Writings of Augustine. On the Trinity, De Trinitate
Advanced Information
The Fifteen Books of Aurelius Augustinus, Bishop of Hippo,
on the Trinity, de Trinitate
Translated by the Rev. Arthur West Haddan, B.D.,
Hon. Canon of Worchester, and Rector of Barton-on-the-Heath,
Warwickshire.
Published in 1886 by Philip Schaff,
New York: Christian Literature Publishing Co.
Book XV.
Begins by setting forth briefly and in sum the contents of the
previous fourteen books. The argument is then shown to have reached so
far as to allow of our now inquiring concerning the Trinity, which is
God, in those eternal, incorporeal, and unchangeable things
themselves, in the perfect contemplation of which a blessed life is
promised to us. But this Trinity, as he shows, is here seen by us as
by a mirror and in an enigma, in that it is seen by means of the image
of God, which we are, as in a likeness that is obscure and hard of
discernment. In like manner, it is shown, that some kind of conjecture
and explanation may be gathered respecting the generation of the
divine Word, from the word of our own mind, but only with difficulty,
on account of the exceeding disparity which is discernible between the
two words; and, again, respecting the procession of the Holy Spirit,
from the love that is joined thereto by the will.
Chapter 1.--God is Above the Mind.
1. Desiring to exercise the reader in the things that are made, in
order that he may know Him by whom they are made, we have now advanced
so far as to His image, which is man, in that wherein he excels the
other animals, i.e. in reason or intelligence, and whatever else can
be said of the rational or intellectual soul that pertains to what is
called the mind. [936] For by this name some Latin writers, after
their own peculiar mode of speech, distinguish that which excels in
man, and is not in the beast, from the soul, [937] which is in the
beast as well. If, then, we seek anything that is above this nature,
and seek truly, it is God,--namely, a nature not created, but
creating. And whether this is the Trinity, it is now our business to
demonstrate not only to believers, by authority of divine Scripture,
but also to such as understand, by some kind of reason, if we can. And
why I say, if we can, the thing itself will show better when we have
begun to argue about it in our inquiry.
|
|
Footnotes
[936] Mens or animus.
[937] Anima
Chapter 2.--God, Although Incomprehensible, is Ever to Be Sought. The
Traces of the Trinity are Not Vainly Sought in the Creature.
2. For God Himself, whom we seek, will, as I hope, help our labors,
that they may not be unfruitful, and that we may understand how it is
said in the holy Psalm, "Let the heart of them rejoice that seek the
Lord. Seek the Lord, and be strengthened: seek His face evermore."
[938] For that which is always being sought seems as though it were
never found; and how then will the heart of them that seek rejoice,
and not rather be made sad, if they cannot find what they seek? For it
is not said, The heart shall rejoice of them that find, but of them
that seek, the Lord. And yet the prophet Isaiah testifies, that the
Lord God can be found when He is sought, when he says: "Seek ye the
Lord; and as soon as ye have found Him, call upon Him: and when He has
drawn near to you, let the wicked man forsake his ways, and the
unrighteous man his thoughts." [939] If, then, when sought, He can be
found, why is it said, "Seek ye His face evermore?" Is He perhaps to
be sought even when found? For things incomprehensible must so be
investigated, as that no one may think he has found nothing, when he
has been able to find how incomprehensible that is which he was
seeking. Why then does he so seek, if he comprehends that which he
seeks to be incomprehensible, unless because he may not give over
seeking so long as he makes progress in the inquiry itself into things
incomprehensible, and becomes ever better and better while seeking so
great a good, which is both sought in order to be found, and found in
order to be sought? For it is both sought in order that it may be
found more sweetly, and found in order that it may be sought more
eagerly. The words of Wisdom in the book of Ecclesiasticus may be
taken in this meaning: "They who eat me shall still be hungry, and
they who drink me shall still be thirsty." [940] For they eat and
drink because they find; and they still continue seeking because they
are hungry and thirst. Faith seeks, understanding finds; whence the
prophet says, "Unless ye believe, ye shall not understand." [941] And
yet, again, understanding still seeks Him, whom it finds; for "God
looked down upon the sons of men," as it is sung in the holy Psalm,
"to see if there were any that would understand, and seek after God."
[942] And man, therefore, ought for this purpose to have
understanding, that he may seek after God.
3. We shall have tarried then long enough among those things that God
has made, in order that by them He Himself may be known that made
them. "For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world
are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made." [943]
And hence they are rebuked in the book of Wisdom, "who could not out
of the good things that are seen know Him that is: neither by
considering the works did they acknowledge the workmaster; but deemed
either fire, or wind, or the swift air or the circle of the stars, or
the violent water, or the lights of heaven, to be the gods which
govern the world: with whose beauty if they, being delighted, took
them to be gods, let them know how much better the Lord of them is;
for the first Author of beauty hath created them. But if they were
astonished at their power and virtue, let them understand by them how
much mightier He is that made them. For by the greatness and beauty of
the creatures proportionably the Maker of them is seen." [944] I have
quoted these words from the book of Wisdom for this reason, that no
one of the faithful may think me vainly and emptily to have sought
first in the creature, step by step through certain trinities, each of
their own appropriate kind, until I came at last to the mind of man,
traces of that highest Trinity which we seek when we seek God.
Footnotes
[938] Ps. cv. 3, 4
[939] Isa. lv. 6, 7
[940] Ecclus. xxiv. 29
[941] Isa. vii. 9
[942] Ps. xiv. 2
[943] Rom. i. 20
[944] Wisd. xiii. 1-5
Chapter 3.--A Brief Recapitulation of All the Previous Books.
4. But since the necessities of our discussion and argument have
compelled us to say a great many things in the course of fourteen
books, which we cannot view at once in one glance, so as to be able to
refer them quickly in thought to that which we desire to grasp, I will
attempt, by the help of God, to the best of my power, to put briefly
together, without arguing, whatever I have established in the several
books by argument as known, and to place, as it were, under one mental
view, not the way in which we have been convinced of each point, but
the points themselves of which we have been convinced; in order that
what follows may not be so far separated from that which precedes, as
that the perusal of the former shall produce forgetfulness of the
latter; or at any rate, if it have produced such forgetfulness, that
what has escaped the memory may be speedily recalled by re-perusal.
5. In the first book, the unity and equality of that highest Trinity
is shown from Holy Scripture. In the second, and third, and fourth,
the same: but a careful handling of the question respecting the
sending of the Son and of the Holy Spirit has resulted in three books;
and we have demonstrated, that He who is sent is not therefore less
than He who sends because the one sent, the other was sent; since the
Trinity, which is in all things equal, being also equally in its own
nature unchangeable, and invisible, and everywhere present, works
indivisibly. In the fifth,--with a view to those who think that the
substance of the Father and of the Son is therefore not the same,
because they suppose everything that is predicated of God to be
predicated according to substance, and therefore contend that to beget
and to be begotten, or to be begotten and unbegotten, as being
diverse, are diverse substances,--it is demonstrated that not
everything that is predicated of God is predicated according to
substance, as He is called good and great according to substance, or
anything else that is predicated of Him in respect to Himself, but
that some things also are predicated relatively, i.e. not in respect
to Himself, but in respect to something which is not Himself; as He is
called the Father in respect to the Son, or the Lord in respect to the
creature that serves Him; and that here, if anything thus relatively
predicated, i.e. predicated in respect to something that is not
Himself, is predicated also as in time, as, e.g., "Lord, Thou hast
become our refuge," [945] then nothing happens to Him so as to work a
change in Him, but He Himself continues altogether unchangeable in His
own nature or essence. In the sixth, the question how Christ is called
by the mouth of the apostle "the power of God and the wisdom of God,"
[946] is so far argued that the more careful handling of that question
is deferred, viz. whether He from whom Christ is begotten is not
wisdom Himself, but only the father of His own wisdom, or whether
wisdom begat wisdom. But be it which it may, the equality of the
Trinity became apparent in this book also, and that God was not
triple, but a Trinity; and that the Father and the Son are not, as it
were, a double as opposed to the single Holy Spirit: for therein three
are not anything more than one. We considered, too, how to understand
the words of Bishop Hilary, "Eternity in the Father, form in the
Image, use in the Gift." In the seventh, the question is explained
which had been deferred: in what way that God who begat the Son is not
only Father of His own power and wisdom, but is Himself also power and
wisdom; so, too, the Holy Spirit; and yet that they are not three
powers or three wisdoms, but one power and one wisdom, as one God and
one essence. It was next inquired, in what way they are called one
essence, three persons, or by some Greeks one essence, three
substances; and we found that the words were so used through the needs
of speech, that there might be one term by which to answer, when it is
asked what the three are, whom we truly confess to be three, viz.
Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit. In the eighth, it is made plain by
reason also to those who understand, that not only the Father is not
greater than the Son in the substance of truth, but that both together
are not anything greater than the Holy Spirit alone, nor that any two
at all in the same Trinity are anything greater than one, nor all
three together anything greater than each severally. Next, I have
pointed out, that by means of the truth, which is beheld by the
understanding, and by means of the highest good, from which is all
good, and by means of the righteousness for which a righteous mind is
loved even by a mind not yet righteous, we might understand, so far as
it is possible to understand, that not only incorporeal but also
unchangeable nature which is God; and by means, too, of love, which in
the Holy Scriptures is called God, [947] by which, first of all, those
who have understanding begin also, however feebly, to discern the
Trinity, to wit, one that loves, and that which is loved, and love. In
the ninth, the argument advances as far as to the image of God, viz.
man in respect to his mind; and in this we found a kind of trinity,
i.e. the mind, and the knowledge whereby the mind knows itself, and
the love whereby it loves both itself and its knowledge of itself; and
these three are shown to be mutually equal, and of one essence. In the
tenth, the same subject is more carefully and subtly handled, and is
brought to this point, that we found in the mind a still more manifest
trinity of the mind, viz. in memory, and understanding, and will. But
since it turned out also, that the mind could never be in such a case
as not to remember, understand, and love itself, although it did not
always think of itself; but that when it did think of itself, it did
not in the same act of thought distinguish itself from things
corporeal; the argument respecting the Trinity, of which this is an
image, was deferred, in order to find a trinity also in the things
themselves that are seen with the body, and to exercise the reader's
attention more distinctly in that. Accordingly, in the eleventh, we
chose the sense of sight, wherein that which should have been there
found to hold good might be recognized also in the other four bodily
senses, although not expressly mentioned; and so a trinity of the
outer man first showed itself in those things which are discerned from
without, to wit, from the bodily object which is seen, and from the
form which is thence impressed upon the eye of the beholder, and from
the purpose of the will combining the two. But these three things, as
was patent, were not mutually equal and of one substance. Next, we
found yet another trinity in the mind itself, introduced into it, as
it were, by the things perceived from without; wherein the same three
things, as it appeared, were of one substance: the image of the bodily
object which is in the memory, and the form thence impressed when the
mind's eye of the thinker is turned to it, and the purpose of the will
combining the two. But we found this trinity to pertain to the outer
man, on this account, that it was introduced into the mind from bodily
objects which are perceived from without. In the twelfth, we thought
good to distinguish wisdom from knowledge, and to seek first, as being
the lower of the two, a kind of appropriate and special trinity in
that which is specially called knowledge; but that although we have
got now in this to something pertaining to the inner man, yet it is
not yet to be either called or thought an image of God. And this is
discussed in the thirteenth book by the commendation of Christian
faith. In the fourteenth we discuss the true wisdom of man, viz. that
which is granted him by God's gift in the partaking of that very God
Himself, which is distinct from knowledge; and the discussion reached
this point, that a trinity is discovered in the image of God, which is
man in respect to his mind, which mind is "renewed in the knowledge"
of God, "after the image of Him that created" man; [948] "after His
own image;" [949] and so obtains wisdom, wherein is the contemplation
of things eternal.
Footnotes
[945] Ps. xc. 1
[946] 1 Cor. i. 24
[947] 1 John iv. 16
[948] Col. iii. 10
[949] Gen. i. 27
Chapter 4.--What Universal Nature Teaches Us Concerning God.
6. Let us, then, now seek the Trinity which is God, in the things
themselves that are eternal, incorporeal, and unchangeable; in the
perfect contemplation of which a blessed life is promised us, which
cannot be other than eternal. For not only does the authority of the
divine books declare that God is; but the whole nature of the universe
itself which surrounds us, and to which we also belong, proclaims that
it has a most excellent Creator, who has given to us a mind and
natural reason, whereby to see that things living are to be preferred
to things that are not living; things that have sense to things that
have not; things that have understanding to things that have not;
things immortal to things mortal; things powerful to things impotent;
things righteous to things unrighteous; things beautiful to things
deformed; things good to things evil; things incorruptible to things
corruptible; things unchangeable to things changeable; things
invisible to things visible; things incorporeal to things corporeal;
things blessed to things miserable. And hence, since without doubt we
place the Creator above things created, we must needs confess that the
Creator both lives in the highest sense, and perceives and understands
all things, and that He cannot die, or suffer decay, or be changed;
and that He is not a body, but a spirit, of all the most powerful,
most righteous, most beautiful, most good, most blessed.
Chapter 5.--How Difficult It is to Demonstrate the Trinity by Natural
Reason.
7. But all that I have said, and whatever else seems to be worthily
said of God after the like fashion of human speech, applies to the
whole Trinity, which is one God, and to the several Persons in that
Trinity. For who would dare to say either of the one God, which is the
Trinity itself, or of the Father, or Son, or Holy Spirit, either that
He is not living, or is without sense or intelligence; or that, in
that nature in which they are affirmed to be mutually equal, any one
of them is mortal, or corruptible, or changeable, or corporeal? Or is
there any one who would deny that any one in the Trinity is most
powerful, most righteous, most beautiful, most good, most blessed? If,
then, these things, and all others of the kind, can be predicated both
of the Trinity itself, and of each several one in that Trinity, where
or how shall the Trinity manifest itself? Let us therefore first
reduce these numerous predicates to some limited number. For that
which is called life in God, is itself His essence and nature. God,
therefore, does not live, unless by the life which He is to Himself.
And this life is not such as that which is in a tree, wherein is
neither understanding nor sense; nor such as is in a beast, for the
life of a beast possesses the fivefold sense, but has no
understanding. But the life which is God perceives and understands all
things, and perceives by mind, not by body, because "God is a spirit."
[950] And God does not perceive through a body, as animals do, which
have bodies, for He does not consist of soul and body. And hence that
single nature perceives as it understands, and understands as it
perceives, and its sense and understanding are one and the same. Nor
yet so, that at any time He should either cease or begin to be; for He
is immortal. And it is not said of Him in vain, that "He only hath
immortality." [951] For immortality is true immortality in His case
whose nature admits no change. That is also true eternity by which God
is unchangeable, without beginning, without end; consequently also
incorruptible. It is one and the same thing, therefore, to call God
eternal, or immortal, or incorruptible, or unchangeable; and it is
likewise one and the same thing to say that He is living, and that He
is intelligent, that is, in truth, wise. For He did not receive wisdom
whereby to be wise, but He is Himself wisdom. And this is life, and
again is power or might, and yet again beauty, whereby He is called
powerful and beautiful. For what is more powerful and more beautiful
than wisdom, "which reaches from end to end mightily, and sweetly
disposes all things"? [952] Or do goodness, again, and righteousness,
differ from each other in the nature of God, as they differ in His
works, as though they were two diverse qualities of God--goodness one,
and righteousness another? Certainly not; but that which is
righteousness is also itself goodness; and that which is goodness is
also itself blessedness. And God is therefore called incorporeal, that
He may be believed and understood to be a spirit, not a body.
