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 sub- stance, 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 162 ON THE TRINITY. [BOOK V.
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 some- thing 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 ac- cidentally 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 them- selves, 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 un- derstood 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 164 ON THE TRINITY. [BOOK V.
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 be- come 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 hap- pened 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 equa- lity 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 argu- ment 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; just as He Himself is not His own wisdom, but is wise with that wisdom which was born of Him? For we need not be afraid of being compelled to say that there are many sons of God, over and above the adoption of the creature, co-eternal with the Father, if He be the begetter of His own greatness, and goodness, and eternity, and omnipotence. For it is easy to reply to this cavil, that it does not at all follow, because many things are named, that He should be the Father of many co-eternal sons; just as it does not follow that He is the Father of two, because Christ is said to be the power of God, and the wisdom of God. For that certainly is the power which is the wisdom, and that is the wisdom which is the power; and in like manner, therefore, of the rest also; so that that is the greatness which is the power, or any other of those things CHAP. II.] WHAT IS SAID OF FATHEE AND SON. 167 which either have been mentioned above, or may hereafter be mentioned.
Chap. ii. — WJiat is said oftJie FaiJier and Son togetTier, and wliat not.
3. But if nothing is spoken of Him in His own substance, except that which is spoken of Him in relation to the Son, that is, that He is His Father, or begetter, or beginning; if also the begetter is by consequence a beginning to that which he begets of himself; but whatever else is spoken of Him is so spoken as with the Son, or rather in the Son; whether that He is great with that greatness which He begat, or just with that justice which He begat, or good with that goodness which He begat, or powerful with that force or power which He begat, or wise with that wisdom which He begat: whereas the Father is not said to be greatness itself, but the begetter of greatness; but the Son, as He is called the Son in His own substance, which He is not called with the Father but in re- lation to the Father, so is not great in His own substance, but with the Father, of whom He is the greatness; and so also is called wise with the Father, of whom He Himself is the wis- dom; just as the Father is called wise with the Son, because He is wise with that wisdom which He begat: therefore the one is not called without the other, whatever they are called in respect to themselves; that is, whatever they are called that manifests their substance, both are so called together; — if these things are so, then the Father is not God without the Son, nor the Son God without the Father, but both together are God. And that which is said, " In the beginning was the Word," means that the Word was in the Father. Or if " In the beginning" is intended to mean. Before all things; then in that which follows, '' And the Word was with God," the Son alone is understood to be the Word, not the Father and Son together, as though both were one Word (for He is the Word in the same way as He is the Image, but the Father and Son are not both together the Image, but the Son alone is the Image of the Father: just as He is also the Son of the Father, for both together are not the Son). But in that which is added, " And the Word was with God," there is much reason to understand thus: " The Word," which is the Son alone, " was 168 ON THE TRINITY. [BOOK VI.
with God," which is not the Father alone, but God the Father and the Son together. But what wonder is there, if this can be said in the case of some twofold things widely different from each other? For what are so different as soul and body? Yet we can say the soul was with a man, that is, in a man; although the soul is not the body, and man is both soul and body together. So that what follows in the Scripture, " And the Word was God,"-^ may be understood thus: The Word, which is not the Father, was God together with the Father. Are we then to say thus, that the Father is the begetter of His own greatness, that is, the begetter of His own power, or the begetter of His own wisdom; and that the Son is great- ness, and power, and wisdom; but that the great, omnipotent, and wise God, is both together? How then God of God, Light of Light? For not both together are God of God, but only the Son is of God, that is to say, of the Father; nor are both together Light of Light, but the Son only is of Light, that is, of the Father. Unless, perhaps, it was in order to intimate and inculcate briefly that the Son is co-eternal with the Father, that it is said, God of God, and Light of Light, or anything else of the like kind, as if to say. This which is not the Son without the Father, of this which is not the Father without the Son; that is, this Light which is not Light without the Father, of that Light, viz. the Father, which is not Light with- out the Son; so that, when it is said, God which is not the Son without the Father, and of God which is not the Father without the Son, it may be perfectly understood that the Begetter did not precede that which He begot. And if this be so, then this alone cannot be said of them, namely, this or that of this or that, which they are not both together. Just as the Word cannot be said to be of the Word, because both are not the Word together, but only the Son; nor image of image, since they are not both together the image; nor Son of Son, since both together are not the Son, according to that which is said, " I and my Father are one." ^ For " we are one " means, what He is, that am I also; according to essence, not according to relation.
