8. This is to be made clear by examples. And first we must notice, that by the word begotten is signified the same thing as is signified by the word son. For therefore a son, because begotten, and because a son, therefore certainly begotten. By the word unbegotten, therefore, it is declared that he is not son. But begotten and unbegotten are both of them terms suitably employed; whereas in Latin we can use the word " filius," but the custom of the language does not allow us to speak of " infilius." It makes no difference, how^- ever, in the meaning if he is called " non filius; " just as it is precisely the same thing if he is called " non genitus," instead of " ingenitus." For so the terms of both neighbour and friend are used relatively, yet we cannot speak of " invicinus " as we can of " inimicus." Wherefore, in speaking of this thing or that, we must not consider what the usage of our own language either allows or does not allow, but what clearly appears to be the meaning of the things themselves. Let us not therefore any longer call it unbegotten, although it can be so called in Latin; but instead of this let us call it not begotten, which means the same. Is this then anything else than saying that he is not a son? Now the prefixing of that negative particle does not make that to be said according to substance, which, without it, is said relatively; but that only is denied, which, without it, was affirmed, as in the other predicaments. When we say he is a man, we denote substance. He therefore who says he is not a man, enunciates no other kind of predicament, but only denies that. As therefore I affirm according to sub- stance in saying he is a man, so I deny according to substance in saying he is not a man. And when the question is asked, how great he is? and I say he is quadrupedal, that is, four feet in measure, I affirm according to quantity; and he who says he CHAP, vil] the negative particle. 153 is not quadrupedal, denies according to quality. I say he is white, I affirm according to quality; if I say he is not white, I deny according to quality. I say he is near, I affirm according to relation; if I say he is not near, I deny according to relation. I affirm according to position, when I say he lies down; I deny according to position, when I say he does not lie down. I speak according to condition,^ when I say he is armed; I deny according to condition, when I say he is not armed; and it comes to the same thing as if I should say he is unarmed. I affirm according to time, when I say he is of yesterday; I deny according to time, when I say he is not of yesterday. And when I say he is at Eome, I affirm according to place; and I deny according to place, when I say he is not at Eome. I affirm according to the predicament of action, when I say he smites; but if I say he does not smite, I deny according to action, so as to declare that he does not so act. And when I say he is smitten, I affirm according to the pre- dicament of passion; and I deny according to the same, when I say he is not smitten. And, in a word, there is no kind of predicament according to which we may please to affirm anything, wdthout being proved to deny according to the same predicament, if we prefix the negative particle. And since this is so, if I were to affirm according to substance, in saying son, I should deny according to substance, in saying not son. But because I affirm relatively when I say he is a son, for I refer to the father; therefore I deny relatively if I say he is not a son, for I refer the same negation to the father, in that I wish to declare that he has not a parent. But if to be called son is precisely equivalent to the being called begotten (as we said before), then to be called not begotten is precisely equivalent to the being called not son. But we deny relatively when we say he is not son, therefore we deny relatively when we say he is not begotten. Further, what is unbegotten, unless not begotten? We do not escape, therefore, from the relative predicament, when he is called unbegotten. Tor as begotten is not said in relation to self, but in that he is of a begetter; so when one is called unbegotten, he is not so called in relation to himself, but it is declared that he is not * Habitus.
154 ON THE TRINITY. [BOOK V.
of a "begetter. Both meanings, however, turn upon the same predicament, which is called that of relation. But that which is asserted relatively does not denote substance; and accordingly, although begotten and unbegotten are diverse, they do not de- note a different substance; because, as son is referred to father, and not son to not father, so it follows inevitably that begotten must be referred to begetter, and not begotten to not begetter.
Chap. viii. — Whatever is spoTcen of God according to substance, is spoken of each person severally/, and together of the Trinity itself. One essence in God, and three, in Greek, hypostases, in Latin, persons.