8. Further, if we say, Eternal, immortal, incorruptible, unchangeable,
living, wise, powerful, beautiful, righteous, good, blessed spirit;
only the last of this list as it were seems to signify substance, but
the rest to signify qualities of that substance; but it is not so in
that ineffable and simple nature. For whatever seems to be predicated
therein according to quality, is to be understood according to
substance or essence. For far be it from us to predicate spirit of God
according to substance, and good according to quality; but both
according to substance. [953] And so in like manner of all those we
have mentioned, of which we have already spoken at length in the
former books. Let us choose, then, one of the first four of those in
our enumeration and arrangement, i.e. eternal, immortal,
incorruptible, unchangeable; since these four, as I have argued
already, have one meaning; in order that our aim may not be distracted
by a multiplicity of objects. And let it be rather that which was
placed first, viz. eternal. Let us follow the same course with the
four that come next, viz. living, wise, powerful, beautiful. And since
life of some sort belongs also to the beast, which has not wisdom;
while the next two, viz. wisdom and might, are so compared to one
another in the case of man, as that Scripture says, "Better is he that
is wise than he that is strong;" [954] and beauty, again, is commonly
attributed to bodily objects also: out of these four that we have
chosen, let Wise be the one we take. Although these four are not to be
called unequal in speaking of God; for they are four names, but one
thing. But of the third and last four,--although it is the same thing
in God to be righteous that it is to be good or to be blessed; and the
same thing to be a spirit that it is to be righteous, and good, and
blessed; yet, because in men there can be a spirit that is not
blessed, and there can be one both righteous and good, but not yet
blessed; but that which is blessed is doubtless both just, and good,
and a spirit,--let us rather choose that one which cannot exist even
in men without the three others, viz. blessed.
Footnotes
[950] John iv. 24
[951] 1 Tim. vi. 16
[952] Wisd. viii. 1
[953] [In the Infinite Being, qualities are inseparable from essence;
in the finite being, they are separable. If man or angel ceases to be
good, or wise, or righteous, he does not thereby cease to be man or
angel. But if God should lose goodness, wisdom or righteousness, he
would no longer be God. This is the meaning of Augustin, when he says
that "goodness" as well as "spirit" must be predicated of God,
"according to substance"--that is, that qualities in God are essential
qualities. They are so one with the essence, that they are
inseparable.--W.G.T.S.]
[954] Wisd. vi. 1
Chapter 6.--How There is a Trinity in the Very Simplicity of God.
Whether and How the Trinity that is God is Manifested from the
Trinities Which Have Been Shown to Be in Men.
9. When, then, we say, Eternal, wise, blessed, are these three the
Trinity that is called God? We reduce, indeed, those twelve to this
small number of three; but perhaps we can go further, and reduce these
three also to one of them. For if wisdom and might, or life and
wisdom, can be one and the same thing in the nature of God, why cannot
eternity and wisdom, or blessedness and wisdom, be one and the same
thing in the nature of God? And hence, as it made no difference
whether we spoke of these twelve or of those three when we reduced the
many to the small number; so does it make no difference whether we
speak of those three, or of that one, to the singularity of which we
have shown that the other two of the three may be reduced. What
fashion, then, of argument, what possible force and might of
understanding, what liveliness of reason, what sharp-sightedness of
thought, will set forth how (to pass over now the others) this one
thing, that God is called wisdom, is a trinity? For God does not
receive wisdom from any one as we receive it from Him, but He is
Himself His own wisdom; because His wisdom is not one thing, and His
essence another, seeing that to Him to be wise is to be. Christ,
indeed, is called in the Holy Scriptures, "the power of God, and the
wisdom of God." [955] But we have discussed in the seventh book how
this is to be understood, so that the Son may not seem to make the
Father wise; and our explanation came to this, that the Son is wisdom
of wisdom, in the same way as He is light of light, God of God. Nor
could we find the Holy Spirit to be in any other way than that He
Himself also is wisdom, and altogether one wisdom, as one God, one
essence. How, then, do we understand this wisdom, which is God, to be
a trinity? I do not say, How do we believe this? For among the
faithful this ought to admit no question. But supposing there is any
way by which we can see with the understanding what we believe, what
is that way?
10. For if we recall where it was in these books that a trinity first
began to show itself to our understanding, the eighth book is that
which occurs to us; since it was there that to the best of our power
we tried to raise the aim of the mind to understand that most
excellent and unchangeable nature, which our mind is not. And we so
contemplated this nature as to think of it as not far from us, and as
above us, not in place, but by its own awful and wonderful excellence,
and in such wise that it appeared to be with us by its own present
light. Yet in this no trinity was yet manifest to us, because in that
blaze of light we did not keep the eye of the mind steadfastly bent
upon seeking it; only we discerned it in a sense, because there was no
bulk wherein we must needs think the magnitude of two or three to be
more than that of one. But when we came to treat of love, which in the
Holy Scriptures is called God, [956] then a trinity began to dawn upon
us a little, i.e. one that loves, and that which is loved, and love.
But because that ineffable light beat back our gaze, and it became in
some degree plain that the weakness of our mind could not as yet be
tempered to it, we turned back in the midst of the course we had
begun, and planned according to the (as it were) more familiar
consideration of our own mind, according to which man is made after
the image of God, [957] in order to relieve our overstrained
attention; and thereupon we dwelt from the ninth to the fourteenth
book upon the consideration of the creature, which we are, that we
might be able to understand and behold the invisible things of God by
those things which are made. And now that we have exercised the
understanding, as far as was needful, or perhaps more than was
needful, in lower things, lo! we wish, but have not strength, to raise
ourselves to behold that highest Trinity which is God. For in such
manner as we see most undoubted trinities, whether those which are
wrought from without by corporeal things, or when these same things
are thought of which were perceived from without; or when those things
which take their rise in the mind, and do not pertain to the senses of
the body, as faith, or as the virtues which comprise the art of
living, are discerned by manifest reason, and, held fast by knowledge;
or when the mind itself, by which we know whatever we truly say that
we know, is known to itself, or thinks of itself; or when that mind
beholds anything eternal and unchangeable, which itself is not;--in
such way, then, I say, as we see in all these instances most undoubted
trinities, because they are wrought in ourselves, or are in ourselves,
when we remember, look at, or desire these things;--do we, I say, in
such manner also see the Trinity that is God; because there also, by
the understanding, we behold both Him as it were speaking, and His
Word, i.e. the Father and the Son; and then, proceeding thence, the
love common to both, namely, the Holy Spirit? These trinities that
pertain to our senses or to our mind, do we rather see than believe
them, but rather believe than see that God is a trinity? But if this
is so, then doubtless we either do not at all understand and behold
the invisible things of God by those things that are made, or if we
behold them at all, we do not behold the Trinity in them; and there is
therein somewhat to behold, and somewhat also which we ought to
believe, even though not beheld. And as the eighth book showed that we
behold the unchangeable good which we are not, so the fourteenth
reminded us thereof, when we spoke of the wisdom that man has from
God. Why, then, do we not recognize the Trinity therein? Does that
wisdom which God is said to be, not perceive itself, and not love
itself? Who would say this? Or who is there that does not see, that
where there is no knowledge, there in no way is there wisdom? Or are
we, in truth, to think that the Wisdom which is God knows other
things, and does not know itself; or loves other things, and does not
love itself? But if this is a foolish and impious thing to say or
believe, then behold we have a trinity,--to wit, wisdom, and the
knowledge wisdom has of itself, and its love of itself. For so, too,
we find a trinity in man also, i.e. mind, and the knowledge wherewith
mind knows itself, and the love wherewith it loves itself.
Footnotes
[955] 1 Cor. i. 24
[956] 1 John iv. 16
[957] Gen. i. 27
Chapter 7.--That It is Not Easy to Discover the Trinity that is God
from the Trinities We Have Spoken of.
11. But these three are in such way in man, that they are not
themselves man. For man, as the ancients defined him, is a rational
mortal animal. These things, therefore, are the chief things in man,
but are not man themselves. And any one person, i.e. each individual
man, has these three things in his mind. But if, again, we were so to
define man as to say, Man is a rational substance consisting of mind
and body, then without doubt man has a soul that is not body, and a
body that is not soul. And hence these three things are not man, but
belong to man, or are in man. If, again, we put aside the body, and
think of the soul by itself, the mind is somewhat belonging to the
soul, as though its head, or eye, or countenance; but these things are
not to be regarded as bodies. It is not then the soul, but that which
is chief in the soul, that is called the mind. But can we say that the
Trinity is in such way in God, as to be somewhat belonging to God, and
not itself God? And hence each individual man, who is called the image
of God, not according to all things that pertain to his nature, but
according to his mind alone, is one person, and is an image of the
Trinity in his mind. But that Trinity of which he is the image is
nothing else in its totality than God, is nothing else in its totality
than the Trinity. Nor does anything pertain to the nature of God so as
not to pertain to that Trinity; and the Three Persons are of one
essence, not as each individual man is one person.
12. There is, again, a wide difference in this point likewise, that
whether we speak of the mind in a man, and of its knowledge and love;
or of memory, understanding, will,--we remember nothing of the mind
except by memory, nor understand anything except by understanding, nor
love anything except by will. But in that Trinity, who would dare to
say that the Father understands neither Himself, nor the Son, nor the
Holy Spirit, except by the Son, or loves them except by the Holy
Spirit; and that He remembers only by Himself either Himself, or the
Son, or the Holy Spirit; and in the same way that the Son remembers
neither Himself nor the Father, except by the Father, nor loves them
except by the Holy Spirit; but that by Himself He only understands
both the Father and Son and Holy Spirit: and in like manner, that the
Holy Spirit by the Father remembers both the Father and the Son and
Himself, and by the Son understands both the Father and the Son and
Himself; but by Himself only loves both Himself and the Father and the
Son;--as though the Father were both His own memory, and that of the
Son and of the Holy Spirit; and the Son were the understanding of both
Himself, and the Father and the Holy Spirit; but the Holy Spirit were
the love both of Himself, and of the Father and of the Son? Who would
presume to think or affirm this of that Trinity? For if therein the
Son alone understands both for Himself and for the Father and for the
Holy Spirit, we have returned to the old absurdity, that the Father is
not wise from Himself, but from the Son, and that wisdom has not
begotten wisdom, but that the Father is said to be wise by that wisdom
which He begat. For where there is no understanding there can be no
wisdom; and hence, if the Father does not understand Himself for
Himself, but the Son understands for the Father, assuredly the Son
makes the Father wise. But if to God to be is to be wise, and essence
is to Him the same as wisdom, then it is not the Son that has His
essence from the Father, which is the truth, but rather the Father
from the Son, which is a most absurd falsehood. And this absurdity,
beyond all doubt, we have discussed, disproved, and rejected, in the
seventh book. Therefore God the Father is wise by that wisdom by which
He is His own wisdom, and the Son is the wisdom of the Father from the
wisdom which is the Father, from whom the Son is begotten; whence it
follows that the Father understands also by that understanding by
which He is His own understanding (for he could not be Wise that did
not understand); and that the Son is the understanding of the Father,
begotten of the understanding which is the Father. And this same may
not be unfitly said of memory also. For how is he wise, that remembers
nothing, or does not remember himself? Accordingly, since the Father
is wisdom, and the Son is wisdom, therefore, as the Father remembers
Himself, so does the Son also remember Himself; and as the Father
remembers both Himself and the Son, not by the memory of the Son, but
by His own, so does the Son remember both Himself and the Father, not
by the memory of the Father, but by His own. Where, again, there is no
love, who would say there was any wisdom? And hence we must infer that
the Father is in such way His own love, as He is His own understanding
and memory. And therefore these three, i.e. memory, understanding,
love or will in that highest and unchangeable essence which is God,
are, we see, not the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, but the
Father alone. And because the Son too is wisdom begotten of wisdom, as
neither the Father nor the Holy Spirit understands for Him, but He
understands for Himself; so neither does the Father remember for Him,
nor the Holy Spirit love for Him, but He remembers and loves for
Himself: for He is Himself also His own memory, His own understanding,
and His own love. But that He is so comes to Him from the Father, of
whom He is born. And because the Holy Spirit also is wisdom proceeding
from wisdom, He too has not the Father for a memory, and the Son for
an understanding, and Himself for love: for He would not be wisdom if
another remembered for Him, and yet another understood for Him, and He
only loved for Himself; but Himself has all three things, and has them
in such way that they are Himself. But that He is so comes to Him
thence, whence He proceeds.
13. What man, then, is there who can comprehend that wisdom by which
God knows all things, in such wise that neither what we call things
past are past therein, nor what we call things future are therein
waited for as coming, as though they were absent, but both past and
future with things present are all present; nor yet are things thought
severally, so that thought passes from one to another, but all things
simultaneously are at hand in one glance;--what man, I say, is there
that comprehends that wisdom, and the like prudence, and the like
knowledge, since in truth even our own wisdom is beyond our
comprehension? For somehow we are able to behold the things that are
present to our senses or to our understanding; but the things that are
absent, and yet have once been present, we know by memory, if we have
not forgotten them. And we conjecture, too, not the past from the
future, but the future from the past, yet by all unstable knowledge.
For there are some of our thoughts to which, although future, we, as
it were, look onward with greater plainness and certainty as being
very near; and we do this by the means of memory when we are able to
do it, as much as we ever are able, although memory seems to belong
not to the future, but to the past. And this may be tried in the case
of any words or songs, the due order of which we are rendering by
memory; for we certainly should not utter each in succession, unless
we foresaw in thought what came next. And yet it is not foresight, but
memory, that enables us to foresee it; for up to the very end of the
words or the song, nothing is uttered except as foreseen and looked
forward to. And yet in doing this, we are not said to speak or sing by
foresight, but by memory; and if any one is more than commonly capable
of uttering many pieces in this way, he is usually praised, not for
his foresight, but for his memory. We know, and are absolutely
certain, that all this takes place in our mind or by our mind; but how
it takes place, the more attentively we desire to scrutinize, the more
do both our very words break down, and our purpose itself fails, when
by our understanding, if not our tongue, we would reach to something
of clearness. And do such as we are, think, that in so great infirmity
of mind we can comprehend whether the foresight of God is the same as
His memory and His understanding, who does not regard in thought each
several thing, but embraces all that He knows in one eternal and
unchangeable and ineffable vision? In this difficulty, then, and
strait, we may well cry out to the living God, "Such knowledge is too
wonderful for me: it is high, I cannot attain unto it." [958] For I
understand by myself how wonderful and incomprehensible is Thy
knowledge, by which Thou madest me, when I cannot even comprehend
myself whom Thou hast made! And yet, "while I was musing, the fire
burned," [959] so that "I seek Thy face evermore." [960]
Footnotes
[958] Ps. cxxxix. 6
[959] Ps. xxxix. 3
[960] Ps. cv. 4
Chapter 8.--How the Apostle Says that God is Now Seen by Us Through a
Glass.
