whatsoever He shall hear, that will He speak'; for this was said according to that which He proceeds from the Father.

But since the Son is from the Father and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, why are they not both called sons, nor both begotten, but the one alone is the only-begotten Son, while the Holy Spirit is neither son nor begotten — because if begotten, he would surely be a son — this we shall discuss in another place, if God grants it and as far as he grants. Yet here let them be watchful, if they can, who have thought that even this supported their view, as though to prove the Father greater than the Son, because the Son said: 'Father, glorify me.' Behold, the Holy Spirit also glorifies him; is he then greater than the Son?

Moreover, if the Holy Spirit glorifies the Son because he shall receive of what is the Son's, and receives of his because all things that the Father has are the Son's, it is manifest that when the Holy Spirit glorifies the Son, the Father glorifies the Son. Whence it is recognized that all things the Father has belong not only to the Son but also to the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit is able to glorify the Son whom the Father glorifies. But if he who glorifies is greater than the one whom he glorifies, then let them allow that those are equal who mutually glorify one another. Now it is written that the Son also glorifies the Father: 'I,' he says, 'have glorified thee upon the earth.'

Let them indeed take care lest the Holy Spirit be thought greater than both, because he glorifies the Son whom the Father glorifies, while it is written that he himself is glorified neither by the Father nor by the Son. But being refuted in these matters they turn to this, saying: 'He who sends is greater than he who is sent.' Accordingly the Father is greater than the Son, because the Son constantly recalls that he was sent by the Father; he is greater also than the Holy Spirit, because Jesus said of him: 'Whom the Father will send in my name'; and the Holy Spirit is less than both, because both the Father sends him, as we have recalled, and the Son, when he says: 'But if I go, I will send him to you.' On this question I first ask whence and whither the Son was sent. 'I,' he says, 'went forth from the Father and came into this world';

therefore to go forth from the Father and to come into this world — this is to be sent. What then is it that the same evangelist says of him: 'He was in this world, and the world was made through him, and the world knew him not'; and then adds: 'He came unto his own'? Surely he was sent thither whither he came. But if into this world — and this consists in the fact that he went forth from the Father and came into this world — and he was in this world, then he was sent thither where he already was. For that also which is written in the prophet, that God says: 'I fill heaven and earth,' if it was said of the Son (for some would have it that it was he who spoke either to the prophets or in the prophets), whither was he sent except thither where he already was? For he who said, 'I fill heaven and earth,' was everywhere.

But if it was said of the Father, where could he be without his Word and without his Wisdom, which reaches mightily from end to end and disposes all things sweetly? Nor indeed could he be anywhere without his Spirit. And so if God is everywhere, everywhere too is his Spirit. Thither then the Holy Spirit also was sent, where he already was. For even he who finds no place to go from the face of God, and says: 'If I ascend into heaven, thou art there; if I descend into hell, thou art present' — wishing God to be understood as present everywhere — first named his Spirit. For thus he says: 'Whither shall I go from thy Spirit? And whither shall I flee from thy face?'

Wherefore, if both the Son and the Holy Spirit are sent thither where they already were, it must be asked how this sending, whether of the Son or of the Holy Spirit, is to be understood. For the Father alone is nowhere read to have been sent. And of the Son the Apostle writes thus: 'But when the fullness of time was come, God sent his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, that he might redeem those who were under the law.' 'He sent,' he says, 'his Son, made of a woman.' By which name what Catholic does not know that he wished to signify, not the loss of virginity, but the difference of sex, according to the Hebrew manner of speaking? So then when he says, 'God sent his Son, made of a woman,' he sufficiently shows that the Son was sent by the very fact that he was made of a woman.

That therefore which was born of God was in this world; but that which was born of Mary was sent, coming into this world. And so he could not be sent by the Father without the Holy Spirit, not only because the Father is understood, when he sent him — that is, made him of a woman — assuredly not to have done so without his Spirit, but also because it is most manifestly and openly said in the Gospel to the Virgin Mary, when she asked the angel: 'How shall this be?' — 'The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee'; and Matthew says: 'She was found with child of the Holy Spirit'; although also in the prophet Isaiah Christ himself is understood to speak of his coming that was to be: 'And now the Lord hath sent me, and his Spirit.'