9. Wherefore let us hold this above all, that whatsoever is said of that most eminent and divine loftiness in respect to itself, is said in respect to substance, but that which is said in relation to anything, is not said in respect to substance, but relatively; and that the effect of the same substance in Father and Son and Holy Spirit is, that whatsoever is said of each in respect to themselves, is to be taken of them, not in the plural in sum, but in the singular. For as the Father is God, and the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, which no one doubts to be said in respect to substance, yet we do not say that the very supreme Trinity itself is three Gods, but one God. So the Father is great, the Son great, and the Holy Spirit great; yet not three greats, but one great. For it is not written of the Father alone, as they perversely suppose, but of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, " Thou art great: Thou art God alone." ^ And the Father is good, the Son good, and the Holy Spirit good; yet not three goods, but one good, of whom it is said, " IsTone is good, save one, that is, God." For the Lord Jesus, lest He should be understood as man only by him who said, " Good Master," as addressing a man, does not therefore say. There is none good, save the Father alone; but, " ^N'one is good, save one, that is, God." ^ For the Father by Himself is declared by the name of Father; but by the name of God, both Himself and the Son and the Holy Spirit, because the Trinity is one God. But position, and condition, and places, and times, are not said to be in God properly, but metaphori- cally and through similitudes. For He is both said to dwell between the cherubims,^ which is spoken in respect to position; CHAP. IX.] HOW THEEE PEESONS ONE SUBSTANCE. 155 and to be covered with the deep as with a garment/ which is said in respect to condition; and " Thy years shall have no end," ^ which is said in respect of time; and, " If I ascend up into heaven, Thou art there," ^ which is said in respect to place. And as respects action (or making), perhaps it may be said most truly of God alone, for God alone makes and Himself is not made. ISTor is He liable to passions as far as belongs to that His substance whereby He is God. So the Father is omnipo- tent, the Son omnipotent, and the Holy Spirit is omnipotent; yet not three omnipotents, but one omnipotent: " For of Him are all things, and through Him are all things, and in Him are all things; to whom be glory." * Whatever, therefore, is spoken of God in respect to Himself, is both spoken singly of each person, that is, of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit; and together of the Trinity itself, not plurally but in the singular. For inasmuch as to God it is not one thing to be, and another thing to be great, but to Him it is the same thing to be, as it is to be great; therefore, as we do not say three essences, so we do not say three greatnesses, but one essence and one greatness. I say essence, which in Greek is called over la, and which we call more usually substance.
10. They indeed use also the word hypostasis; but they intend to put a difference, I know not what, between ova-ia and hypostasis: so that most of ourselves who treat these things in the Greek language, are accustomed to say, fxlav ovalaVj rpecg viroaTdaei^, or, in Latin, one essence, three substances.
CiiAP. IX. — The three persons not properly so called.
But because with us the usage has already obtained, that by essence we understand the same thing which is understood by substance; we do not dare to say one essence, three sub- stances, but one essence or substance and three persons: as many writers in Latin, who treat of these things, and are of authority, have said, in that they could not find any other more suitable way by which to enunciate in words that which they understood without words. For, in truth, as the Father is not the Son, and the Son is not the Father, and that Holy Spirit, who is also called the gift of God, is neither the Father ^ Ps. civ. 6. 2 Ps. cii. 27. ^ pg. cxxxix. 8. ^ Rom. xi. 36.
15C ON THE TRINITY. [bOOK V.
nor the Son, certainly they are three. And so it is said plurally, " I and my Father are one." ^ For He has not said, " Is one," as the Sabellians say; but, " arc one." Yet, when the question is asked. What three? human language labours altogether under great poverty of speech. The answer, how- ever, is given, three persons, not that it might be spoken, but that it might not be left unspoken.
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 great- ness 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 Him- self, 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 predica- ments 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, omni- potent; 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 Him- 158 ON THE TRINITY. [bOOK V.
self. 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 speci- ally 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 com- munion 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, omni- potence.
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 Begin- ning; 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.
160 ON THE TRINITY. [BOOK V.
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 begin- ning 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