14. I know that wisdom is an incorporeal substance, and that it is the
light by which those things are seen that are not seen by carnal eyes;
and yet a man so great and so spiritual [as Paul] says, "We see now
through a glass, in an enigma, but then face to face." [961] If we ask
what and of what sort is this "glass," this assuredly occurs to our
minds, that in a glass nothing is discerned but an image. We have
endeavored, then, so to do; in order that we might see in some way or
other by this image which we are, Him by whom we are made, as by a
glass. And this is intimated also in the words of the same apostle:
"But we with open face, beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord,
are transformed into the same image, from glory to glory, even as by
the Spirit of the Lord." [962] "Beholding as in a glass," [963] he has
said, i.e. seeing by means of a glass, not looking from a watch-tower:
an ambiguity that does not exist in the Greek language, whence the
apostolic epistles have been rendered into Latin. For in Greek, a
glass, [964] in which the images of things are visible, is wholly
distinct in the sound of the word also from a watch-tower, [965] from
the height of which we command a more distant view. And it is quite
plain that the apostle, in using the word "speculantes" in respect to
the glory of the Lord, meant it to come from "speculum," not from
"specula." But where he says, "We are transformed into the same
image," he assuredly means to speak of the image of God; and by
calling it "the same," he means that very image which we see in the
glass, because that same image is also the glory of the Lord; as he
says elsewhere, "For a man indeed ought not to cover his head,
forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God," [966] --a text already
discussed in the twelfth book. He means, then, by "We are
transformed," that we are changed from one form to another, and that
we pass from a form that is obscure to a form that is bright: since
the obscure form, too, is the image of God; and if an image, then
assuredly also "glory," in which we are created as men, being better
than the other animals. For it is said of human nature in itself, "The
man ought not to cover his head, because he is the image and glory of
God." And this nature, being the most excellent among things created,
is transformed from a form that is defaced into a form that is
beautiful, when it is justified by its own Creator from ungodliness.
Since even in ungodliness itself, the more the faultiness is to be
condemned, the more certainly is the nature to be praised. And
therefore he has added, "from glory to glory:" from the glory of
creation to the glory of justification. Although these words, "from
glory to glory," may be understood also in other ways;--from the glory
of faith to the glory of sight, from the glory whereby we are sons of
God to the glory whereby we shall be like Him, because "we shall see
Him as He is." [967] But in that he has added "as from the Spirit of
the Lord," he declares that the blessing of so desirable a
transformation is conferred upon us by the grace of God.
Footnotes
[961] 1 Cor. xiii. 12
[962] 2 Cor. iii. 18
[963] Speculantes
[964] Speculum
[965] Specula
[966] 1 Cor. xi. 7
[967] 1 John iii. 2
Chapter 9.--Of the Term "Enigma," And of Tropical Modes of Speech.
15. What has been said relates to the words of the apostle, that "we
see now through a glass;" but whereas he has added, "in an enigma,"
the meaning of this addition is unknown to any who are unacquainted
with the books that contain the doctrine of those modes of speech,
which the Greeks call Tropes, which Greek word we also use in Latin.
For as we more commonly speak of schemata than of figures, so we more
commonly speak of tropes than of modes. And it is a very difficult and
uncommon thing to express the names of the several modes or tropes in
Latin, so as to refer its appropriate name to each. And hence some
Latin translators, through unwillingness to employ a Greek word, where
the apostle says, "Which things are an allegory," [968] have rendered
it by a circumlocution--Which things signify one thing by another. But
there are several species of this kind of trope that is called
allegory, and one of them is that which is called enigma. Now the
definition of the generic term must necessarily embrace also all its
species; and hence, as every horse is an animal, but not every animal
is a horse, so every enigma is an allegory, but every allegory is not
an enigma. What then is an allegory, but a trope wherein one thing is
understood from another? as in the Epistle to the Thessalonians, "Let
us not therefore sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober:
for they who sleep, sleep in the night; and they who are drunken, are
drunken in the night: but let us who are of the day, be sober." [969]
But this allegory is not an enigma. for here the meaning is patent to
all but the very dull; but an enigma is, to explain it briefly, an
obscure allegory, as, e.g., "The horseleech had three daughters,"
[970] and other like instances. But when the apostle spoke of an
allegory, he does not find it in the words, but in the fact; since he
has shown that the two Testaments are to be understood by the two sons
of Abraham, one by a bondmaid, and the other by a free woman, which
was a thing not said, but also done. And before this was explained, it
was obscure; and accordingly such an allegory, which is the generic
name, could be specifically called an enigma.
16. But because it is not only those that are ignorant of the books
that contain the doctrine of tropes, who inquire the apostle's
meaning, when he said that we "see now in an enigma," but those, too,
who are acquainted with the doctrine, but yet desire to know what that
enigma is in which "we now see;" we must find a single meaning for the
two phrases, viz. for that which says, "we see now through a glass,"
and for that which adds, "in an enigma." For it makes but one
sentence, when the whole is so uttered, "We see now through a glass in
an enigma." Accordingly, as far as my judgment goes, as by the word
glass he meant to signify an image, so by that of enigma any likeness
you will, but yet one obscure, and difficult to see through. While,
therefore, any likenesses whatever may be understood as signified by
the apostle when he speaks of a glass and an enigma, so that they are
adapted to the understanding of God, in such way as He can be
understood; yet nothing is better adapted to this purpose than that
which is not vainly called His image. Let no one, then, wonder, that
we labor to see in any way at all, even in that fashion of seeing
which is granted to us in this life, viz. through a glass, in an
enigma. For we should not hear of an enigma in this place if sight
were easy. And this is a yet greater enigma, that we do not see what
we cannot but see. For who does not see his own thought? And yet who
does see his own thought, I do not say with the eye of the flesh, but
with the inner sight itself? Who does not see it, and who does see it?
Since thought is a kind of sight of the mind; whether those things are
present which are seen also by the bodily eyes, or perceived by the
other senses; or whether they are not present, but their likenesses
are discerned by thought; or whether neither of these is the case, but
things are thought of that are neither bodily things nor likenesses of
bodily things, as the virtues and vices; or as, indeed, thought itself
is thought of; or whether it be those things which are the subjects of
instruction and of liberal sciences; or whether the higher causes and
reasons themselves of all these things in the unchangeable nature are
thought of; or whether it be even evil, and vain, and false things
that we are thinking of, with either the sense not consenting, or
erring in its consent.
Footnotes
[968] Gal. iv. 24
[969] 1 Thess. v. 6-8
[970] Prov. xxx. 15
Chapter 10.--Concerning the Word of the Mind, in Which We See the Word
of God, as in a Glass and an Enigma.
17. But let us now speak of those things of which we think as known,
and have in our knowledge even if we do not think of them; whether
they belong to the contemplative knowledge, which, as I have argued,
is properly to be called wisdom, or to the active which is properly to
be called knowledge. For both together belong to one mind, and are one
image of God. But when we treat of the lower of the two distinctly and
separately, then it is not to be called an image of God, although even
then, too, some likeness of that Trinity may be found in it; as we
showed in the thirteenth book. We speak now, therefore, of the entire
knowledge of man altogether, in which whatever is known to us is
known; that, at any rate, which is true; otherwise it would not be
known. For no one knows what is false, except when he knows it to be
false; and if he knows this, then he knows what is true: for it is
true that that is false. We treat, therefore, now of those things
which we think as known, and which are known to us even if they are
not being thought of. But certainly, if we would utter them in words,
we can only do so by thinking them. For although there were no words
spoken, at any rate, he who thinks speaks in his heart. And hence that
passage in the book of Wisdom: "They said within themselves, thinking
not aright." [971] For the words, "They said within themselves," are
explained by the addition of "thinking." A like passage to this is
that in the Gospel,--that certain scribes, when they heard the Lord's
words to the paralytic man, "Be of good cheer, my son, thy sins are
forgiven thee," said within themselves, "This man blasphemeth." For
how did they "say within themselves," except by thinking? Then
follows, "And when Jesus saw their thoughts, He said, Why think ye
evil in your thoughts?" [972] So far Matthew. But Luke narrates the
same thing thus: "The scribes and Pharisees began to think, saying,
Who is this that speaketh blasphemies? Who can forgive sins but God
alone? But when Jesus perceived their thoughts, He, answering, said
unto them, What think ye in your hearts?" [973] That which in the book
of Wisdom is, "They said, thinking," is the same here with, "They
thought, saying." For both there and here it is declared, that they
spake within themselves, and in their own heart, i.e. spake by
thinking. For they "spake within themselves," and it was said to them,
"What think ye?" And the Lord Himself says of that rich man whose
ground brought forth plentifully, "And he thought within himself,
saying." [974]
18. Some thoughts, then, are speeches of the heart, wherein the Lord
also shows that there is a mouth, when He says, "Not that which
entereth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which proceedeth out
of the mouth, that defileth a man." In one sentence He has comprised
two diverse mouths of the man, one of the body, one of the heart. For
assuredly, that from which they thought the man to be defiled, enters
into the mouth of the body; but that from which the Lord said the man
was defiled, proceedeth out of the mouth of the heart. So certainly He
Himself explained what He had said. For a little after, He says also
to His disciples concerning the same thing: "Are ye also yet without
understanding? Do ye not understand, that whatsoever entereth in at
the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?"
Here He most certainly pointed to the mouth of the body. But in that
which follows He plainly speaks of the mouth of the heart, where He
says, "But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from
the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed evil
thoughts," [975] etc. What is clearer than this explanation? And yet,
when we call thoughts speeches of the heart, it does not follow that
they are not also acts of sight, arising from the sight of knowledge,
when they are true. For when these things are done outwardly by means
of the body, then speech and sight are different things; but when we
think inwardly, the two are one,--just as sight and hearing are two
things mutually distinct in the bodily senses, but to see and hear are
the same thing in the mind; and hence, while speech is not seen but
rather heard outwardly, yet the inward speeches, i.e. thoughts, are
said by the holy Gospel to have been seen, not heard, by the Lord.
"They said within themselves, This man blasphemeth," says the Gospel;
and then subjoined, "And when Jesus saw their thoughts." Therefore He
saw, what they said. For by His own thought He saw their thoughts,
which they supposed no one saw but themselves.
19. Whoever, then, is able to understand a word, not only before it is
uttered in sound, but also before the images of its sounds are
considered in thought,--for this it is which belongs to no tongue, to
wit, of those which are called the tongues of nations, of which our
Latin tongue is one;--whoever, I say, is able to understand this, is
able now to see through this glass and in this enigma some likeness of
that Word of whom it is said, "In the beginning was the Word, and the
Word was with God, and the Word was God." [976] For of necessity, when
we speak what is true, i.e. speak what we know, there is born from the
knowledge itself which the memory retains, a word that is altogether
of the same kind with that knowledge from which it is born. For the
thought that is formed by the thing which we know, is the word which
we speak in the heart: which word is neither Greek nor Latin, nor of
any other tongue. But when it is needful to convey this to the
knowledge of those to whom we speak, then some sign is assumed whereby
to signify it. And generally a sound, sometimes a nod, is exhibited,
the former to the ears, the latter to the eyes, that the word which we
bear in our mind may become known also by bodily signs to the bodily
senses. For what is to nod or beckon, except to speak in some way to
the sight? And Holy Scripture gives its testimony to this; for we read
in the Gospel according to John: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, that
one of you shall betray me. Then the disciples looked one upon
another, doubting of whom He spake. Now there was leaning on Jesus'
breast one of His disciples whom Jesus loved. Simon Peter therefore
beckons to him, and says to him, Who is it of whom He speaks?" [977]
Here he spoke by beckoning what he did not venture to speak by sounds.
But whereas we exhibit these and the like bodily signs either to ears
or eyes of persons present to whom we speak, letters have been
invented that we might be able to converse also with the absent; but
these are signs of words, as words themselves are signs in our
conversation of those things which we think.
Footnotes
[971] Wisd. ii. 1
[972] Matt. ix. 2-4
[973] Luke v. 21, 22
[974] Luke xii. 17
[975] Matt. xv. 10-20
[976] John i. 1
[977] John xiii. 21-24
Chapter 11.--The Likeness of the Divine Word, Such as It Is, is to Be
Sought, Not in Our Own Outer and Sensible Word, But in the Inner and
Mental One. There is the Greatest Possible Unlikeness Between Our Word
and Knowledge and the Divine Word and Knowledge.
20. Accordingly, the word that sounds outwardly is the sign of the
word that gives light inwardly; which latter has the greater claim to
be called a word. For that which is uttered with the mouth of the
flesh, is the articulate sound of a word; and is itself also called a
word, on account of that to make which outwardly apparent it is itself
assumed. For our word is so made in some way into an articulate sound
of the body, by assuming that articulate sound by which it may be
manifested to men's senses, as the Word of God was made flesh, by
assuming that flesh in which itself also might be manifested to men's
senses. And as our word becomes an articulate sound, yet is not
changed into one; so the Word of God became flesh, but far be it from
us to say He was changed into flesh. For both that word of ours became
an articulate sound, and that other Word became flesh, by assuming it,
not by consuming itself so as to be changed into it. And therefore
whoever desires to arrive at any likeness, be it of what sort it may,
of the Word of God, however in many respects unlike, must not regard
the word of ours that sounds in the ears, either when it is uttered in
an articulate sound or when it is silently thought. For the words of
all tongues that are uttered in sound are also silently thought, and
the mind runs over verses while the bodily mouth is silent. And not
only the numbers of syllables, but the tunes also of songs, since they
are corporeal, and pertain to that sense of the body which is called
hearing, are at hand by certain incorporeal images appropriate to
them, to those who think of them, and who silently revolve all these
things. But we must pass by this, in order to arrive at that word of
man, by the likeness of which, be it of what sort it may, the Word of
God may be somehow seen as in an enigma. Not that word which was
spoken to this or that prophet, and of which it is said, "Now the word
of God grew and multiplied;" [978] and again, "Faith then cometh by
hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ;" [979] and again, "When ye
received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as
the word of men but, as it is in truth, the word of God" [980] (and
there are countless other like sayings in the Scriptures respecting
the word of God, which is disseminated in the sounds of many and
diverse languages through the hearts and mouths of men; and which is
therefore called the word of God, because the doctrine that is
delivered is not human, but divine);--but we are now seeking to see,
in whatsoever way we can, by means of this likeness, that Word of God
of which it is said, "The Word was God;" of which it is said, "All
things were made by Him;" of which it is said, "The Word became
flesh;" of which it is said "The Word of God on high is the fountain
of wisdom." [981] We must go on, then, to that word of man, to the
word of the rational animal, to the word of that image of God, that is
not born of God, but made by God; which is neither utterable in sound
nor capable of being thought under the likeness of sound such as must
needs be with the word of any tongue; but which precedes all the signs
by which it is signified, and is begotten from the knowledge that
continues in the mind, when that same knowledge is spoken inwardly
according as it really is. For the sight of thinking is exceedingly
like the sight of knowledge. For when it is uttered by sound, or by
any bodily sign, it is not uttered according as it really is, but as
it can be seen or heard by the body. When, therefore, that is in the
word which is in the knowledge, then there is a true word, and truth,
such as is looked for from man; such that what is in the knowledge is
also in the word, and what is not in the knowledge is also not in the
word. Here may be recognized, "Yea, yea; nay, nay." [982] And so this
likeness of the image that is made, approaches as nearly as is
possible to that likeness of the image that is born, by which God the
Son is declared to be in all things like in substance to the Father.