Perhaps someone may press us to say that the Son was sent even by himself, because that conception and birth of Mary is the operation of the Trinity, by whose creating all things are created. 'And how then,' he says, 'did the Father send him, if he sent himself?' To whom I first reply by asking that he say, if he can: how did the Father sanctify him, if he sanctified himself? For the same Lord says both: 'He whom the Father,' he says, 'hath sanctified and sent into the world, ye say that he blasphemeth, because I said, I am the Son of God'; but in another place he says: 'And for their sakes I sanctify myself.' Likewise I ask how the Father delivered him up, if he delivered up himself. For the Apostle Paul says both:

'He that spared not,' he says, 'his own Son, but delivered him up for us all.' But elsewhere, of the Savior himself, he says: 'Who loved me and delivered up himself for me.' I believe he will answer, if he understands these things aright, that there is one will of the Father and of the Son and an inseparable operation. So then let him understand that incarnation and that birth from the Virgin — in which the Son is understood to be sent — to have been accomplished inseparably by one and the same operation of the Father and the Son, the Holy Spirit assuredly not being separated therefrom, of whom it is openly said: 'She was found with child of the Holy Spirit.' For even if we inquire in this way, perhaps what we are saying will appear more clearly. In what way did God send his Son? Did he command that he should come, and did the Son, obeying the command, come?

Or did he ask? Or did he merely admonish? But whichever of these it was, it was assuredly done by a word; and the Word of God is the very Son of God. Wherefore, when the Father sent him by a word, it was by the Father and by his Word that it came about that he was sent. Therefore the same Son was sent by the Father and the Son, because the Word of the Father is the Son himself. For who would clothe himself in so sacrilegious an opinion as to think that a temporal word was made by the Father, in order that the eternal Son might be sent and appear in the flesh in time? But surely in the very Word of God, which was in the beginning with God and was God — that is, in the very Wisdom of God — there was without time that time at which it behooved him to appear in the flesh.

And so, since without any beginning of time the Word was in the beginning, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God, there was in that Word itself, without any time, that time at which the Word was to become flesh and dwell among us. And when this fullness of time was come, God sent his Son, made of a woman — that is, made in time, that the incarnate Word might appear to men — which in the Word itself was without time, the time at which it was to come to pass. For indeed the order of times is, in the eternal Wisdom of God, without time. So then, when this had been done by the Father and the Son, that the Son should appear in the flesh, he was fittingly said to be sent who appeared in that flesh, and he to have sent who did not appear in it.

Since those things which are outwardly enacted before bodily eyes arise from the inner disposition of spiritual nature, they are therefore fitly said to be sent. Now that form of the assumed manhood is the person of the Son, not also of the Father. Wherefore the invisible Father, together with the Son who is invisible with him, is said to have sent that same Son by making him visible. But if he were made visible in such a way that he ceased to be invisible with the Father — that is, if the substance of the invisible Word were changed and passing over into a visible creature were turned into it — then the Son would be understood to be sent by the Father in such wise that he was found to be only sent, and not also sending together with the Father.

But since the form of a servant was so assumed that the form of God remained unchangeable, it is manifest that what appeared in the Son was done by the Father and the Son who did not appear — that is, that by the invisible Father, together with the invisible Son, the same Son was sent as visible. Why then does he say: 'And I came not of myself'? This is now said according to the form of a servant, according to which it is also said: 'I judge no man.' If therefore he is said to be sent inasmuch as he appeared outwardly in a bodily creature, who inwardly in his spiritual nature is ever hidden from the eyes of mortals, it is now easy to understand also concerning the Holy Spirit why he too is said to be sent.

For a certain species of creature was made in time, in which the Holy Spirit might be visibly shown: either when in bodily form as a dove he descended upon the Lord himself, or when, after ten days had passed following his ascension, on the day of Pentecost there suddenly came from heaven a sound as of a mighty rushing wind, and there appeared to them divided tongues as of fire, which also settled upon each one of them. This operation, visibly expressed and offered to mortal eyes, was called the mission of the Holy Spirit;

not that his very substance appeared, by which he too is invisible and unchangeable, even as the Father and the Son; but that, by outward things seen, the hearts of men, moved from the temporal manifestation of him who was coming, might be turned to the hidden eternity of him who is ever present. Now for this reason it is nowhere written that God the Father is greater than the Holy Spirit, or the Holy Spirit less than God the Father: because the creature in which the Holy Spirit appeared was not so assumed as the Son of Man was assumed, in which form the person of the very Word of God was presented — not that he possessed the Word of God as the other holy sages did, but 'above his fellows';

and assuredly not because he possessed more of the Word, so as to be, than the rest by a more excellent wisdom, but because he was the very Word itself. For it is one thing to be the Word in flesh, another to be the Word made flesh — that is, one thing the Word in a man, another the Word who is man. For 'flesh' is put for 'man' in that which he says: 'The Word was made flesh,' just as in that other passage: 'And all flesh shall see the salvation of God.' For it does not mean flesh without soul or without mind, but 'all flesh' as if it were said 'every man.' Not then was the creature so assumed, in which the Holy Spirit might appear, as that flesh and that human form was assumed from the Virgin Mary.