CHAP. Ill] HOW THE FATHEE AND THE SON AHE ONE. 169 Chap. hi. — That the unity of the essence of the Father and the Son is to he gathered from the words, " We are one." The Son is equal to the Father both in wisdom and in all other things.
4. And I know not whether the words, " They are one," are ever found in Scripture as spoken of things of which the nature is different. But if there are more things than one of the same nature, and they differ in sentiment, they are not one, and that so far as they differ in sentiment. For if the disciples were already one by the fact of being men, He would not say, "That they may be one, as we are one,"-^ when commending them to the Father. But because Paul and ApoUos were both alike men, and also of like sentiments, " He that planteth," he says, "and he that watereth are one."^ When, therefore, any- thing is so called one, that it is not added in what it is one, and yet more things than one are called one, then the same essence and nature is signified, not differing nor disagreeing. But when it is added in what it is one, it may be meant that something is made one out of things more than one, though they are different in nature. As soul and body are assuredly not one; for what are so different? unless there be added or understood in what they are one, that is, one man, or one animal. Thence the apostle says, " He who is joined to a liarlot, is one body;" he does not say, they are one, or he is one; but he has added " body," as though it were one body composed by being joined together of two different bodies, mas- culine and feminine.^ And, " He that is joined unto the Lord," he says, "is one spirit:" he did not say, he that is joined unto the Lord is one, or they are one; but he added, " spirit." For the spirit of man and the Spirit of God are different in nature; but by being joined they become one spirit of two different spirits, so that the Spirit of God is blessed and per- fect without the human spirit, but the spirit of man cannot be blessed without God. Nor is it without cause, I think, that when the Lord said so much in the Gospel according to John, and so often, of unity itself, whether of His own with the Father, or of ours interchangeably with ourselves; He has no- where said, that we are also one with Himself, but, " that they may be one as we also are one."^ Therefore the Father and the 170 ON THE TRINITY. [BOOK VI.
Son are one, undoubtedly according to unity of substance; and there is one God, and one great, and one wise, as we bave argued.
5. Whence then is the Father greater? For if greater. He is greater by greatness; but whereas the Son is His greatness, neither assuredly is the Son greater than He who begat Him, nor is the Father greater than that greatness, whereby He is great; therefore they are equal. For whence is He equal, if not in that which He is, to whom it is not one thing to be, and another to be great? Or if the Father is greater in eternity, the Son is not equal in anything whatsoever. For whence equal? If you say in greatness, that greatness is not equal which is less eternal, and so of all things else. Or is He perhaps equal in power, but not equal in wisdom? But how is that power which is less wise, equal? Or is He equal in wisdom, but not equal in power? But how is that wisdom equal which is less powerful? It remains, therefore, that if He is not equal in anything, He is not equal in all. But Scripture proclaims, that " He thought it not robbery to be equal with God."-^ Therefore any adversary of the truth whatever, provided he feels bound by apostolical authority, must needs confess that the Son is equal with God in each one thing whatsoever. Let him choose that which he will; from it he will be shown, that He is equal in all things which are said of His substance.
Chap. iv. — The same argument continued.
6. For in like manner the virtues which are in the human mind, although each has its own several and different mean- ing, yet are in no way mutually separable; so that, for in- stance, whosoever were equal in courage, are equal also in prudence, and temperance, and justice. For if you say that such and such men are equal in courage, but that one of them is greater in prudence, it follows that the courage of the other is less prudent, and so neither are they equal in courage, since the courage of the former is more prudent. And so you will find it to be the case with the other virtues, if you consider them one by one. For the question is not of the strength of the body, but of the courage of the mind. How much more iPhil. ii. 6.
CHAP, v.] THE SON EQUAL TO THE FATHER IN ALL THINGS. I7l