We must notice in this enigma also another likeness of the word of
God; viz. that, as it is said of that Word, "All things were made by
Him," where God is declared to have made the universe by His
only-begotten Son, so there are no works of man that are not first
spoken in his heart: whence it is written, "A word is the beginning of
every work." [983] But here also, it is when the word is true, that
then it is the beginning of a good work. And a word is true when it is
begotten from the knowledge of working good works, so that there too
may be preserved the "yea yea, nay nay;" in order that whatever is in
that knowledge by which we are to live, may be also in the word by
which we are to work, and whatever is not in the one may not be in the
other. Otherwise such a word will be a lie, not truth; and what comes
thence will be a sin, and not a good work. There is yet this other
likeness of the Word of God in this likeness of our word, that there
can be a word of ours with no work following it, but there cannot be
any work unless a word precedes; just as the Word of God could have
existed though no creature existed, but no creature could exist unless
by that Word by which all things are made. And therefore not God the
Father, not the Holy Spirit, not the Trinity itself, but the Son only,
which is the Word of God, was made flesh; although the Trinity was the
maker: in order that we might live rightly through our word following
and imitating His example, i.e. by having no lie in either the thought
or the work of our word. But this perfection of this image is one to
be at some time hereafter. In order to attain this it is that the good
master teaches us by Christian faith, and by pious doctrine, that
"with face unveiled" from the veil of the law, which is the shadow of
things to come, "beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord," i.e.
gazing at it through a glass, "we may be transformed into the same
image from glory to glory, as by the Spirit of the Lord;" [984] as we
explained above.
21. When, therefore, this image shall have been renewed to perfection
by this transformation, then we shall be like God, because we shall
see Him, not through a glass, but "as He is;" [985] which the Apostle
Paul expresses by "face to face." [986] But now, who can explain how
great is the unlikeness also, in this glass, in this enigma, in this
likeness such as it is? Yet I will touch upon some points, as I can,
by which to indicate it.
Footnotes
[978] Acts vi. 7
[979] Rom. x. 17
[980] 1 Thess. ii. 13
[981] Ecclus. i. 5
[982] Matt. v. 37
[983] Ecclus. xxxvii. 20
[984] 2 Cor. iii. 17
[985] 1 John iii. 4
[986] 1 Cor. xiii. 12
Chapter 12.--The Academic Philosophy.
First, of what sort and how great is the very knowledge itself that a
man can attain, be he ever so skillful and learned, by which our
thought is formed with truth, when we speak what we know? For to pass
by those things that come into the mind from the bodily senses, among
which so many are otherwise than they seem to be, that he who is
overmuch pressed down by their resemblance to truth, seems sane to
himself, but really is not sane;--whence it is that the Academic [987]
philosophy has so prevailed as to be still more wretchedly insane by
doubting all things;--passing by, then, those things that come into
the mind by the bodily senses, how large a proportion is left of
things which we know in such manner as we know that we live? In regard
to this, indeed, we are absolutely without any fear lest perchance we
are being deceived by some resemblance of the truth; since it is
certain, that he who is deceived, yet lives. And this again is not
reckoned among those objects of sight that are presented from without,
so that the eye may be deceived in it; in such way as it is when an
oar in the water looks bent, and towers seem to move as you sail past
them, and a thousand other things that are otherwise than they seem to
be: for this is not a thing that is discerned by the eye of the flesh.
The knowledge by which we know that we live is the most inward of all
knowledge, of which even the Academic cannot insinuate: Perhaps you
are asleep, and do not know it, and you see things in your sleep. For
who does not know that what people see in dreams is precisely like
what they see when awake? But he who is certain of the knowledge of
his own life, does not therein say, I know I am awake, but, I know I
am alive; therefore, whether he be asleep or awake, he is alive. Nor
can he be deceived in that knowledge by dreams; since it belongs to a
living man both to sleep and to see in sleep. Nor can the Academic
again say, in confutation of this knowledge: Perhaps you are mad, and
do not know it: for what madmen see is precisely like what they also
see who are sane; but he who is mad is alive. Nor does he answer the
Academic by saying, I know I am not mad, but, I know I am alive.
Therefore he who says he knows he is alive, can neither be deceived
nor lie. Let a thousand kinds, then, of deceitful objects of sight be
presented to him who says, I know I am alive; yet he will fear none of
them, for he who is deceived yet is alive. But if such things alone
pertain to human knowledge, they are very few indeed; unless that they
can be so multiplied in each kind, as not only not to be few, but to
reach in the result to infinity. For he who says, I know I am alive,
says that he knows one single thing. Further, if he says, I know that
I know I am alive, now there are two; but that he knows these two is a
third thing to know. And so he can add a fourth and a fifth, and
innumerable others, if he holds out. But since he cannot either
comprehend an innumerable number by additions of units, or say a thing
innumerable times, he comprehends this at least, and with perfect
certainty, viz. that this is both true and so innumerable that he
cannot truly comprehend and say its infinite number. This same thing
may be noticed also in the case of a will that is certain. For it
would be an impudent answer to make to any one who should say, I will
to be happy, that perhaps you are deceived. And if he should say, I
know that I will this, and I know that I know it, he can add yet a
third to these two, viz. that he knows these two; and a fourth, that
he knows that he knows these two; and so on ad infinitum. Likewise, if
any one were to say, I will not to be mistaken; will it not be true,
whether he is mistaken or whether he is not, that nevertheless he does
will not to be mistaken? Would it not be most impudent to say to him,
Perhaps you are deceived? when beyond doubt, whereinsoever he may be
deceived, he is nevertheless not deceived in thinking that he wills
not to be deceived. And if he says he knows this, he adds any number
he chooses of things known, and perceives that number to be infinite.
For he who says, I will not to be deceived, and I know that I will not
to be so, and I know that I know it, is able now to set forth an
infinite number here also, however awkward may be the expression of
it. And other things too are to be found capable of refuting the
Academics, who contend that man can know nothing. But we must restrict
ourselves, especially as this is not the subject we have undertaken in
the present work. There are three books of ours on that subject, [988]
written in the early time of our conversion, which he who can and will
read, and who understands them, will doubtless not be much moved by
any of the many arguments which they have found out against the
discovery of truth. For whereas there are two kinds of knowable
things,--one, of those things which the mind perceives by the bodily
senses; the other, of those which it perceives by itself,--these
philosophers have babbled much against the bodily senses, but have
never been able to throw doubt upon those most certain perceptions of
things true, which the mind knows by itself, such as is that which I
have mentioned, I know that I am alive. But far be it from us to doubt
the truth of what we have learned by the bodily senses; since by them
we have learned to know the heaven and the earth, and those things in
them which are known to us, so far as He who created both us and them
has willed them to be within our knowledge. Far be it from us too to
deny, that we know what we have learned by the testimony of others:
otherwise we know not that there is an ocean; we know not that the
lands and cities exist which most copious report commends to us; we
know not that those men were, and their works, which we have learned
by reading history; we know not the news that is daily brought us from
this quarter or that, and confirmed by consistent and conspiring
evidence; lastly, we know not at what place or from whom we have been
born: since in all these things we have believed the testimony of
others. And if it is most absurd to say this, then we must confess,
that not only our own senses, but those of other persons also, have
added very much indeed to our knowledge.
22. All these things, then, both those which the human mind knows by
itself, and those which it knows by the bodily senses, and those which
it has received and knows by the testimony of others, are laid up and
retained in the storehouse of the memory; and from these is begotten a
word that is true when we speak what we know, but a word that is
before all sound, before all thought of a sound. For the word is then
most like to the thing known, from which also its image is begotten,
since the sight of thinking arises from the sight of knowledge; when
it is a word belonging to no tongue, but is a true word concerning a
true thing, having nothing of its own, but wholly derived from that
knowledge from which it is born. Nor does it signify when he learned
it, who speaks what he knows; for sometimes he says it immediately
upon learning it; provided only that the word is true, i.e. sprung
from things that are known.
Footnotes
[987] [Not the Old Academy of Plato and his immediate disciples, who
were anti-skeptical; but the new Academy, to which Augustin has
previously referred (XIV. xix. 26). This was skeptical--W.G.T.S.]
[988] Libri Tres contra Academicos
Chapter 13.--Still Further of the Difference Between the Knowledge and
Word of Our Mind, and the Knowledge and Word of God.
But is it so, that God the Father, from whom is born the Word that is
God of God,--is it so, then, that God the Father, in respect to that
wisdom which He is to Himself, has learned some things by His bodily
senses, and others by Himself? Who could say this, who thinks of God,
not as a rational animal, but as One above the rational soul? So far
at least as He can be thought of, by those who place Him above all
animals and all souls, although they see Him by conjecture through a
glass and in an enigma, not yet face to face as He is. Is it that God
the Father has learned those very things which He knows, not by the
body, for He has none, but by Himself, from elsewhere from some one?
or has stood in need of messengers or witnesses that He might know
them? Certainly not; since His own perfection enables Him to know all
things that He knows. No doubt He has messengers, viz. the angels; but
not to announce to Him things that He knows not, for there is nothing
He does not know. But their good lies in consulting the truth about
their own works. And this it is which is meant by saying that they
bring Him word of some things, not that He may learn of them, but they
of Him by His word without bodily sound. They bring Him word, too, of
that which He wills, being sent by Him to whomever He wills, and
hearing all from Him by that word of His, i.e. finding in His truth
what themselves are to do: what, to whom, and when, they are to bring
word. For we too pray to Him, yet do not inform Him what our
necessities are. "For your Father knoweth," says His Word, "what
things ye have need of, before you ask Him." [989] Nor did He become
acquainted with them, so as to know them, at any definite time; but He
knew beforehand, without any beginning, all things to come in time,
and among them also both what we should ask of Him, and when; and to
whom He would either listen or not listen, and on what subjects. And
with respect to all His creatures, both spiritual and corporeal, He
does not know them because they are, but they are because He knows
them. For He was not ignorant of what He was about to create;
therefore He created because He knew; He did not know because He
created. Nor did He know them when created in any other way than He
knew them when still to be created, for nothing accrued to His wisdom
from them; but that wisdom remained as it was, while they came into
existence as it was fitting and when it was fitting. So, too, it is
written in the book of Ecclesiasticus: "All things are known to Him
ere ever they were created: so also after they were perfected." [990]
"So," he says, not otherwise; so were they known to Him, both ere ever
they were created, and after they were perfected. This knowledge,
therefore, is far unlike our knowledge. And the knowledge of God is
itself also His wisdom, and His wisdom is itself His essence or
substance. Because in the marvellous simplicity of that nature, it is
not one thing to be wise and another to be, but to be wise is to be;
as we have often said already also in the earlier books. But our
knowledge is in most things capable both of being lost and of being
recovered, because to us to be is not the same as to know or to be
wise; since it is possible for us to be, even although we know not,
neither are wise in that which we have learned from elsewhere.
Therefore, as our knowledge is unlike that knowledge of God, so is our
word also, which is born from our knowledge, unlike that Word of God
which is born from the essence of the Father. And this is as if I
should say, born from the Father's knowledge, from the Father's
wisdom; or still more exactly, from the Father who is knowledge, from
the Father who is wisdom.
Footnotes
[989] Matt. vi. 8
[990] Ecclus. xxiii. 20
Chapter 14.--The Word of God is in All Things Equal to the Father,
from Whom It is.
23. The Word of God, then, the only-begotten Son of the Father, in all
things like and equal to the Father, God of God, Light of Light,
Wisdom of Wisdom, Essence of Essence, is altogether that which the
Father is, yet is not the Father, because the one is Son, the other is
Father. And hence He knows all that the Father knows; but to Him to
know, as to be, is from the Father, for to know and to be is there
one. And therefore, as to be is not to the Father from the Son, so
neither is to know. Accordingly, as though uttering Himself, the
Father begat the Word equal to Himself in all things; for He would not
have uttered Himself wholly and perfectly, if there were in His Word
anything more or less than in Himself. And here that is recognized in
the highest sense, "Yea, yea; nay, nay." [991] And therefore this Word
is truly truth, since whatever is in that knowledge from which it is
born is also in itself and whatever is not in that knowledge is not in
the Word. And this Word can never have anything false, because it is
unchangeable, as He is from whom it is. For "the Son can do nothing of
Himself, but what He seeth the Father do." [992] Through power He
cannot do this; nor is it infirmity, but strength, by which truth
cannot be false. Therefore God the Father knows all things in Himself,
knows all things in the Son; but in Himself as though Himself, in the
Son as though His own Word which Word is spoken concerning all those
things that are in Himself. Similarly the Son knows all things, viz.
in Himself, as things which are born of those which the Father knows
in Himself, and in the Father, as those of which they are born, which
the Son Himself knows in Himself. The Father then, and the Son know
mutually; but the one by begetting, the other by being born. And each
of them sees simultaneously all things that are in their knowledge, in
their wisdom, in their essence: not by parts or singly, as though by
alternately looking from this side to that, and from that side to
this, and again from this or that object to this or that object, so as
not to be able to see some things without at the same time not seeing
others; but, as I said, sees all things simultaneously, whereof there
is not one that He does not always see.
24. And that word, then, of ours which has neither sound nor thought
of sound, but is of that thing in seeing which we speak inwardly, and
which therefore belongs to no tongue; and hence is in some sort like,
in this enigma, to that Word of God which is also God; since this too
is born of our knowledge, in such manner as that also is born of the
knowledge of the Father: such a word, I say, of ours, which we find to
be in some way like that Word, let us not be slow to consider how
unlike also it is, as it may be in our power to utter it.
Footnotes
[991] Matt. v. 37
[992] John v. 19
Chapter 15.--How Great is the Unlikeness Between Our Word and the
Divine Word. Our Word Cannot Be or Be Called Eternal.
Is our word, then, born of our knowledge only? Do we not say many
things also that we do not know? And say them not with doubt, but
thinking them to be true; while if perchance they are true in respect
to the things themselves of which we speak, they are yet not true in
respect to our word, because a word is not true unless it is born of a
thing that is known. In this sense, then, our word is false, not when
we lie, but when we are deceived. And when we doubt, our word is not
yet of the thing of which we doubt, but it is a word concerning the
doubt itself. For although we do not know whether that is true of
which we doubt, yet we do know that we doubt; and hence, when we say
we doubt, we say a word that is true, for we say what we know. And
what, too, of its being possible for us to lie? And when we do,
certainly we both willingly and knowingly have a word that is false,
wherein there is a word that is true, viz. that we lie, for this we
know. And when we confess that we have lied, we speak that which is
true; for we say what we know, for we know that we lied. But that Word
which is God, and can do more than we, cannot do this. For it "can do
nothing except what it sees the Father do;" and it "speaks not of
itself," but it has from the Father all that it speaks, since the
Father speaks it in a special way; and the great might of that Word is
that it cannot lie, because there cannot be there "yea and nay," [993]
but "yea yea, nay nay." Well, but that is not even to be called a
word, which is not true. I willingly assent, if so it be. What, then,
if our word is true and therefore is rightly called a word? Is it the
case that, as we can speak of sight of sight, and knowledge of
knowledge, so we can speak of essence of essence, as that Word of God
is especially spoken of, and is especially to be spoken of? Why so?
Because to us, to be is not the same as to know; since we know many
things which in some sense live by memory, and so in some sense die by
being forgotten: and so, when those things are no longer in our
knowledge, yet we still are: and while our knowledge has slipped away
and perished out of our mind, we are still alive.
25. In respect to those things also which are so known that they can
never escape the memory, because they are present, and belong to the
nature of the mind itself,--as, e.g., the knowing that we are alive
(for this continues so long as the mind continues; and because the
mind continues always, this also continues always);--I say, in respect
to this and to any other like instances, in which we are the rather to
contemplate the image of God, it is difficult to make out in what way,
although they are always known, yet because they are not always also
thought of, an eternal word can be spoken respecting them, when our
word is spoken in our thought. For it is eternal to the soul to live;
it is eternal to know that it lives. Yet it is not eternal to it to be
thinking of its own life, or to be thinking of its own knowledge of
its own life; since, in entering upon this or that occupation, it will
cease to think of this, although it does not cease from knowing it.
