Chap. x. — Those things which absolutely belong to God as His essence, are spoJcen of the Trinity in the singular, not in the plural.
11. As, therefore, we do not say three essences, so we do not say three greatnesses, or three who are great. For in things which are great by partaking of greatness, to which it is one thing to be, and another to be great, as a great house, and a great mountain, and a great mind; in these things, I say, greatness is one thing, and that which is great from greatness is another, and absolutely that is not greatness which is a great house. But that is true greatness by which not only a great house is great, and any great mountain is great, but also by which every other thing whatsoever is great, which is called great; so that greatness itself is one thing, and those things are another which are called great from it. And this greatness certainly is primarily great, and in a much more excellent way tlian those things which are great by partaking of it. But since God is not great with that greatness which is not Himself, so that God, being great, is, as it were, partaker of that greatness; — otherwise that will be a greatness greater than God, whereas there is nothing greater than God; — therefore. He is great with that greatness by which He Himself is that same greatness. And, therefore, as we do not say three essences, so neither do we say three greatnesses; for it is the same thing to God to be, and to be great. For the same reason neither do we say three greats, but one who is great; since God is not great by partaking of greatness, but He is great by Himself being great, because He Himself is His own greatness.
Let the same be said also of the goodness, and of the eternity, and of the omnipotence of God, and, in short, of all the predicaments which can be predicated 'of God, as He is spoken of in respect to Himself, not metaphorically and by similitude, but CHAP. XI.] WHAT IS SAID RELATIVELY IN THE TRINITY. 157 properly, if indeed anything can be spoken of Him properly, by the mouth of man.
Chap. XI. — What is said relatively in the Trhilty.
12. But whereas, in the same Trinity, some things severally are specially predicated, these are in no way said in reference to themselves in themselves, but either in mutual reference or in respect to the creature; and, therefore, it is manifest that such things are spoken relatively, not in the way of substance. For the Trinity is called one God, great, good, eternal, omnipotent; and the same God Himself may be called His own deity. His own magnitude. His own goodness, His own eternity. His own omnipotence: but the Trinity cannot in the same way be called the Father, except perhaps metaphorically, in respect to the creature, on account of the adoption of sons.
For that which is written, " Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord," ^ ought certainly not to be understood as if the Son were excepted, or the Holy Spirit were excepted; which one Lord our God we rightly call also our Father, as regenerating us by His grace. JSTeither can the Trinity in any wise be called the Son, but it can be called, in its entirety, the Holy Spirit, according to that which is written, " God is a Spirit; " ^ because both the Father is a spirit and the Son is a spirit, and the Father is holy and the Son is holy. Therefore, since the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one God, and certainly God is holy, and God is a spirit, the Trinity can be called also the Holy Spirit. But yet that Holy Spirit, who is not the Trinity, but is understood as in the Trinity, is spoken of in His proper name of the Holy Spirit relatively, since He is referred both to the Father and to the Son, because the Holy Spirit is the Spirit both of the Father and of the Son. But the relation is not itself apparent in that name, but it is apparent when He is called the gift of God; ^ for He is the gift of the Father and of the Son, because " He proceeds from the Father,"* as the Lord says; and because that which the apostle says, " Now, if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His," ^ he says certainly of the Holy Spirit Himself. When we say, therefore, the gift of the giver, and the giver of the gift, we speak in both cases relatively in reciprocal reference. Therefore the Holy Spirit is a certain Tinutterable communion of the Father and the Son; and on that account, perhaps. He is so called, because the same name is suitable to both the Father and the Son. For He Himself is called specially that which they are called in common; because both the Father is a spirit and the Son a spirit, both the Father is holy and the Son holy. In order, therefore, that the communion of both may be signified from a name which is suitable to both, the Holy Spirit is called the gift of both. And this Trinity is one God, alone, good, great, eternal, omnipotent; itself its own unity, deity, greatness, goodness, eternity, omnipotence.
Chap. xii. — In relative things that are reciprocal, names are sometimes loanting.
