himself among the trees of the garden; and when God said, " Adam, where art thou? " -^ replied, " I heard Thy voice, and I was afraid because I was naked, and I hid myself from Thy face." For I do not see how such a walking and conversation of God can be understood literally, except He appeared as a man. For it can neither be said that a voice only of God was framed, when God is said to have walked, or that He who was walking in a place was not visible; while Adam, too, says that he hid himself from the face of God. Who then was He? Whether the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit? Whether altogether indiscriminately did God the Trinity Himself speak to man in the form of man? The context, indeed, itself of the Scripture nowhere, it should seem, indicates a change from person to person; but He seems still to speak to the first man, who said, " Let there be light," and, " Let there be a firma- ment/' and so on through each of those days; whom we usually take to be God the Father, making by a word whatever He willed to make. For He made all things by His word, which Word we know, by the right rule of faith, to be His only Son. If, therefore, God the Father spake to the first man, and Himself was walking in the garden in the cool of the evening, and if it was from His face that the sinner hid himself amono-st the trees of the garden, why are we not to go on to understand that it was He also who appeared to Abraham and to Moses, and to whom He would, and how He would, through the changeable and visible creature, subjected to Himself, while He Himself remains in Himself and in His own substance, in which He is unchangeable and invisible? But, possibly, it might be that the Scripture passed over in a hidden way from person to person, and while it had related that the Father said " Let there be light," and the rest which it mentioned Him to have done by the Word, went on to indicate the Son as speaking to tlie first man; not unfolding this openly, but intimating it to be under- stood by those who could understand it.
18. Let him, then, who has the strength whereby he can penetrate this secret with his mind's eye, so that to him it appears clearly, either that the Father also is able, or that only the Son and Holy Sx)irit are able, to appear to liuman eyes through a CO ON THE TrvINITY. [bOOK II.
visible creature; • let him, I say, proceed to examine these things if he can, or even to express and handle them in words; hut the thing itself, so far as concerns this testimony of Scrip- ture, where God spake with man, is, in my judgment, not dis- coverable, because it does not evidently appear even whether Adam usually saw God with the eyes of his body; especially as it is a great question what manner of eyes it was that were opened when they tasted the forbidden fruit; ^ for before they had tasted, these eyes were closed. Yet I would not rashly assert, even if that scripture implies Paradise to have been a material place, that God could not have walked there in any way except in some bodily form. For it might be said, that only words were framed for the man to hear, without seeing any form. Neither, because it is written, " Adam hid himself from the face of God," does it follow forthwith that he usually saw His face. For what if he himself indeed could not see, but feared to be himself seen by Him whose voice he had heard, and had felt His presence as he walked? For Cain, too, said to God, " From Thy face I will hide myself; " ^ yet we are not therefore compelled to admit that he was wont to behold the face of God with his bodily eyes in any visible form, although he had heard the voice of God questioning and speaking with him of his sin. But what manner of speech it was that God then uttered to the outward ears of men, especially in speaking to the first man, it is both difficult to discover, and we have not undertaken to say in this discourse. But if words alone and sounds were wrought, by which to bring about some sensible presence of God to those first men, I do not know why I should not there understand the person of God the Father, seeing that His person is manifested also in that voice, when Jesus appeared in glory on the mount before the three dis- ciples; ^ and in that when the dove descended upon Him at His baptism; * and in that where He cried to the Father concerning His own glorification, and it was answered Him, " I have both glorified, and will glorify again." ^ Not that the voice could be wrought without the work of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (since the Trinity works indivisibly), but that such a voice CHAP. X.] OF THE APPEARANCE TO ABRAHAM. 61 was wrought as to manifest the person of the Father only; just as the Trinity wrought that human form from the Virgin Mary, yet it is the person of the Son alone; for the invisible Trinity wrought the visible person of the Son alone, Neither does anything forbid us, not only to understand those words spoken to Adam as spoken by the Trinity, but also to take them as manifesting the person of that Trinity. For we are compelled to understand of the Father only, that which is said, " This is my beloved Son."^ For Jesus can neither be believed nor understood to be the Son of the Holy Spirit, or even His own Son. And where the voice uttered, " I have both glorified, and will glorify again," we confess it was only the person of the Father; since it is the answer to that word of the Lord, in which He had said, " Father, glorify thy Son," which He could not say except to God the Father only, and not also to the Holy Spirit, whose Son He was not. But here, where it is written, "And the Lord God said to Adam," no reason can be given why the Trinity itself should not be understood.