And hence it comes to pass, that if there can be in the mind any
knowledge that is eternal, while the thought of that knowledge cannot
be eternal, and any inner and true word of ours is only said by our
thought, then God alone can be understood to have a Word that is
eternal, and co-eternal with Himself. Unless, perhaps, we are to say
that the very possibility of thought--since that which is known is
capable of being truly thought, even at the time when it is not being
thought--constitutes a word as perpetual as the knowledge itself is
perpetual. But how is that a word which is not yet formed in the
vision of the thought? How will it be like the knowledge of which it
is born, if it has not the form of that knowledge, and is only now
called a word because it can have it? For it is much as if one were to
say that a word is to be so called because it can be a word. But what
is this that can be a word, and is therefore already held worthy of
the name of a word? What, I say, is this thing that is formable, but
not yet formed, except a something in our mind, which we toss to and
fro by revolving it this way or that, while we think of first one
thing and then another, according as they are found by or occur to us?
And the true word then comes into being, when, as I said, that which
we toss to and fro by revolving it arrives at that which we know, and
is formed by that, in taking its entire likeness; so that in what
manner each thing is known, in that manner also it is thought, i.e. is
said in this manner in the heart, without articulate sound, without
thought of articulate sound, such as no doubt belongs to some
particular tongue. And hence if we even admit, in order not to dispute
laboriously about a name, that this something of our mind, which can
be formed from our knowledge, is to be already called a word, even
before it is so formed, because it is, so to say, already formable,
who would not see how great would be the unlikeness between it and
that Word of God, which is so in the form of God, as not to have been
formable before it was formed, or to have been capable at any time of
being formless, but is a simple form, and simply equal to Him from
whom it is, and with whom it is wonderfully co-eternal?
Footnotes
[993] 2 Cor. i. 19
Chapter 16.--Our Word is Never to Be Equalled to the Divine Word, Not
Even When We Shall Be Like God.
Wherefore that Word of God is in such wise so called, as not to be
called a thought of God, lest we believe that there is anything in God
which can be revolved, so that it at one time receives and at another
recovers a form, so as to be a word, and again can lose that form and
be revolved in some sense formlessly. Certainly that excellent master
of speech knew well the force of words, and had looked into the nature
of thought, who said in his poem, "And revolves with himself the
varying issues of war," [994] i.e. thinks of them. That Son of God,
then, is not called the Thought of God, but the Word of God. For our
own thought, attaining to what we know, and formed thereby, is our
true word. And so the Word of God ought to be understood without any
thought on the part of God, so that it be understood as the simple
form itself, but containing nothing formable that can be also
unformed. There are, indeed, passages of Holy Scripture that speak of
God's thoughts; but this is after the same mode of speech by which the
forgetfulness of God is also there spoken of, whereas in strict
propriety of language there is in Him certainly no forgetfulness.
26. Wherefore, since we have found now in this enigma so great an
unlikeness to God and the Word of God, wherein yet there was found
before some likeness, this, too, must be admitted, that even when we
shall be like Him, when "we shall see Him as He is" [995] (and
certainly he who said this was aware beyond doubt of our present
unlikeness), not even then shall we be equal to Him in nature. For
that nature which is made is ever less than that which makes. And at
that time our word will not indeed be false, because we shall neither
lie nor be deceived. Perhaps, too, our thoughts will no longer revolve
by passing and repassing from one thing to another, but we shall see
all our knowledge at once, and at one glance. Still, when even this
shall have come to pass, if indeed it shall come to pass, the creature
which was formable will indeed have been formed, so that nothing will
be wanting of that form to which it ought to attain; yet nevertheless
it will not be to be equalled to that simplicity wherein there is not
anything formable, which has been formed or reformed, but only form;
and which being neither formless nor formed, itself is eternal and
unchangeable substance.
Footnotes
[994] Æn. x. 159, 160.
[995] 1 John iii. 2
Chapter 17.--How the Holy Spirit is Called Love, and Whether He Alone
is So Called. That the Holy Spirit is in the Scriptures Properly
Called by the Name of Love.
27. We have sufficiently spoken of the Father and of the Son, so far
as was possible for us to see through this glass and in this enigma.
We must now treat of the Holy Spirit, so far as by God's gift it is
permitted to see Him. And the Holy Spirit, according to the Holy
Scriptures, is neither of the Father alone, nor of the Son alone, but
of both; and so intimates to us a mutual love, wherewith the Father
and the Son reciprocally love one another. But the language of the
Word of God, in order to exercise us, has caused those things to be
sought into with the greater zeal, which do not lie on the surface,
but are to be scrutinized in hidden depths, and to be drawn out from
thence. The Scriptures, accordingly, have not said, The Holy Spirit is
Love. If they had said so, they would have done away with no small
part of this inquiry. But they have said, "God is love;" [996] so that
it is uncertain and remains to be inquired whether God the Father is
love, or God the Son, or God the Holy Ghost, or the Trinity itself
which is God. For we are not going to say that God is called Love
because love itself is a substance worthy of the name of God, but
because it is a gift of God, as it is said to God, "Thou art my
patience." [997] For this is not said because our patience is God's
substance, but in that He Himself gives it to us; as it is elsewhere
read, "Since from Him is my patience." [998] For the usage of words
itself in Scripture sufficiently refutes this interpretation; for
"Thou art my patience" is of the same kind as "Thou, Lord, art my
hope," [999] and "The Lord my God is my mercy," [1000] and many like
texts. And it is not said, O Lord my love, or, Thou art my love, or,
God my love; but it is said thus, "God is love," as it is said, "God
is a Spirit." [1001] And he who does not discern this, must ask
understanding from the Lord, not an explanation from us; for we cannot
say anything more clearly.
28. "God," then, "is love;" but the question is, whether the Father,
or the Son, or the Holy Spirit, or the Trinity itself: because the
Trinity is not three Gods, but one God. But I have already argued
above in this book, that the Trinity, which is God, is not so to be
understood from those three things which have been set forth in the
trinity of our mind, as that the Father should be the memory of all
three, and the Son the understanding of all three, and the Holy Spirit
the love of all three; as though the Father should neither understand
nor love for Himself, but the Son should understand for Him, and the
Holy Spirit love for Him, but He Himself should remember only both for
Himself and for them; nor the Son remember nor love for Himself, but
the Father should remember for Him, and the Holy Spirit love for Him,
but He Himself understand only both for Himself and them; nor likewise
that the Holy Spirit should neither remember nor understand for
Himself, but the Father should remember for Him, and the Son
understand for Him, while He Himself should love only both for Himself
and for them; but rather in this way, that both all and each have all
three each in His own nature. Nor that these things should differ in
them, as in us memory is one thing, understanding another, love or
charity another, but should be some one thing that is equivalent to
all, as wisdom itself; and should be so contained in the nature of
each, as that He who has it is that which He has, as being an
unchangeable and simple substance. If all this, then, has been
understood, and so far as is granted to us to see or conjecture in
things so great, has been made patently true, I know not why both the
Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit should not be called Love, and
all together one love, just as both the Father and the Son and the
Holy Spirit is called Wisdom, and all together not three, but one
wisdom. For so also both the Father is God, and the Son God, and the
Holy Ghost God, and all three together one God.
29. And yet it is not to no purpose that in this Trinity the Son and
none other is called the Word of God, and the Holy Spirit and none
other the Gift of God, and God the Father alone is He from whom the
Word is born, and from whom the Holy Spirit principally proceeds. And
therefore I have added the word principally, because we find that the
Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son also. But the Father gave Him this
too, not as to one already existing, and not yet having it; but
whatever He gave to the only-begotten Word, He gave by begetting Him.
Therefore He so begat Him as that the common Gift should proceed from
Him also, and the Holy Spirit should be the Spirit of both. This
distinction, then, of the inseparable Trinity is not to be merely
accepted in passing, but to be carefully considered; for hence it was
that the Word of God was specially called also the Wisdom of God,
although both Father and Holy Spirit are wisdom. If, then, any one of
the three is to be specially called Love, what more fitting than that
it should be the Holy Spirit?--namely, that in that simple and highest
nature, substance should not be one thing and love another, but that
substance itself should be love, and love itself should be substance,
whether in the Father, or in the Son, or in the Holy Spirit; and yet
that the Holy Spirit should be specially called Love.
30. Just as sometimes all the utterances of the Old Testament together
in the Holy Scriptures are signified by the name of the Law. For the
apostle, in citing a text from the prophet Isaiah, where he says,
"With divers tongues and with divers lips will I speak to this
people," yet prefaced it by, "It is written in the Law." [1002] And
the Lord Himself says, "It is written in their Law, They hated me
without a cause," [1003] whereas this is read in the Psalm. [1004] And
sometimes that which was given by Moses is specially called the Law:
as it is said, "The Law and the Prophets were until John;" [1005] and,
"On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets." [1006]
Here, certainly, that is specially called the Law which was from Mount
Sinai. And the Psalms, too, are signified under the name of the
Prophets; and yet in another place the Saviour Himself says, "All
things must needs be fulfilled, which are written in the Law, and the
Prophets, and the Psalms concerning me." [1007] Here, on the other
side, He meant the name of Prophets to be taken as not including the
Psalms. Therefore the Law with the Prophets and the Psalms taken
together is called the Law universally, and the Law is also specially
so called which was given by Moses. Likewise the Prophets are so
called in common together with the Psalms, and they are also specially
so called exclusive of the Psalms. And many other instances might be
adduced to teach us, that many names of things are both put
universally, and also specially applied to particular things, were it
not that a long discourse is to be avoided in a plain case. I have
said so much, lest any one should think that it was therefore
unsuitable for us to call the Holy Spirit Love, because both God the
Father and God the Son can be called Love.
31. As, then, we call the only Word of God specially by the name of
Wisdom, although universally both the Holy Spirit and the Father
Himself is wisdom; so the Holy Spirit is specially called by the name
of Love, although universally both the Father and the Son are love.
But the Word of God, i.e. the only-begotten Son of God, is expressly
called the Wisdom of God by the mouth of the apostle, where he says,
"Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God." [1008] But where the
Holy Spirit is called Love, is to be found by careful scrutiny of the
language of John the apostle, who, after saying, "Beloved, let us love
one another, for love is of God," has gone on to say, "And every one
that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. He that loveth not,
knoweth not God; for God is love." Here, manifestly, he has called
that love God, which he said was of God; therefore God of God is love.
But because both the Son is born of God the Father, and the Holy
Spirit proceeds from God the Father, it is rightly asked which of them
we ought here to think is the rather called the love that is God. For
the Father only is so God as not to be of God; and hence the love that
is so God as to be of God, is either the Son or the Holy Spirit. But
when, in what follows, the apostle had mentioned the love of God, not
that by which we love Him, but that by which He "loved us, and sent
His Son to be a propitiator for our sins," [1009] and thereupon had
exhorted us also to love one another, and that so God would abide in
us,--because, namely, he had called God Love; immediately, in his wish
to speak yet more expressly on the subject, "Hereby," he says, "know
we that we dwell in Him, and He in us, because He hath given us of His
Spirit." Therefore the Holy Spirit, of whom He hath given us, makes us
to abide in God, and Him in us; and this it is that love does.
Therefore He is the God that is love. Lastly, a little after, when he
had repeated the same thing, and had said "God is love," he
immediately subjoined, "And he who abideth in love, abideth in God,
and God abideth in him;" whence he had said above, "Hereby we know
that we abide in Him, and He in us, because He hath given us of His
Spirit." He therefore is signified, where we read that God is love.
Therefore God the Holy Spirit, who proceedeth from the Father, when He
has been given to man, inflames him to the love of God and of his
neighbor, and is Himself love. For man has not whence to love God,
unless from God; and therefore he says a little after, "Let us love
Him, because He first loved us." [1010] The Apostle Paul, too, says,
"The love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost, which
is given unto us." [1011]
Footnotes
[996] 1 John iv. 16
[997] Ps. lxxi. 5
[998] Ps. lxii. 5
[999] Ps. xci. 9
[1000] Ps. lix. 17
[1001] John iv. 24
[1002] Isa. xxviii. 11 and 1 Cor. xiv. 21
[1003] John xv. 25
[1004] Ps. xxxv. 19
[1005] Matt. xi. 13
[1006] Matt. xxii. 40
[1007] Luke xxiv. 44
[1008] 1 Cor. i. 24
[1009] John iv. 10
[1010] 1 John iv. 7-19
[1011] Rom. v. 5
Chapter 18.--No Gift of God is More Excellent Than Love.
32. There is no gift of God more excellent than this. It alone
distinguishes the sons of the eternal kingdom and the sons of eternal
perdition. Other gifts, too, are given by the Holy Spirit; but without
love they profit nothing. Unless, therefore, the Holy Spirit is so far
imparted to each, as to make him one who loves God and his neighbor,
he is not removed from the left hand to the right. Nor is the Spirit
specially called the Gift, unless on account of love. And he who has
not this love, "though he speak with the tongues of men and angels, is
sounding brass and a tinkling cymbal; and though he have the gift of
prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge, and though he have
all faith, so that he can remove mountains, he is nothing; and though
he bestow all his goods to feed the poor, and though he give his body
to be burned, it profiteth him nothing." [1012] How great a good,
then, is that without which goods so great bring no one to eternal
life! But love or charity itself,--for they are two names for one
thing,--if he have it that does not speak with tongues, nor has the
gift of prophecy, nor knows all mysteries and all knowledge, nor gives
all his goods to the poor, either because he has none to give or
because some necessity hinders, nor delivers his body to be burned, if
no trial of such a suffering overtakes him, brings that man to the
kingdom, so that faith itself is only rendered profitable by love,
since faith without love can indeed exist, but cannot profit. And
therefore also the Apostle Paul says, "In Christ Jesus neither
circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but faith that
worketh by love:" [1013] so distinguishing it from that faith by which
even "the devils believe and tremble." [1014] Love, therefore, which
is of God and is God, is specially the Holy Spirit, by whom the love
of God is shed abroad in our hearts, by which love the whole Trinity
dwells in us. And therefore most rightly is the Holy Spirit, although
He is God, called also the gift of God. [1015] And by that gift what
else can properly be understood except love, which brings to God, and
without which any other gift of God whatsoever does not bring to God?
Footnotes
[1012] 1 Cor. xiii. 1-3
[1013] Gal. v. 6
[1014] Jas. ii. 19
[1015] Acts viii. 20
Chapter 19.--The Holy Spirit is Called the Gift of God in the
Scriptures. By the Gift of the Holy Spirit is Meant the Gift Which is
the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is Specially Called Love, Although
Not Only the Holy Spirit in the Trinity is Love.