13. Neither ought it to influence us — since we have said that the Holy Spirit is so called relatively, not the Trinity itself, but He who is in the Trinity — that the designation of Him to whom He is referred, does not seem to answer in turn to His designation. For we cannot, as we say the servant of a master, and the master of a servant, the son of a father and the father of a son, because these things are said relatively, so also say here. For we speak of the Holy Spirit of the Father; but, on the other hand, we do not speak of the Father of the Holy Spirit, lest the Holy Spirit should be understood to be His Son. So also we speak of the Holy Spirit of the Son; but we do not speak of the Son of the Holy Spirit, lest the Holy Spirit be understood to be His Father. For it is the case in many relatives, that no designation is to be found by which those things which bear relation to each other may [in name] mutually correspond to each other. For what is more clearly spoken relatively than the word earnest? Since it is referred to that of which it is an earnest, and an earnest is always an earnest of something. Can we, then, as we say, the earnest of the Father and of the Son,^ say in turn, the Father of the earnest or the Son of the earnest? But, on the other hand, when we say the gift of the Father and of the CHAP. XIII.] THE WORD " BEGINNING." ' 159 Son, we cannot indeed say the Father of the gift, or the Son of the gift; but that these may correspond mutually to each other, we say the gift of the giver and the giver of the gift; because here a word in use may be found, there it cannot.
Chap. xiii. — Hoio the word her/inning is spoTcen relatively in the Trinity.
14. He is called the Father, therefore, relatively, and He is also relatively said to be the Beginning, and whatever else there may be of the kind; but He is called the Father in relation to the Son, the Beginning in relation to all things, which are from Him. So the Son is relatively so called; He is called also relatively the Word and the Image. And in all these appellations He is referred to the Father, but the Father is called by none of them. And the Son is also called the Beginning; for when it was said to Him, " Who art Thou? " He replied, " Even the Beginning, who also speak to you." ^ But is He, pray, the Beginning of the Father? For He intended to show Himself to be the Creator when He said that He was the Beginning, as the Father also is the beginning of the creature in that all things are from Him. For creator, too, is spoken relatively to creature, as master to servant. And so, when we say, both that the Father is the Beginning, and that the Son is the Beginning, we do not speak of two beginnings of the creature; since both the Father and the Son together is one beginning in respect to the creature, as one Creator, as one God. But if whatever remains within itself and produces or works anything is a beginning to that thing which it produces or works; then we cannot deny that the Holy Spirit also is rightly called the Beginning, since we do not separate Him from the appellation of Creator: and it is written of Him that He works; and assuredly, in working.
He remains within Himself; for He Himself is not changed and turned into any of the things which He works. And see what it is that He works: " But the manifestation of the Spirit," he says, " is given to every man to profit withal. For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; to another faith by the same S]Dirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; to another ^ John viii. 25.
the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another the discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues: but all these worketh that one and the self-same Spirit, dividing to every man severally as He will; " certainly as God — for who can work such great things but God? — but " it is the same God which worketh all in all." ^ For if we are asked point by point concerning the Holy Spirit, we answer most truly that He is God; and with the Father and the Son together He is one God. Therefore, God is spoken of as one beginning in respect to the creature, not as two or three beginnings.
Chap. xiv. — The Father and the Son the only beginning of the Holy Spirit.
15. But in their mutual relation to one another in the Trinity itself, if the begetter is a beginning in relation to that which he becfets, the Father is a beojinningj in relation to the Son, because He begets Him; but whether the Father is also a beginning in relation to the Holy Spirit, since it is said, " He proceeds from the Father," is no small question. Because, if it is so. He will not only be a beginning to that thing which He begets or makes, but also to that which He gives. And here, too, that question comes to light, as it can, which is wont to trouble many. Why the Holy Spirit is not also a son, since He, too, comes forth from the Father, as it is read in the Gospel."^ For the Spirit came forth, not as born, but as given; and so He is not called a son, because He was neither born, as the Only -begotten, nor made, so that by the grace of God He might be born into adoption, as we are. For that which is born of the Father, is referred to the Father only when called Son, and so the Son is the Son of the Father, and not also our Son; but that which is given is referred both to Him who gave, and to those to whom He gave; and so the Holy Spirit is not only the Spirit of the Father and of the Son who gave Him, but He is also called ours, who have received Him: as " The salvation of the Lord," ^ who gives salvation, is said also to be our salvation, who have received it. Therefore, the Spirit is both the Spirit of God who gave Him, and ours who have received Him.
Not, indeed, that spirit of ours by which we CHAP. XV.] OF THE HOLY SPIRIT AS THE GIFT. 161 are, because that is the spirit of a man which is in him; but this Spirit is ours in another mode, viz. that in which we also say, " Give us this day our bread." ^ Although certainly we have received that spirit also, which is called the spirit of a man. " For what hast thou," he says, " which thou didst not receive?"^ But that is one thing, which we have received that we might be; another, that which we have received that we might be holy. Whence it is also written of John, that he " came in the spirit and power of Elias;"^ and by the spirit of Elias is meant the Holy Spirit, whom Elias received. And the same thing is to be understood of Moses, when the Lord says to him, '' And I will take of thy spirit, and will put it upon them; " * that is, I will give to them of the Holy Spirit, which I have already given to thee. If, therefore, that also which is given has him for a beginning by whom it is given, since it has received from, no other source that which proceeds from him; it must be admitted that the Father and the Son are a beginning of the Holy Spirit, not two beginnings; but as the Father and Son are one God, and one Creator, and one Lord relatively to the creature, so are they one beginning relatively to the Holy Spirit. But the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is one beginning in respect to the creature, as also one Creator and one God.