For the Spirit did not beatify the dove, or that wind, or that fire, and join it to himself and to his person in unity and permanence for ever; nor indeed is the nature of the Holy Spirit changeable and convertible, so that these things were not made out of a creature, but he himself were changeably turned into this and that, as water into ice. But these things appeared as they ought fittingly to appear — the creature serving the Creator, and at his nod, while he himself remains unchangeably in himself, being changed and converted to signify and demonstrate him, as it was fitting that he should be signified and demonstrated to mortals. Accordingly, although that dove was called the Spirit, and of that fire, when it was said:

'There appeared to them,' it says, 'divided tongues as of fire, which also settled upon each one of them, and they began to speak with tongues, as the Spirit gave them to utter,' so that by that fire the Spirit might be shown to be demonstrated, as by the dove; yet we cannot in this way say the Holy Spirit to be both God and a dove, or both God and fire, as we say the Son to be both God and man, nor as we say the Son to be the Lamb of God — not only when John the Baptist says: 'Behold the Lamb of God,' but also when John the Evangelist sees the Lamb slain in the Apocalypse. For that prophetic vision was not exhibited to bodily eyes through bodily forms, but in the spirit through spiritual images of bodily things.

But that dove and that fire, whoever saw them saw with their eyes — although concerning the fire it may be disputed whether it was seen with the eyes or in the spirit, on account of the words being so placed; for it does not say, 'They saw divided tongues as of fire,' but, 'There appeared to them.' Now we are not accustomed to say, under the same meaning, 'It appeared to me,' as we say, 'I saw.' And in those spiritual visions of bodily images it is customary to say both 'It appeared to me' and 'I saw,' but in these which are demonstrated to the eyes through an expressed bodily species, it is not customary to say 'It appeared to me,' but 'I saw.' Concerning that fire, therefore, there can be a question how it was seen — whether inwardly in the spirit as though outwardly, or truly outwardly before the eyes of flesh;

but concerning that dove, which is said to have descended in a bodily form, no one has ever doubted that it was seen with the eyes. Nor, just as we say the Son is a rock (for it is written: 'And that rock was Christ'), can we in like manner say the Spirit is a dove or fire. For that rock already existed in the created order, and by the mode of its action was named by the name of Christ, whom it signified — just as that stone which Jacob placed at his head he also took up with an anointing to signify the Lord; just as Isaac was Christ when he carried the wood for his own immolation. To these there was added a certain significant action, they already existing; but not so did that dove and fire suddenly come into being solely to signify these things.

These rather seem to me similar to that flame which appeared to Moses in the bush, and to that pillar which the people followed in the wilderness, and to the lightnings and thunders which occurred when the law was given on the mountain. For the bodily species of those things came into being for this purpose: that it might signify something and pass away. On account, therefore, of these bodily forms, which came into being temporally to signify him and, as was fitting, to demonstrate him to human senses, the Holy Spirit also is said to be sent;

yet he was not said to be less than the Father, as the Son was on account of the form of a servant, because that form of a servant cleaved to the unity of the person, whereas those bodily species appeared for a time to demonstrate what was needful, and afterward ceased to be. Why then is the Father not also said to be sent through those bodily species — the fire of the bush and the pillars of cloud or fire, and the lightnings on the mountain, and any such things as then appeared — since we have learned by the testimony of Scripture that he spoke to the fathers face to face, if through those modes and forms of the creature, bodily expressed and presented to human sight, he himself was demonstrated? But if the Son was demonstrated through them, why is he said to be sent so long afterward, when he was made of a woman, as the Apostle says:

'But when the fullness of time was come, God sent his Son, made of a woman,' seeing that even before he was sent, when he appeared to the fathers through those changeable forms of the creature? Or if he could not rightly be said to be sent except when the Word was made flesh, why is the Holy Spirit said to be sent, of whom no such incorporation took place? But if through those visible things which are commended in the Law and the Prophets neither the Father nor the Son but the Holy Spirit was shown, why is he too now said to be sent, since even before he was sent in those modes? In the perplexity of this question we must first, with the Lord's help, inquire whether it was the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit; or sometimes the Father, sometimes the Son, sometimes the Holy Spirit;

or whether without any distinction of persons, as when God is called one and alone — that is, the Trinity itself — appeared to the fathers through those forms of the creature. Then, whichever of these shall be found or seen, we must inquire whether for this work only a creature was formed, in which God might be shown to human sight as he then judged fitting; or whether the angels who already existed were so sent as to speak in the person of God, taking on a bodily species from the corporeal creature for the use of their ministry, as was needful in each case; or whether their own body — to which they are not subject, but which, being subject, they rule — they were changing and turning into the shapes they willed, accommodated and fitted to their actions, according to the power granted them by the Creator.