33. Is this too to be proved, that the Holy Spirit is called in the
sacred books the gift of God? If people look for this too, we have in
the Gospel according to John the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, who
says, "If any one thirst, let him come to me and drink: he that
believeth on me, as the Scripture saith, out of his belly shall flow
rivers of living water." And the evangelist has gone on further to
add, "And this He spake of the Spirit, which they should receive who
believe in Him." [1016] And hence Paul the apostle also says, "And we
have all been made to drink into one Spirit." [1017] The question then
is, whether that water is called the gift of God which is the Holy
Spirit. But as we find here that this water is the Holy Spirit, so we
find elsewhere in the Gospel itself that this water is called the gift
of God. For when the same Lord was talking with the woman of Samaria
at the well, to whom He had said, "Give me to drink," and she had
answered that the Jews "have no dealings" with the Samaritans, Jesus
answered and said unto her, "If thou hadst known the gift of God, and
who it is that says to thee, Give me to drink, thou wouldest have
asked of Him, and He would have given thee living water. The woman
saith unto Him, Sir, thou hast nothing to draw with, and the well is
deep: whence then hast thou this living water, etc.? Jesus answered
and said unto her, Every one that drinketh of this water shall thirst
again; but whose shall drink of the water that I shall give him, shall
never thirst; but the water that I shall give him, shall be in him a
fountain of water springing up unto eternal life." [1018] Because this
living water, then, as the evangelist has explained to us, is the Holy
Spirit, without doubt the Spirit is the gift of God, of which the Lord
says here, "If thou hadst known the gift of God, and who it is that
saith unto thee, Give me to drink, thou wouldest have asked of Him,
and He would have given thee living water." For that which is in the
one passage, "Out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water," is
in the other, "shall be in him a fountain of water springing up unto
eternal life."
34. Paul the apostle also says, "To each of us is given grace
according to the measure of the gift of Christ;" and then, that he
might show that by the gift of Christ he meant the Holy Spirit, he has
gone on to add, "Wherefore He saith, He hath ascended up on high, He
hath led captivity captive, and hath given gifts to men." [1019] And
every one knows that the Lord Jesus, when He had ascended into heaven
after the resurrection from the dead, gave the Holy Spirit, with whom
they who believed were filled, and spake with the tongues of all
nations. And let no one object that he says gifts, not gift: for he
quoted the text from the Psalm. And in the Psalm it is read thus,
"Thou hast ascended up on high, Thou hast led captivity captive, Thou
hast received gifts in men." [1020] For so it stands in many mss.,
especially in the Greek mss., and so we have it translated from the
Hebrew. The apostle therefore said gifts, as the prophet did, not
gift. But whereas the prophet said, "Thou hast received gifts in men,"
the apostle has preferred saying, "He gave gifts to men:" and this in
order that the fullest sense may be gathered from both expressions,
the one prophetic, the other apostolic; because both possess the
authority of a divine utterance. For both are true, as well that He
gave to men, as that He received in men. He gave to men, as the head
to His own members: He Himself that gave, received in men, no doubt as
in His own members; on account of which, namely, His own members, He
cried from heaven, "Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?" [1021] And
of which, namely, His own members, He says, "Since ye have done it to
one of the least of these that are mine, ye have done it unto me."
[1022] Christ Himself, therefore, both gave from heaven and received
on earth. And further, both prophet and apostle have said gifts for
this reason, because many gifts, which are proper to each, are divided
in common to all the members of Christ, by the Gift, which is the Holy
Spirit. For each severally has not all, but some have these and some
have those; although all have the Gift itself by which that which is
proper to each is divided to Him, i.e. the Holy Spirit. For elsewhere
also, when he had mentioned many gifts, "All these," he says, "worketh
that one and the self-same Spirit, dividing to each severally as He
will." [1023] And this word is found also in the Epistle to the
Hebrews, where it is written, "God also bearing witness both with
signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts [1024] of the
Holy Ghost." [1025] And so here, when he had said, "He ascended up on
high, He led captivity captive, He gave gifts to men," he says
further, "But that He ascended, what is it but that He also first
descended into the lower parts of the earth? He who descended is the
same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that He might fill
all things. And He gave some apostles, some prophets, and some
evangelists, and some pastors and doctors." (This we see is the reason
why gifts are spoken of; because, as he says elsewhere, "Are all
apostles? are all prophets?" [1026] etc.) And here he has added, "For
the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the
building up of the body of Christ." [1027] This is the house which, as
the Psalm sings, is built up after the captivity; [1028] since the
house of Christ, which house is called His Church, is built up of
those who have been rescued from the devil, by whom they were held
captive. But He Himself led this captivity captive, who conquered the
devil. And that he might not draw with him into eternal punishment
those who were to become the members of the Holy Head, He bound him
first by the bonds of righteousness, and then by those of might. The
devil himself, therefore, is called captivity, which He led captive
who ascended up on high, and gave gifts to men, or received gifts in
men.
35. And Peter the apostle, as we read in that canonical book, wherein
the Acts of the Apostles are recorded,--when the hearts of the Jews
were troubled as he spake of Christ, and they said, "Brethren, what
shall we do? tell us,"--said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every
one of you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, for the remission of
sins: and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." [1029] And we
read likewise in the same book, that Simon Magus desired to give money
to the apostles, that he might receive power from them, whereby the
Holy Spirit might be given by the laying on of his hands. And the same
Peter said to him, "Thy money perish with thee: because thou hast
thought to purchase for money the gift of God." [1030] And in another
place of the same book, when Peter was speaking to Cornelius, and to
those who were with him, and was announcing and preaching Christ, the
Scripture says, "While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy
Spirit fell upon all them that heard the word; and they of the
circumcision that believed, as many as came with Peter, were
astonished, because that upon the Gentiles also the gift of the Holy
Spirit was poured out. For they heard them speak with tongues, and
magnify God." [1031] And when Peter afterwards was giving an account
to the brethren that were at Jerusalem of this act of his, that he had
baptized those who were not circumcised, because the Holy Spirit, to
cut the knot of the question, had come upon them before they were
baptized, and the brethren at Jerusalem were moved when they heard it,
he says, after the rest of his words, "And when I began to speak to
them, the Holy Spirit fell upon them, as upon us in the beginning. And
I remembered the word of the Lord, how He said, that John indeed
baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.
If, therefore, He gave a like gift to them, as also to us who believed
in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I, that I could hinder God from
giving to them the Holy Spirit?" [1032] And there are many other
testimonies of the Scriptures, which unanimously attest that the Holy
Spirit is the gift of God, in so far as He is given to those who by
Him love God. But it is too long a task to collect them all. And what
is enough to satisfy those who are not satisfied with those we have
alleged?
36. Certainly they must be warned, since they now see that the Holy
Spirit is called the gift of God, that when they hear of "the gift of
the Holy Spirit," they should recognize therein that mode of speech
which is found in the words, "In the spoiling of the body of the
flesh." [1033] For as the body of the flesh is nothing else but the
flesh, so the gift of the Holy Spirit is nothing else but the Holy
Spirit. He is then the gift of God, so far as He is given to those to
whom He is given. But in Himself He is God, although He were given to
no one, because He was God co-eternal with the Father and the Son
before He was given to any one. Nor is He less than they, because they
give, and He is given. For He is given as a gift of God in such way
that He Himself also gives Himself as being God. For He cannot be said
not to be in His own power, of whom it is said, "The Spirit bloweth
where it listeth;" [1034] and the apostle says, as I have already
mentioned above, "All these things worketh that selfsame Spirit,
dividing to every man severally as He will." We have not here the
creating of Him that is given, and the rule of them that give, but the
concord of the given and the givers.
37. Wherefore, if Holy Scripture proclaims that God is love, and that
love is of God, and works this in us that we abide in God and He in
us, and that hereby we know this, because He has given us of His
Spirit, then the Spirit Himself is God, who is love. Next, if there be
among the gifts of God none greater than love, and there is no greater
gift of God than the Holy Spirit, what follows more naturally than
that He is Himself love, who is called both God and of God? And if the
love by which the Father loves the Son, and the Son loves the Father,
ineffably demonstrates the communion of both, what is more suitable
than that He should be specially called love, who is the Spirit common
to both? For this is the sounder thing both to believe and to
understand, that the Holy Spirit is not alone love in that Trinity,
yet is not specially called love to no purpose, for the reasons we
have alleged; just as He is not alone in that Trinity either a Spirit
or holy, since both the Father is a Spirit, and the Son is a Spirit;
and both the Father is holy, and the Son is holy,--as piety doubts
not. And yet it is not to no purpose that He is specially called the
Holy Spirit; for because He is common to both, He is specially called
that which both are in common. Otherwise, if in that Trinity the Holy
Spirit alone is love, then doubtless the Son too turns out to be the
Son, not of the Father only, but also of the Holy Spirit. For He is
both said and read in countless places to be so,--the only-begotten
Son of God the Father; as that what the apostle says of God the Father
is true too: "Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness and
hath translated us into the kingdom of the Son of His own love."
[1035] He did not say, "of His own Son." If He had so said, He would
have said it most truly, just as He did say it most truly, because He
has often said it; but He says, "the Son of His own love." Therefore
He is the Son also of the Holy Spirit, if there is in that Trinity no
love in God except the Holy Spirit. And if this is most absurd, it
remains that the Holy Spirit is not alone therein love, but is
specially so called for the reasons I have sufficiently set forth; and
that the words, "Son of His own love," mean nothing else than His own
beloved Son,--the Son, in short, of His own substance. For the love in
the Father, which is in His ineffably simple nature, is nothing else
than His very nature and substance itself,--as we have already often
said, and are not ashamed of often repeating. And hence the "Son of
His love," is none other than He who is born of His substance.
Footnotes
[1016] John vii. 37-39
[1017] 1 Cor. xii. 13
[1018] John iv. 7-14
[1019] Eph. iv. 7, 8
[1020] Ps. lxviii. 18
[1021] Acts ix. 4
[1022] Matt. xxv. 40
[1023] 1 Cor. xii. 11
[1024] Distributionibus
[1025] Heb. ii. 4
[1026] 1 Cor. xii. 29
[1027] Eph. iv. 7-12
[1028] Ps. cxxvi. 1
[1029] Acts ii. 37, 38
[1030] Acts viii. 18-20
[1031] Acts x. 44, 46
[1032] Acts xi. 15-17
[1033] Col. ii. 11
[1034] John iii. 6
[1035] Col. i. 13
Chapter 20.--Against Eunomius, Saying that the Son of God is the Son,
Not of His Nature, But of His Will. Epilogue to What Has Been Said
Already.
38. Wherefore the logic of Eunomius, from whom the Eunomian heretics
sprang, is ridiculous. For when he could not understand, and would not
believe, that the only-begotten Word of God, by which all things were
made is the Son of God by nature,--i.e. born of the substance of the
Father,--he alleged that He was not the Son of His own nature or
substance or essence, but the Son of the will of God; so as to mean to
assert that the will by which he begot the Son was something
accidental [and optional] to God,--to wit, in that way that we
ourselves sometimes will something which before we did not will, as
though it was not for these very things that our nature is perceived
to be changeable,--a thing which far be it from us to believe of God.
For it is written, "Many are the thoughts in the heart of man, but the
counsel of the Lord abideth for ever," [1036] for no other reason
except that we may understand or believe that as God is eternal, so is
His counsel for eternity, and therefore unchangeable, as He himself
is. And what is said of thoughts can most truly be said also of the
will: there are many wills in the heart of man, but the will of the
Lord abideth for ever. Some, again, to escape saying that the
only-begotten Word is the Son of the counsel or will of God, have
affirmed the same Word to be the counsel or will itself of the Father.
But it is better in my judgment to say counsel of counsel, and will of
will, as substance of substance, wisdom of wisdom, that we may not be
led into that absurdity, which we have refuted already, and say that
the Son makes the Father wise or willing, if the Father has not in His
own substance either counsel or will. It was certainly a sharp answer
that somebody gave to the heretic, who most subtly asked him whether
God begat the Son willingly or unwillingly, in order that if he said
unwillingly, it would follow most absurdly that God was miserable; but
if willingly, he would forthwith infer, as though by an invincible
reason, that at which he was aiming, viz. that He was the Son, not of
His nature, but of His will. But that other, with great wakefulness,
demanded of him in turn, whether God the Father was God willingly or
unwillingly; in order that if he answered unwillingly, that misery
would follow, which to believe of God is sheer madness; and if he said
willingly, it would be replied to him, Then He is God too by His own
will, not by His nature. What remained, then, except that he should
hold his peace, and discern that he was himself bound by his own
question in an insoluble bond? But if any person in the Trinity is
also to be specially called the will of God, this name, like love, is
better suited to the Holy Spirit; for what else is love, except will?
39. I see that my argument in this book respecting the Holy Spirit,
according to the Holy Scripture, is quite enough for faithful men who
know already that the Holy Spirit is God, and not of another
substance, nor less than the Father and the Son,--as we have shown to
be true in the former books, according to the same Scriptures. We have
reasoned also from the creature which God made, and, as far as we
could, have warned those who demand a reason on such subjects to
behold and understand His invisible things, so far as they could, by
those things which are made [1037] and especially by the rational or
intellectual creature which is made after the image of God; through
which glass, so to say, they might discern as far as they could, if
they could, the Trinity which is God, in our own memory,
understanding, will. Which three things, if any one intelligently
regards as by nature divinely appointed in his own mind, and remembers
by memory, contemplates by understanding, embraces by love, how great
a thing that is in the mind, whereby even the eternal and unchangeable
nature can be recollected, beheld, desired, doubtless that man finds
an image of that highest Trinity. And he ought to refer the whole of
his life to the remembering, seeing, loving that highest Trinity, in
order that he may recollect, contemplate, be delighted by it. But I
have warned him, so far as seemed sufficient, that he must not so
compare this image thus wrought by that Trinity, and by his own fault
changed for the worse, to that same Trinity as to think it in all
points like to it, but rather that he should discern in that likeness,
of whatever sort it be, a great unlikeness also.
Footnotes
[1036] Prov. xix. 21
[1037] Rom. i. 20
Chapter 21.--Of the Likeness of the Father and of the Son Alleged to
Be in Our Memory and Understanding. Of the Likeness of the Holy Spirit
in Our Will or Love.
40. I have undoubtedly taken pains so far as I could, not indeed so
that the thing might be seen face to face, but that it might be seen
by this likeness in an enigma, [1038] in how small a degree soever, by
conjecture, in our memory and understanding, to intimate God the
Father and God the Son: i.e. God the begetter, who has in some way
spoken by His own co-eternal Word all things that He has in His
substance; and God His Word Himself, who Himself has nothing either
more or less in substance than is in Him, who, not lyingly but truly,
hath begotten the Word; and I have assigned to memory everything that
we know, even if we were not thinking of it, but to understanding the
formation after a certain special mode of the thought. For we are
usually said to understand what, by thinking of it, we have found to
be true; and this it is again that we leave in the memory. But that is
a still more hidden depth of our memory, wherein we found this also
first when we thought of it, and wherein an inner word is begotten
such as belongs to no tongue,--as it were, knowledge of knowledge,
vision of vision, and understanding which appears in [reflective]
thought; of understanding which had indeed existed before in the
memory, but was latent there, although, unless the thought itself had
also some sort of memory of its own, it would not return to those
things which it had left in the memory while it turned to think of
other things.
41. But I have shown nothing in this enigma respecting the Holy Spirit
such as might appear to be like Him, except our own will, or love, or
affection, which is a stronger will, since our will which we have
naturally is variously affected, according as various objects are
adjacent or occur to it, by which we are attracted or offended. What,
then, is this? Are we to say that our will, when it is right, knows
not what to desire, what to avoid? Further, if it knows, doubtless
then it has a kind of knowledge of its own, such as cannot be without
memory and understanding. Or are we to listen to any one who should
say that love knows not what it does, which does not do wrongly? As,
then, there are both understanding and love in that primary memory
wherein we find provided and stored up that to which we can come in
thought, because we find also those two things there, when we find by
thinking that we both understand and love anything; which things were
there too when we were not thinking of them: and as there are memory
and love in that understanding, which is formed by thought, which true
word we say inwardly without the tongue of any nation when we say what
we know; for the gaze of our thought does not return to anything
except by remembering it, and does not care to return unless by loving
it: so love, which combines the vision brought about in the memory,
and the vision of the thought formed thereby, as if parent and
offspring, would not know what to love rightly unless it had a
knowledge of what it desired, which it cannot have without memory and
understanding.