19. Likewise, also, in that which is written, "Now the Lord had said unto Abraham, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and thy father's house," it is not clear whether a voice alone came to the ears of Abraham, or whether anything also appeared to his eyes. But a little while after, it is somewhat more clearly said, "And the Lord appeared unto Abraham, and said. Unto thy seed will I give this land." ^ But neither there is it expressly said in what form God appeared to him, or whether the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit appeared to him. Unless, perhaps, they think that it was the Son who appeared to Abraham, because it is not written, God appeared to him, but " the Lord appeared to him." For the Son seems to be called the Lord as thouejh the name was appropriated to Him; as e.g. the apostle says, "For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many and lords many,) but to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by Him." ^ But since it is found that God the Father also is called Lord in many places, — for instance, " The Lord hath 62 ON THE TRINITY. [BOOK II.
said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten Thee; " ^ and again, " The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou at my right hand; " ^ since also the Holy Spirit is found to be called Lord, as where the apostle says, " Now the Lord is that Spirit; " and then, lest any one should think the Son to be signified, and to be called the Spirit on account of His incor- poreal substance, has gone on to say, " And where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty; " ^ and no one ever doubted the Spirit of the Lord to be the Holy Spirit: therefore, neither here does it appear plainly whether it was any person of the Trinity that appeared to Abraham, or God Himself the Trinity, of which one God it is said, " Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve."* But under the oak at Mamre he saw three men, whom he invited, and hospitably received, and ministered to them as they feasted. Yet Scripture at the beginning of that narrative does not say, three men appeared to him, but, " The Lord ajDpeared to him." And then, setting forth in due order after what manner the Lord appeared to him, it has added the account of the three men, whom Abra- ham invites to his hospitality in the plural number, and afterwards speaks to them in the singular number as one; and as one He promises him a son by Sara^ viz. the one whom the Scripture calls Lord, as in the beginning of the same narrative, " The Lord," it says, " appeared to Abraham." He invites them then, and washes their feet, and leads them forth at their departure, as though they were men; but he speaks as with the Lord God, whether when a son is promised to him, or when the destruction is shown to him that was impending over Sodom.^ Chap. xi. — Of the same appearance.
20. That place of Scripture demands neither a slight nor a passing consideration. For if one man had appeared, what else would those at once cry out, who say that the Son was visible also in His own substance before He was born of the Virgin, but that it was Himself? since it is said, they say, of the Father, "To the only invisible God."^ And yet, I could still go on to demand, in what manner " He was found in fashion as a man," before He had taken our flesh, seeing CHAR XIL] of the THREE WHO APPEAEED TO ABRAHALL 63 that liis feet were washed, and that He fed upon earthly food? How could that be, when He was still "in the form of God, and thought it not robbery to be equal with God "? ^ Tor, pray, had He already " emptied Himself, taking upon Him the form of a servant, and made in the likeness of men, and found in fashion as a man "? when we know when it was that He did this through His birth of the Virgin. How, then, before He had done this, did He appear as one man to Abraham? or, was not that form a reality? I could put these questions, if it had been one man that appeared to Abraham, and if that one were believed to be the Son of God. But since three men ap- peared, and no one of them is said to be greater than the rest either in form, or age, or power, why should we «not here under- stand, as visibly intimated by the visible creature, the equality of the Trinity, and one and the same substance in three persons? 21. Tor, lest any one should think that one among the three is in this way intimated to have been the greater, and that this one is to be understood to have been the Lord, the Son of God, while the other two were His angels; because, whereas three appeared, Abraham there speaks to one as the Lord: Holy Scripture has not forgotten to anticipate, by a con- tradiction, such future cogitations and opinions, when a little while after it says that two angels came to Lot, among whom that just man also, who deserved to be freed from the burning of Sodom, speaks to one as to the Lord. Tor so Scripture goes on to say, " And the Lord went His way, as soon as He left communing with Abraham; and Abraham returned to his place." 2 Chap. xii. — Th^ appearance to Lot is examined. ''But there came two angels to Sodom at even." Here, what I have begun to set forth must be considered more attentively. Certainly Abraham was speaking with three, and called that one, in the singular number, the Lord. Perhaps, some one may say, he recognised one of the three to be the Lord, but the other two His angels. What, then, does that mean which Scripture goes on to say, " And the Lord went His way, as soon as He had left communing with Abraham; and Abraham returned to his place: and there came two 1 Pliil. ii. 6, 7. 2 Gen. xviii. 33.