Chap, xv, — Whether the Holy Spirit was a gift "before as icell as after He was given.
16. But it is asked further, whether, as the Son, by being born, has not only this, that He is the Son, but absolutely that He is; and so also the Holy Spirit, by being given, has not only this, that He is given, but absolutely that He is — whether therefore He was, before He was given, but was not yet a gift; or whether, for the very reason that God was about to give Him, He was already a gift also before He was given. But if He does not proceed unless when He is given, and assuredly could not proceed before there was one to whom He might be given; how, in that case, was He in His very substance, if He is not unless because He is given? just as the Son, by being born, not only has this, that He is a Son, which is said relatively, but absolutely His very substance, so that He is. Does the Holy Spirit proceed always, and proceed not in time, but from eternity, but because He so proceeded that He was capable of being given, was already a gift even before there was one to whom He might be given? For there is a difference in meaning between a gift and a thing that has been given. For a gift may exist even before it is given; but it cannot be called a thing that has been given unless it has been given.
Chap. xvi. — What is said of God in time, is said relatively, not accidentally.
1 7. Nor let it trouble us that the Holy Spirit, although He is co-eternal with the Father and the Son, yet is called something which exists in time; as, for instance, this very thing which we have called Him, a thing that has been given. For the Spirit is a gift eternally, but a thing that has been given in time. For if a lord also is not so called unless when he begins to have a slave, that appellation likewise is relative and in time to God; for the creature is not from all eternity, of which He is the Lord. How then shall we make it good that relative terms themselves are not accidental, since nothing happens accidentally to God in time, because He is incapable of change, as we have argued in the beginning of this discussion? Behold!
to be the Lord is not eternal to God; otherwise we should be compelled to say that the creature also is from eternity, since He would not bear rule from all eternity unless the creature also was a servant from all eternity. But as he cannot be a slave who has not a lord, neither can he be a lord who has not a slave. And if there be any one who says that God, indeed, is alone eternal, and that times are not eternal on account of their variety and changeableness, but that times nevertheless did not begin to be in time (for there was no time before times began, and therefore it did not happen to God in time that He should be Lord, since He was Lord of the very times themselves, which assuredly did not begin in time): what will he reply respecting man, who was made in time, and of whom assuredly He was not the Lord before he w^as of whom He was to be Lord? Certainly to be the Lord of man happened to God in time. And that all dispute may seem to be taken away, certainly to be your Lord, or mine, who have only lately CHAP. XVI.] THINGS SAID OF GOD IN TIME AEE SAID EELATIVELY. 163 begun to be, happened to God in time. Or if this, too, seems uncertain on account of the obscure question respecting the soul, what is to be said of His being the Lord of the people of Israel? since, although the nature of the soul already existed,, which that people had (a matter into which we do not now inquire), yet that people existed not as yet, and the time is apparent when it began to exist. Lastly, that He should be Lord of this or that tree, or of this or that corn crop, which only lately began to be, happened in time; since, although the matter itself already existed, yet it is one thing to be Lord of the matter, another to be Lord of the already created nature. For man, too, is lord of the wood at one time, and at another he is lord of the chest, although fabricated of that same wood; which he certainly was not at the time when he was already the lord of the wood. How then shall we make it good that nothing is said of God according to accident, except because nothing happens to His nature by which He may be changed, so that those things are relative accidents which happen in connection with some change of the things of which they are spoken. As a friend is so called relatively: for he does not begin to be one, unless when he has begun to love; therefore some change of will takes place, in order that he may be called a friend. And money, when it is called a price, is spoken of relatively, and yet it was not changed when it began to be a price; nor, again, when it is called a pledge, or any other thing of the kind. If, therefore, money can so often be spoken of relatively with no change of itself, so that neither when it begins, nor when it ceases to be so spoken of, does any change take place in that nature or form of it, whereby it is money; how much more easily ought we to admit, concerning that unchangeable substance of God, that something may be so predicated relatively in respect to the creature, that although it begin to be so predicated in time, yet nothing shall be understood to have happened to the substance itself of God, but to that creature in respect to which it is predicated? " Lord," it is said, " Thou hast been made our refuge." ^ God, therefore, is said to be our refuge relatively, for He is referred to us, and He then becomes our refuge when we flee to Him; pray does anything come to pass then in His nature, which, before we fled to Him, was not? In us therefore some change does take place; for we were worse before we fled to Him, and we become better by fleeing to Him: but in Him there is no change. So also He begins to be our Father, when we are regenerated through His grace, since He gave us power to become the sons of God.-^ Our substance therefore is changed for the better, when we become His sons; and He at the same time begins to be our Eather, but without any change of His own substance. Therefore that which begins to be spoken of God in time, and which was not spoken of Him before, is manifestly spoken of Him relatively; yet not according to any accident of God, so that anything should have happened to Him, but clearly according to some accident of that, in respect to which God begins to be called something relatively. When a righteous man begins to be a friend of God, he himself is changed; but far be it from us to say, that God loves any one in time with as it were a new love, which was not in Him before, with whom things gone by have not passed away and things future have been already done.