Footnotes
[1038] 1 Cor. xiii. 12
Chapter 22.--How Great the Unlikeness is Between the Image of the
Trinity Which We Have Found in Ourselves, and the Trinity Itself.
42. But since these are in one person, as man is, some one may say to
us, These three things, memory, understanding, and love, are mine, not
their own; neither do they do that which they do for themselves, but
for me, or rather I do it by them. For it is I who remember by memory,
and understand by understanding, and love by love: and when I direct
the mind's eye to my memory, and so say in my heart the thing I know,
and a true word is begotten of my knowledge, both are mine, both the
knowledge certainly and the word. For it is I who know, and it is I
who say in my heart the thing I know. And when I come to find in my
memory by thinking that I understand and love anything, which
understanding and love were there also before I thought thereon, it is
my own understanding and my own love that I find in my own memory,
whereby it is I that understand, and I that love, not those things
themselves. Likewise, when my thought is mindful, and wills to return
to those things which it had left in the memory, and to understand and
behold them, and say them inwardly, it is my own memory that is
mindful, and it is my own, not its will, wherewith it wills. When my
very love itself, too, remembers and understands what it ought to
desire and what to avoid, it remembers by my, not by its own memory;
and understands that which it intelligently loves by my, not by its
own, understanding. In brief, by all these three things, it is I that
remember, I that understand, I that love, who am neither memory, nor
understanding, nor love, but who have them. These things, then, can be
said by a single person, which has these three, but is not these
three. But in the simplicity of that Highest Nature, which is God,
although there is one God, there are three persons, the Father, the
Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Chapter 23.--Augustin Dwells Still Further on the Disparity Between
the Trinity Which is in Man, and the Trinity Which is God. The Trinity
is Now Seen Through a Glass by the Help of Faith, that It May
Hereafter Be More Clearly Seen in the Promised Sight Face to Face.
43. A thing itself, then, which is a trinity is different from the
image of a trinity in some other thing; by reason of which image, at
the same time that also in which these three things are is called an
image; just as both the panel, and the picture painted on it, are at
the same time called an image; but by reason of the picture painted on
it, the panel also is called by the name of image. But in that Highest
Trinity, which is incomparably above all things, there is so great an
indivisibility, that whereas a trinity of men cannot be called one
man, in that, there both is said to be and is one God, nor is that
Trinity in one God, but it is one God. Nor, again, as that image in
the case of man has these three things but is one person, so is it
with the Trinity; but therein are three persons, the Father of the
Son, and the Son of the Father, and the Spirit of both Father and Son.
For although the memory in the case of man, and especially that memory
which beasts have not--viz. the memory by which things intelligible
are so contained as that they have not entered that memory through the
bodily senses [1039] --has in this image of the Trinity, in proportion
to its own small measure, a likeness of the Father, incomparably
unequal, yet of some sort, whatever it be: and likewise the
understanding in the case of man, which by the purpose of the thought
is formed thereby, when that which is known is said, and there is a
word of the heart belonging to no tongue, has in its own great
disparity some likeness of the Son; and love in the case of man
proceeding from knowledge, and combining memory and understanding, as
though common to parent and offspring, whereby it is understood to be
neither parent nor offspring, has in that image, some, however
exceedingly unequal, likeness of the Holy Spirit: it is nevertheless
not the case, that, as in that image of the Trinity, these three are
not one man, but belong to one man, so in the Highest Trinity itself,
of which this is an image, these three belong to one God, but they are
one God, and these are three persons, not one. A thing certainly
wonderfully ineffable, or ineffably wonderful, that while this image
of the Trinity is one person, but the Highest Trinity itself is three
persons, yet that Trinity of three persons is more indivisible than
this of one. For that [Trinity], in the nature of the Divinity, or
perhaps better Deity, is that which it is, and is mutually and always
unchangeably equal: and there was no time when it was not, or when it
was otherwise; and there will be no time when it will not be, or when
it will be otherwise. But these three that are in the inadequate
image, although they are not separate in place, for they are not
bodies, yet are now in this life mutually separate in magnitude. For
that there are therein no several bulks, does not hinder our seeing
that memory is greater than understanding in one man, but the contrary
in another; and that in yet another these two are overpassed by the
greatness of love; and this whether the two themselves are or are not
equal to one another. And so each two by each one, and each one by
each two, and each one by each one: the less are surpassed by the
greater. And when they have been healed of all infirmity, and are
mutually equal, not even then will that thing which by grace will not
be changed, be made equal to that which by nature cannot change,
because the creature cannot be equalled to the Creator, and when it
shall be healed from all infirmity, will be changed.
44. But when the sight shall have come which is promised anew to us
face to face, we shall see this not only incorporeal but also
absolutely indivisible and truly unchangeable Trinity far more clearly
and certainly than we now see its image which we ourselves are: and
yet they who see through this glass and in this enigma, as it is
permitted in this life to see, are not those who behold in their own
mind the things which we have set in order and pressed upon them; but
those who see this as if an image, so as to be able to refer what they
see, in some way be it what it may, to Him whose image it is, and to
see that also by conjecturing, which they see through the image by
beholding, since they cannot yet see face to face. For the apostle
does not say, We see now a glass, but, We see now through a glass.
[1040]
Footnotes
[1039] [The reader will observe that Augustin has employed the term
"memory" in a wider sense than in the modern ordinary use. With him,
it is the mind as including all that is potential or latent in it. The
innate ideas, in this use, are laid up in the "memory," and called
into consciousness or "remembered" by reflection. The idea of God, for
example, is not in the "memory" when not elicited by reflection. The
same is true of the ideas of space and time, etc.--W.G.T.S.]
[1040] 1 Cor. xiii. 12
Chapter 24.--The Infirmity of the Human Mind.
They, then, who see their own mind, in whatever way that is possible,
and in it that Trinity of which I have treated as I could in many
ways, and yet do not believe or understand it to be an image of God,
see indeed a glass, but do not so far see through the glass Him who is
now to be seen through the glass, that they do not even know the glass
itself which they see to be a glass, i.e. an image. And if they knew
this, perhaps they would feel that He too whose glass this is, should
by it be sought, and somehow provisionally be seen, an unfeigned faith
purging their hearts, [1041] that He who is now seen through a glass
may be able to be seen face to face. And if they despise this faith
that purifies the heart, what do they accomplish by understanding the
most subtle disputes concerning the nature of the human mind, unless
that they be condemned also by the witness of their own understanding?
And they would certainly not so fail in understanding, and hardly
arrive at anything certain, were they not involved in penal darkness,
and burdened with the corruptible body that presses down the soul.
[1042] And for what demerit save that of sin is this evil inflicted on
them? Wherefore, being warned by the magnitude of so great an evil,
they ought to follow the Lamb that taketh away the sins of the world.
[1043]
Footnotes
[1041] 1 Tim. i. 5
[1042] Wisd. ix. 15
[1043] John i. 29
Chapter 25.--The Question Why the Holy Spirit is Not Begotten, and How
He Proceeds from the Father and the Son, Will Only Be Understood When
We are in Bliss.
For if any belong to Him, although far duller in intellect than those,
yet when they are freed from the body at the end of this life, the
envious powers have no right to hold them. For that Lamb that was
slain by them without any debt of sin has conquered them; but not by
the might of power before He had done so by the righteousness of
blood. And free accordingly from the power of the devil, they are
borne up by holy angels, being set free from all evils by the mediator
of God and men, the man Christ Jesus. [1044] Since by the harmonious
testimony of the Divine Scriptures, both Old and New, both those by
which Christ was foretold, and those by which He was announced, there
is no other name under heaven whereby men must be saved. [1045] And
when purged from all contagion of corruption, they are placed in
peaceful abodes until they take their bodies again, their own, but now
incorruptible, to adorn, not to burden them. For this is the will of
the best and most wise Creator, that the spirit of a man, when piously
subject to God, should have a body happily subject, and that this
happiness should last for ever.
45. There we shall see the truth without any difficulty, and shall
enjoy it to the full, most clear and most certain. Nor shall we be
inquiring into anything by a mind that reasons, but shall discern by a
mind that contemplates, why the Holy Spirit is not a Son, although He
proceeds from the Father. In that light there will be no place for
inquiry: but here, by experience itself it has appeared to me so
difficult,--as beyond doubt it will likewise appear to them also who
shall carefully and intelligently read what I have written,--that
although in the second book [1046] I promised that I would speak
thereof in another place, yet as often as I have desired to illustrate
it by the creaturely image of it which we ourselves are, so often, let
my meaning be of what sort it might, did adequate utterance entirely
fail me; nay, even in my very meaning I felt that I had attained to
endeavor rather than accomplishment. I had indeed found in one person,
such as is a man, an image of that Highest Trinity, and had desired,
especially in the ninth book, to illustrate and render more
intelligible the relation of the Three Persons by that which is
subject to time and change. But three things belonging to one person
cannot suit those Three Persons, as man's purpose demands; and this we
have demonstrated in this fifteenth book.
Footnotes
[1044] 1 Tim. ii. 5
[1045] Acts iv. 12
[1046] C. 3.
Chapter 26.--The Holy Spirit Twice Given by Christ. The Procession of
the Holy Spirit from the Father and from the Son is Apart from Time,
Nor Can He Be Called the Son of Both.
Further, in that Highest Trinity which is God, there are no intervals
of time, by which it could be shown, or at least inquired, whether the
Son was born of the Father first and then afterwards the Holy Spirit
proceeded from both; since Holy Scripture calls Him the Spirit of
both. For it is He of whom the apostle says, "But because ye are sons,
God hath sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts:" [1047]
and it is He of whom the same Son says, "For it is not ye who speak,
but the Spirit of your Father who speaketh in you." [1048] And it is
proved by many other testimonies of the Divine Word, that the Spirit,
who is specially called in the Trinity the Holy Spirit, is of the
Father and of the Son: of whom likewise the Son Himself says, "Whom I
will send unto you from the Father;" [1049] and in another place,
"Whom the Father will send in my name." [1050] And we are so taught
that He proceeds from both, because the Son Himself says, He proceeds
from the Father. And when He had risen from the dead, and had appeared
to His disciples, "He breathed upon them, and said, Receive the Holy
Ghost," [1051] so as to show that He proceeded also from Himself. And
Itself is that very "power that went out from Him," as we read in the
Gospel, "and healed them all." [1052]
46. But the reason why, after His resurrection, He both gave the Holy
Spirit, first on earth, [1053] and afterwards sent Him from heaven,
[1054] is in my judgment this: that "love is shed abroad in our
hearts," [1055] by that Gift itself, whereby we love God and our
neighbors, according to those two commandments, "on which hang all the
law and the prophets." [1056] And Jesus Christ, in order to signify
this, gave to them the Holy Spirit, once upon earth, on account of the
love of our neighbor, and a second time from heaven, on account of the
love of God. And if some other reason may perhaps be given for this
double gift of the Holy Spirit, at any rate we ought not to doubt that
the same Holy Spirit was given when Jesus breathed upon them, of whom
He by and by says, "Go, baptize all nations in the name of the Father,
and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," where this Trinity is
especially commended to us. It is therefore He who was also given from
heaven on the day of Pentecost, i.e. ten days after the Lord ascended
into heaven. How, therefore, is He not God, who gives the Holy Spirit?
Nay, how great a God is He who gives God! For no one of His disciples
gave the Holy Spirit, since they prayed that He might come upon those
upon whom they laid their hands: they did not give Him themselves. And
the Church preserves this custom even now in the case of her rulers.
Lastly, Simon Magus also, when he offered the apostles money, does not
say, "Give me also this power, that I may give" the Holy Spirit; but,
"that on whomsoever I may lay my hands, he may receive the Holy
Spirit." Because neither had the Scriptures said before, And Simon,
seeing that the apostles gave the Holy Spirit; but it had said, "And
Simon, seeing that the Holy Spirit was given by the laying on of the
apostles' hands." [1057] Therefore also the Lord Jesus Christ Himself
not only gave the Holy Spirit as God, but also received it as man, and
therefore He is said to be full of grace, [1058] and of the Holy
Spirit. [1059] And in the Acts of the Apostles it is more plainly
written of Him, "Because God anointed Him with the Holy Spirit."
[1060] Certainly not with visible oil but with the gift of grace which
is signified by the visible ointment wherewith the Church anoints the
baptized. And Christ was certainly not then anointed with the Holy
Spirit, when He, as a dove, descended upon Him at His baptism. [1061]
For at that time He deigned to prefigure His body, i.e. His Church, in
which especially the baptized receive the Holy Spirit. But He is to be
understood to have been then anointed with that mystical and invisible
unction, when the Word of God was made flesh, [1062] i.e. when human
nature, without any precedent merits of good works, was joined to God
the Word in the womb of the Virgin, so that with it it became one
person. Therefore it is that we confess Him to have been born of the
Holy Spirit and of the Virgin Mary. For it is most absurd to believe
Him to have received the Holy Spirit when He was near thirty years
old: for at that age He was baptized by John; [1063] but that He came
to baptism as without any sin at all, so not without the Holy Spirit.
For if it was written of His servant and forerunner John himself, "He
shall be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb,"
[1064] because, although generated by his father, yet he received the
Holy Spirit when formed in the womb; what must be understood and
believed of the man Christ, of whose flesh the very conception was not
carnal, but spiritual? Both natures, too, as well the human as the
divine, are shown in that also that is written of Him, that He
received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, and shed forth
the Holy Spirit: [1065] seeing that He received as man, and shed forth
as God. And we indeed can receive that gift according to our small
measure, but assuredly we cannot shed it forth upon others; but, that
this may be done, we invoke over them God, by whom this is
accomplished.
47. Are we therefore able to ask whether the Holy Spirit had already
proceeded from the Father when the Son was born, or had not yet
proceeded; and when He was born, proceeded from both, wherein there is
no such thing as distinct times: just as we have been able to ask, in
a case where we do find times, that the will proceeds from the human
mind first, in order that that may be sought which, when found, may be
called offspring; which offspring being already brought forth or born,
that will is made perfect, resting in this end, so that what had been
its desire when seeking, is its love when enjoying; which love now
proceeds from both, i.e. from the mind that begets, and from the
notion that is begotten, as if from parent and offspring? These things
it is absolutely impossible to ask in this case, where nothing is
begun in time, so as to be perfected in a time following. Wherefore
let him who can understand the generation of the Son from the Father
without time, understand also the procession of the Holy Spirit from
both without time. And let him who can understand, in that which the
Son says, "As the Father hath life in Himself, so hath He given to the
Son to have life in Himself," [1066] not that the Father gave life to
the Son already existing without life, but that He so begat Him apart
from time, that the life which the Father gave to the Son by begetting
Him is co-eternal with the life of the Father who gave it: [1067] let
him, I say, understand, that as the Father has in Himself that the
Holy Spirit should proceed from Him, so has He given to the Son that
the same Holy Spirit should proceed from Him, and be both apart from
time: and that the Holy Spirit is so said to proceed from the Father
as that it be understood that His proceeding also from the Son, is a
property derived by the Son from the Father. For if the Son has of the
Father whatever He has, then certainly He has of the Father, that the
Holy Spirit proceeds also from Him. But let no one think of any times
therein which imply a sooner and a later; because these things are not
there at all. How, then, would it not be most absurd to call Him the
Son of both: when, just as generation from the Father, without any
changeableness of nature, gives to the Son essence, without beginning
of time; so procession from both, without any changeableness of
nature, gives to the Holy Spirit essence without beginning of time?