64 ON THE TRINITY. [BOOK 11.
angels to Sodom at even "? Are we to suppose that the one who, among the three, was recognised as the Lord, had de- parted, and had sent the two angels that were with Him to destroy Sodom? Let us see, then, what follows. " There came," it is said, " two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them, rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground; and he said. Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant's house." Here it is clear, both that there were two angels, and that in the plural number they were invited to partake of hospitality, and that they were honourably designated lords, when they perchance were thought to be men. 22. Yet, again, it is objected that except they were known to be angels of God, Lot would not have bowed himself with his face to the ground. Why, then, is both hospitality and food offered to them, as though they wanted such human suc- cour? But whatever may here lie hid, let us now pursue that which we have undertaken. Two appear; both are called angels; they are invited plurally; he speaks as with two plurally, until the departure from Sodom. And then Scripture goes on to say, " And it came to pass, when they had brought them forth abroad, that they said, Escape for thy life; look not behind thee, neither stay thou in all the plain; escape to the mountain, and there thou shalt be saved,^ lest thou be consumed. And Lot said unto them. Oh! not so, my lord: behold now, thy servant hath found grace in thy sight,"" etc. What is meant by his say- ing to them, " Oh! not so, my lord," if He who was the Lord had already departed, and had sent the angels? Why is it said, " Oh! not so, my lord," and not, " Oh! not so, my lords " 1 Or if he wished to speak to one of them, why does Scripture say, " But Lot said to them. Oh! not so, my lord: behold now, thy servant hath found grace in thy sight," etc.? Are we here, too, to understand two persons in the plural mmiber, but when the two are addressed as one, there the one Lord God of one substance? But which two persons do we liere under- stand? — of the Father and of the Son, or of the Father and of the Holy Spirit, or of the Son and of the Holy Spirit? Tlie last, perhaps, is the more suitable; for they said of themselves ^ Tins clause is not in the Hebrew. ^ Gen. xix. 1-19.
CHAP. XIII.] THE APPEAEANCE TO MOSES IN THE BUSH. 65 that they were sent, which is that which we say of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. For we find nowhere in the Scriptures that the Father was sent.
Chap. xiii. — The ajojoearance in the hush.
23. But when Moses was sent to lead the children of Israel out of Egypt, it is written that the Lord appeared to him thus: "!N"ow Moses kept the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian: and he led the flock to the back side of the desert, and came to the mountain of God, even to Horeb. And the Angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a flame of fire, out of the midst of a bush; and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed. And Moses said, I will now turn aside, and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt. And when the Lord saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." -^ He is here also first called the Angel of the Lord, and then God. Was an angel, then, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? Therefore He may be rightly understood to be the Saviour Himself, of whom the apostle says, " Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever." " He, therefore, "who is over all, God blessed for ever," is not unreasonably here understood also to be Himself the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. But why is He previously called the Angel of the Lord, when He appeared in a flame of fire out of the bush? Was it because it was one of many angels, who by an economy bare the person of his Lord? or was something of the creature assumed by Him in order to bring about a visible appearance for the business in hand, and that words might thence be audibly uttered, whereby the presence of the Lord might be shown, in such way as was fitting, to the corporeal senses of man, by means of the creature made subject? For if he was one of the angels, who could easily affirm whether it was the person of the Son which was imposed upon him to announce, or that DE TRIN. E 66 ON THE TRINITY. [BOOK II.