Therefore He loved all His saints before the foundation of the world, as He predestinated them; but when they are converted and find Him, then they are said to begin to be loved by Him,, that what is said may be said in that way in which it can be comprehended by human affections. So also, when He is said to be wroth with the unrighteous, and gentle with the good, they are changed, not He: just as the light is troublesome to weak eyes, pleasant to those that are strong; namely, by their change, not its own.
CHAP, l] CHPJST the POWER AND WISDOM OF GOD. 165 BOOK SIXTH.
THE QUESTION IS PROPOSED, HOW THE APOSTLE CALLS CHPJST "THE POWEE, OF GOD, AND THE WISDOM OF GOD. " AND AN ARGUMENT IS RAISED, WHETHER THE FATHER IS NOT WISDOM HIMSELF, BUT ONLY THE FATHER OF WISDOM; OR WHETHER WISDOM BEGAT WISDOM. BUT THE ANSWER TO THIS IS DE-FERRED FOR A LITTLE, WHILE THE UNITY AND EQUALITY OF THE FATHER, AND OF THE SON, AND OF THE HOLY GHOST, ARE PROVED; AND THAT WE OUGHT TO BELIEVE IN A TRINITY, NOT IN A THREEFOLD GOD. LASTLY, THAT SAYING OF HILARY IS EXPLAINED, ETERNITY IN THE FATHER, APPEARANCE IN THE IMAGE, USE IN THE GIFT.
Chap. i. — The Son, according to the apostle, is the power and wisdom of the Father. Hence the reasoning of the Catholics against the earlier Arians. A difficulty is raised, whether the Father is not Wisdom Himself, but only the Father of Wisdom.
1. Some think themselves hindered from admitting the equality of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, because it i& written, " Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God;" in that, on this ground, there does not appear to be equality; because the Father is not Himself power and wisdom, but the begetter of power and wisdom. And, in truth, the question is usually asked with no common earnestness, in what way God can be called the Father of power and wisdom. For the apostle says, " Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God."^ And hence some on our side have reasoned in this way against the Arians, at least against those who at first set themselves up against the Catholic faith. For Arius himself is reported to have said, that if He is a Son, then He was born; if He was born, there was a time when the Son was not: not understanding that even to be born is, to God, from all eternity; so that the Son is co-eternal with the Father, as the brightness which is produced and is spread around by fire is co-eval with it, and would be co-eternal, if fire were eternal. And therefore some of the later Arians have abandoned that opinion, and have 166 ON THE TRINITY. [EOOK VI.
confessed that tlie Son of God did not begin to be in time. But among the arguments which those on our side used to hold agjainst them who said that there was a time when the Son was not, some were also wont to introduce such an argument as this: If the Son of God is the power and wisdom of God, and God was never without power and wisdom, then the Son is co-eternal with God the Father; but the apostle says, " Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God; " and a man must be senseless to say that God at any time had not power or wisdom; therefore there was no time when the Son was not.
2. ISTow this argument compels us to say that God the Father is not wise, except by having the wisdom which He begat, not by the Father in Himself being wisdom itself. Further, if it be so, just as the Son also Himself is called God of God, Light of Light, we must consider whether He can be called wisdom of wisdom, if God the Father is not wisdom itself, but only the begetter of wisdom. And if we hold this, why is He not the begetter also of His own greatness, and of His own goodness, and of His own eternity, and of His own omnipotence; so that He is not Himself His own greatness, and His own goodness, and His own eternity, and His own omnipotence; but is great with that greatness which He begat, and good with that goodness, and eternal with that eternity, and omnipotent with that omnipotence, which was born of Him;