For while we do not say that the Holy Spirit is begotten, yet we do
not therefore dare to say that He is unbegotten, lest any one suspect
in this word either two Fathers in that Trinity, or two who are not
from another. For the Father alone is not from another, and therefore
He alone is called unbegotten, not indeed in the Scriptures, [1068]
but in the usage of disputants, who employ such language as they can
on so great a subject. And the Son is born of the Father; and the Holy
Spirit proceeds from the Father principally, the Father giving the
procession without any interval of time, yet in common from both
[Father and Son]. [1069] But He would be called the Son of the Father
and of the Son, if--a thing abhorrent to the feeling of all sound
minds--both had begotten Him. Therefore the Spirit of both is not
begotten of both, but proceeds from both.
Footnotes
[1047] Gal. iv. 6
[1048] Matt. x. 20
[1049] John xv. 26
[1050] John xiv. 26
[1051] John xx. 23
[1052] Luke vi. 19
[1053] John xx. 22
[1054] Acts. ii. 4
[1055] Rom. v. 5
[1056] Matt. xxii. 37-40
[1057] Acts viii. 18, 19
[1058] John i. 14
[1059] Luke ii. 52 and iv. 1
[1060] Acts x. 38
[1061] Matt. iii. 16
[1062] John i.14
[1063] Luke iii. 21-23
[1064] Luke i. 15
[1065] Acts ii. 33
[1066] John v. 26
[1067] [Says Turrettin, III. xxix. 21. "The Father does not generate
the Son either as previously existing, for in this case there would be
no need of generation; nor yet as not yet existing, for in this case
the Son would not be eternal; but as co-existing, because he is from
eternity in the God-head."--W.G.T.S.]
[1068] [The term "unbegotten" is not found in Scripture, but it is
implied in the terms "begotten" and "only-begotten," which are found.
The term "unity" is not applied to God in Scripture, but it is implied
in the term "one" which is so applied.--W.G.T.S.]
[1069] [The spiration and procession of the Holy Spirit is not by two
separate acts, one of the Father, and one of the Son--as perhaps might
be inferred from Augustin's remark that "the Holy Spirit proceeds from
the Father principally." As Turrettin says: "The Father and Son
spirate the Spirit, not as two different essences in each of which
resides a spirative energy, but as two personal subsistences of one
essence, who concur in one act of spiration." Institutio III. xxxi.
6.--W.G.T.S.]
Chapter 27.--What It is that Suffices Here to Solve the Question Why
the Spirit is Not Said to Be Begotten, and Why the Father Alone is
Unbegotten. What They Ought to Do Who Do Not Understand These Things.
48. But because it is most difficult to distinguish generation from
procession in that co-eternal, and equal, and incorporeal, and
ineffably unchangeable and indivisible Trinity, let it suffice
meanwhile to put before those who are not able to be drawn on further,
what we said upon this subject in a sermon to be delivered in the ears
of Christian people, and after saying wrote it down. For when, among
other things, I had taught them by testimonies of the Holy Scriptures
that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both, I continue: "If, then, the
Holy Spirit proceeds both from the Father and from the Son, why did
the Son say, `He proceedeth from the Father?' [1070] Why, think you,
except as He is wont to refer to Him, that also which is His own, from
whom also He Himself is? Whence also is that which He saith, `My
doctrine is not mine own, but His that sent me?' [1071] If, therefore,
it is His doctrine that is here understood, which yet He said was not
His own, but His that sent Him, how much more is it there to be
understood that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from Himself, where He
so says, He proceedeth from the Father, as not to say, He proceedeth
not from me? From Him, certainly, from whom the Son had his Divine
nature, for He is God of God, He has also, that from Him too proceeds
the Holy Spirit; and hence the Holy Spirit has from the Father
Himself, that He should proceed from the Son also, as He proceeds from
the Father. Here, too, in some way may this also be understood, so far
as it can be understood by such as we are, why the Holy Spirit is not
said to be born, but rather to proceed; [1072] since if He, too, was
called a Son, He would certainly be called the Son of both, which is
most absurd, since no one is son of two, save of father and mother.
But far be it from us to surmise any such thing as this between God
the Father and God the Son. Because not even the son of men proceeds
at the same time from both father and mother; but when he proceeds
from the father into the mother, he does not at that time proceed from
the mother; and when he proceeds from the mother into this present
light, he does not at that time proceed from the father. But the Holy
Spirit does not proceed from the Father into the Son, and from the Son
proceed to sanctify the creature, but proceeds at once from both;
although the Father has given this to the Son, that He should proceed,
as from Himself, so also from Him. For we cannot say that the Holy
Spirit is not life, while the Father is life, and the Son is life: and
hence as the Father, while He has life in Himself, has given also to
the Son to have life in Himself; so has He given also to Him that life
should proceed from Him, as it also proceeds from Himself." [1073] I
have transferred this from that sermon into this book, but I was
speaking to believers, not to unbelievers.
49. But if they are not competent to gaze upon this image, and to see
how true these things are which are in their mind, and yet which are
not so three as to be three persons, but all three belong to a man who
is one person; why do they not believe what they find in the sacred
books respecting that highest Trinity which is God, rather than insist
on the clearest reason being rendered them, which cannot be
comprehended by the human mind, dull and infirm as it is? And to be
sure, when they have steadfastly believed the Holy Scriptures as most
true witnesses, let them strive, by praying and seeking and living
well, that they may understand, i.e. that so far as it can be seen,
that may be seen by the mind which is held fast by faith. Who would
forbid this? Nay, who would not rather exhort them to it? But if they
think they ought to deny that these things are, because they, with
their blind minds, cannot discern them, they, too, who are blind from
their birth, ought to deny that there is a sun. The light then shineth
in darkness; but if the darkness comprehend it not, [1074] let them
first be illuminated by the gift of God, that they may be believers,
and let them begin to be light in comparison with the unbelievers; and
when this foundation is first laid, let them be built up to see what
they believe, that at some time they may be able to see. For some
things are so believed, that they cannot be seen at all. For Christ is
not to be seen a second time on the cross; but unless this be believed
which has been so done and seen, that it is not now to be hoped for as
about to be and to be seen, there is no coming to Christ, such as
without end He is to be seen. But as far as relates to the discerning
in some way by the understanding that highest, ineffable, incorporeal,
and unchangeable nature the sight of the human mind can nowhere better
exercise itself, so only that the rule of faith govern it, than in
that which man himself has in his own nature better than the other
animals, better also than the other parts of his own soul, which is
the mind itself, to which has been assigned a certain sight of things
invisible, and to which, as though honorably presiding in a higher and
inner place, the bodily senses also bring word of all things, that
they may be judged, and than which there is no higher, to which it is
to be subject, and by which it is to be governed, except God.
50. But among these many things which I have now said, and of which
there is nothing that I dare to profess myself to have said worthy of
the ineffableness of that highest Trinity, but rather to confess that
the wonderful knowledge of Him is too great for me, and that I cannot
attain [1075] to it: O thou, my soul, where dost thou feel thyself to
be? where dost thou lie? where dost thou stand? until all thy
infirmities be healed by Him who has forgiven all thy iniquities.
[1076] Thou perceivest thyself assuredly to be in that inn whither
that Samaritan brought him whom he found with many wounds inflicted by
thieves, half-dead. [1077] And yet thou hast seen many things that are
true, not by those eyes by which colored objects are seen, but by
those for which he prayed who said, "Let mine eyes behold the things
that are equal." [1078] Certainly, then, thou hast seen many things
that are true, and hast distinguished them from that light by the
light of which thou hast seen them. Lift up thine eyes to the light
itself, and fix them upon it if thou canst. For so thou wilt see how
the birth of the Word of God differs from the procession of the Gift
of God, on account of which the only-begotten Son did not say that the
Holy Spirit is begotten of the Father, otherwise He would be His
brother, but that lie proceeds from Him. Whence, since the Spirit of
both is a kind of consubstantial communion of Father and Son, He is
not called, far be it from us to say so, the Son of both. But thou
canst not fix thy sight there, so as to discern this lucidly and
clearly; I know thou canst not. I say the truth, I say to myself, I
know what I cannot do; yet that light itself shows to thee these three
things in thyself, wherein thou mayest recognize an image of the
highest Trinity itself, which thou canst not yet contemplate with
steady eye. Itself shows to thee that there is in thee a true word,
when it is born of thy knowledge, i.e. when we say what we know:
although we neither utter nor think of any articulate word that is
significant in any tongue of any nation, but our thought is formed by
that which we know; and there is in the mind's eye of the thinker an
image resembling that thought which the memory contained, will or love
as a third combining these two as parent and offspring. And he who
can, sees and discerns that this will proceeds indeed from thought
(for no one wills that of which he is absolutely ignorant what or of
what sort it is), yet is not an image of the thought: and so that
there is insinuated in this intelligible thing a sort of difference
between birth and procession, since to behold by thought is not the
same as to desire, or even to enjoy will. Thou, too, hast been able
[to discern this], although thou hast not been, neither art, able to
unfold with adequate speech what, amidst the clouds of bodily
likenesses, which cease not to flit up and down before human thoughts,
thou hast scarcely seen. But that light which is not thyself shows
thee this too, that these incorporeal likenesses of bodies are
different from the truth, which, by rejecting them, we contemplate
with the understanding. These, and other things similarly certain,
that light hath shown to thine inner eyes. What reason, then, is there
why thou canst not see that light itself with steady eye, except
certainly infirmity? And what has produced this in thee, except
iniquity? Who, then, is it that healeth all thine infirmities, unless
it be He that forgiveth all thine iniquities? And therefore I will now
at length finish this book by a prayer better than by an argument.
Footnotes
[1070] John xv. 26
[1071] John vii. 16
[1072] [Generation and procession are each an emanation of the essence
by which it is modified. Neither of them is a creation ex nihilo. The
school-men attempted to explain the difference between the two
emanations, by saying that the generation of the Son is by the mode of
the intellect--hence the Son is called Wisdom, or Word (Logos); but
the procession of the Spirit is by the mode of the will--hence the
Spirit is called Love. Turrettin distinguishes the difference by the
following particulars: 1. In respect to the source. Generation is from
the Father alone; procession is from Father and Son. 2. In respect to
effects. Generation yields not only personality, but resemblance. The
Son is the "image" of the Father, but the Spirit is not the image of
the Father and Son. Generation is accompanied with the power to
communicate the essence; procession is not. 3. In respect to order of
relationship. Generation is second, procession is third. In the order
of nature, not of time (for both generation and procession are
eternal, therefore simultaneous), procession is after generation.
Institutio III. xxxi. 3.--W.G.T.S.]
[1073] Serm. in Joh. Evang. tract.. 99, n. 8, 9.
[1074] John i. 5
[1075] Ps. cxxxix. 5
[1076] Ps. ciii. 3
[1077] Luke x. 30, 34
[1078] Ps. xvii. 2
Chapter 28.--The Conclusion of the Book with a Prayer, and an Apology
for Multitude of Words.
51. O Lord our God, we believe in Thee, the Father and the Son and the
Holy Spirit. For the Truth would not say, Go, baptize all nations in
the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, unless
Thou wast a Trinity. Nor wouldest thou, O Lord God, bid us to be
baptized in the name of Him who is not the Lord God. Nor would the
divine voice have said, Hear, O Israel, the Lord thy God is one God,
unless Thou wert so a Trinity as to be one Lord God. And if Thou, O
God, wert Thyself the Father, and wert Thyself the Son, Thy Word Jesus
Christ, and the Holy Spirit your gift, we should not read in the book
of truth, "God sent His Son;" [1079] nor wouldest Thou, O
Only-begotten, say of the Holy Spirit, "Whom the Father will send in
my name;" [1080] and, "Whom I will send to you from the Father."
[1081] Directing my purpose by this rule of faith, so far as I have
been able, so far as Thou hast made me to be able, I have sought Thee,
and have desired to see with my understanding what I believed; and I
have argued and labored much. O Lord my God, my one hope, hearken to
me, lest through weariness I be unwilling to seek Thee, "but that I
may always ardently seek Thy face." [1082] Do Thou give strength to
seek, who hast made me find Thee, and hast given the hope of finding
Thee more and more. My strength and my infirmity are in Thy sight:
preserve the one, and heal the other. My knowledge and my ignorance
are in Thy sight; where Thou hast opened to me, receive me as I enter;
where Thou hast closed, open to me as I knock. May I remember Thee,
understand Thee, love Thee. Increase these things in me, until Thou
renewest me wholly. I know it is written, "In the multitude of speech,
thou shalt not escape sin." [1083] But O that I might speak only in
preaching Thy word, and in praising Thee! Not only should I so flee
from sin, but I should earn good desert, however much I so spake. For
a man blessed of Thee would not enjoin a sin upon his own true son in
the faith, to whom he wrote, "Preach the word: be instant in season,
out of season." [1084] Are we to say that he has not spoken much, who
was not silent about Thy word, O Lord, not only in season, but out of
season? But therefore it was not much, because it was only what was
necessary. Set me free, O God, from that multitude of speech which I
suffer inwardly in my soul, wretched as it is in Thy sight, and flying
for refuge to Thy mercy; for I am not silent in thoughts, even when
silent in words. And if, indeed, I thought of nothing save what
pleased Thee, certainly I would not ask Thee to set me free from such
multitude of speech. But many are my thoughts, such as Thou knowest,
"thoughts of man, since they are vain." [1085] Grant to me not to
consent to them; and if ever they delight me, nevertheless to condemn
them, and not to dwell in them, as though I slumbered. Nor let them so
prevail in me, as that anything in my acts should proceed from them;
but at least let my opinions, let my conscience, be safe from them,
under Thy protection. When the wise man spake of Thee in his book,
which is now called by the special name of Ecclesiasticus, "We speak,"
he said, "much, and yet come short; and in sum of words, He is all."
[1086] When, therefore, we shall have come to Thee, these very many
things that we speak, and yet come short, will cease; and Thou, as
One, wilt remain "all in all." [1087] And we shall say one thing
without end, in praising Thee in One, ourselves also made one in Thee.
O Lord the one God, God the Trinity, whatever I have said in these
books that is of Thine, may they acknowledge who are Thine; if
anything of my own, may it be pardoned both by Thee and by those who
are Thine. Amen.
Footnotes
[1079] Gal. iv. 5 and John iii. 17
[1080] John xiv. 26
[1081] John xv. 26
[1082] Ps. cv. 4
[1083] Prov. x. 19
[1084] 2 Tim. iv. 2
[1085] Ps. xciv. 11
[1086] Ecclus. xliii. 29
[1087] 1 Cor. xv. 28
Also, see links to 600+ other Augustine Manuscripts:
/believe/txv/earlyche.htm
/believe/txv/earlychf.htm
/believe/txv/earlychg.htm
/believe/txv/earlychh.htm
/believe/txv/earlychi.htm
/believe/txv/earlychj.htm
/believe/txv/earlychk.htm
/believe/txv/earlychl.htm
/believe/txv/earlychm.htm
/believe/txv/earlychn.htm
E-mail to: BELIEVE
The main BELIEVE web-page (and the index to subjects) is at:
BELIEVE Religious Information Source - By Alphabet
http://mb-soft.com/believe/indexaz.html