of the Holy Spirit, or that of God the Father, or altogether of the Trinity itself, who is the one and only God, in order that he might say, " I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob "? For we cannot say that the Son of God is the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, and that the Father is not; nor will any one dare to deny that either the Holy Spirit, or the Trinity itself, whom we believe and understand to be the one God, is the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. For he who is not God, is not the God of those fathers. Further- more, if not only the Father is God, as all, even heretics, admit; but also the Son, which, whether they will or not, they are compelled to acknowledge, since the apostle says, "Who is over all, God blessed for ever; " and the Holy Spirit, since the same apostle says, " Therefore glorify God in your body;" when he had said above, " Know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost, which is in you, which ye have of God V'^ and these three are one God, as catholic soundness believes: it is not sufficiently apparent which person of the Trinity that angel bare, if he was one of the rest of the angels, and whether any person, and not rather that of the Trinity itself. But if the creature was assumed for the purpose of the business in hand, whereby both to appear to human eyes, and to sound in human ears, and to be called the Angel of the Lord, and the Lord, and God;-then cannot God here be understood to be the Father, but either the Son or the Holy Spirit. Although I cannot call to mind that the Holy Spirit is anywhere else called an angel, which yet may be understood from His work; for it is said of Him, " And He will show you ^ things to come; " '^ and " angel " in Greek is certainly equivalent to " messenger " * in Latin: but we read most evidently of the Lord Jesus Christ in the prophet, that He is called " the Angel of Great Counsel,"^ while both the Holy Spirit.and the Son of God is God and Lord of the angels.
Chap. xiv. — Of the appearance in the pillar of cloud and of fire. 24. Also in the Qfoinc;; forth of the children of Israel from I CHAP. XV.] OF THE APPEARANCE OF GOD- ON SINAI. 6 7 Eg)rpt it is written, " And the Lord went before tliem, by day in a pillar of cloud to lead tbem the way, and by night in a pillar of fire. He took not away the pillar of the cloud by day, nor the pillar of fire by night, from before the people."-^ Who here, too, would doubt that God appeared to the eyes of mortal men by the creature made subject to Him, and that corporeal, not by His own substance? But it is not similarly apparent whether the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit, or the Trinity it- self, the one God. Nor is this distinguished there either, in my judgment, where it is written, " The glory of the Lord appeared in the cloud, and the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, I have heard the murmurings of the children of Israel,"^ etc.
Chap. xv. — Of the appearance on Sinai. Whether the Trinity spaJce in that appearance or some one Person specially.
25. But now of the clouds, and voices, and lightnings, and the trumpet, and the smoke on Mount Sinai, when it was said, " And Mount Sinai was altogether on a smoke, because the Lord descended upon it in fire, and the smoke thereof ascended as the smoke of a furnace; and all the people that was in the camp trembled; and when the voice of the trumpet sounded long and waxed louder and louder, Moses spake, and God an- swered him by a voice." ^ And a little after, when the Law had been given in the ten commandments, it follows in the text, " And all the people saw the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the noise of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking." And a little after, '' And [when the people saw it,] they removed and stood afar off, and Moses drew near unto the thick darkness * where God was, and the Lord said unto Moses," ^ etc. What shall I say about this, save that no one can be so insane as to believe the smoke, and the fire, and the cloud, and the darkness, and whatever there was of the kind, to be the substance of the word and wisdom of God which is Christ, or of the Holy Spirit? For not even the Arians ever dared to say that they were the substance of God the Father. All these things, then, were wrought through the creature serving the Creator, and were presented in a suitable economy to human senses; unless, perhaps, because it is said, "And C8 ox THE TRINITY. [BOOK II.
Moses drew near to tlie cloud where God was," carnal tlioudits must needs suppose that the cloud was indeed seen by the people, but that within the cloud Moses with the eyes of the flesh saw the Son of God, whom doting heretics will have to be seen in His own substance. Forsooth, Moses may have seen Him with the eyes of the flesh, if not only the wisdom of God which is Christ, but even that of any man you please and howsoever wise, can be seen with the eyes of the flesh; or if, because it is written of the elders of Israel, that " they saw the place where the God of Israel had stood," and that " there was under His feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness," ^ therefore we are to believe that the word and wisdom of God in His own substance stood within the space of an earthly place, who indeed " reacheth firmly from end to end, and sweetly ordereth all things;"^ and that the Word of God, by whom all things were made,'" is in such wise changeable, as now to con- tract, now to expand Himself; (may the Lord cleanse the hearts of His faithful ones from such thoughts!) But indeed all these visible and sensible things are, as we have often said, exhibited through the creature made subject in order to signify the in- visible and intelligible God, not only the Father, but also the Son and the Holy Spirit, " of whom are all things, and through whom are all things, and in whom are all things; " * although '■' the invisible things of God, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead." ^