Authors/Augustine/On the Trinity/On the Trinity Book II

• 2.0 Preface
• 2.1 De regulis secundum quas scriptura de patre et filio loquitur. Chapter 1.— There is a Double Rule for Understanding the Scriptural Modes of Speech Concerning the Son of God. These Modes of Speech are of a Threefold Kind.
• 2.2 De his scripturae locis de quibus dubium est an propter assumptam creaturam minorem patre indicent filium, an vero hoc tantum quod licet aequalem patri, tamen quia de patre sit doceant. Chapter 2.— That Some Ways of Speaking Concerning the Son are to Be Understood According to Either Rule.
• 2.3 De his quae spiritum sanctum non minorem patre indicant sed tantum quod de patre procedit. Chapter 3.— Some Things Concerning the Holy Spirit are to Be Understood According to the One Rule Only.
• 2.4 De clarificatione qua et peter filium glorificat et filius patrem. Chapter 4.— The Glorification of the Son by the Father Does Not Prove Inequality.
• 2.5 Quomodo intellegenda sit missio sive filii sive spiritus sancti. Chapter 5.— The Son and Holy Spirit are Not Therefore Less Because Sent. The Son is Sent Also by Himself. Of the Sending of the Holy Spirit.
• 2.6 Quid sit quod nusquam legitur peter maior spiritu sancto aut spiritus sanctus minor patre. Chapter 6.— The Creature is Not So Taken by the Holy Spirit as Flesh is by the Word.
• 2.7 Propositio quaestionis de multimodis apparitionibus dei quarum quaedam missiones appellantur, cum peter missus non queat dici, sed aut filius aut spiritus sanctus cooperante tamen in omnibus trinitate. Chapter 7.— A Doubt Raised About Divine Appearances.
• 2.8 De his qui naturam verbi dei visibilem putaverunt. Chapter 8.— The Entire Trinity Invisible.
• 2.9 De his qui filium volunt etiam ante carnis assumptionem fuisse mortalem ut solus pater immortalitatem habere credatur. Chapter 9.— Against Those Who Believed the Father Only to Be Immortal and Invisible. The Truth to Be Sought by Peaceful Study.
• 2.10 An indiscrete deus trinitas patribus apparuerit an aliqua ex trinitate persona. Chapter 10— Whether God the Trinity Indiscriminately Appeared to the Fathers, or Any One Person of the Trinity. The Appearing of God to Adam. Of the Same Appearance. The Vision to Abraham.
• 2.11 De tribus viris Abrahae visis cum quibus sicut cum domino deo loquitur. Chapter 11.— Of the Same Appearance.
• 2.12 De duobus angelis qui humane forma apparuerunt Loth et in quibus dominus singulariter appellatur. Chapter 12.— The Appearance to Lot is Examined.
• 2.13 De visione Moysi qua deum vidit in Choreb per ignem in rubo. Chapter 13.— The Appearance in the Bush.
• 2.14 De apparitione dei in exitu Israhel ex Aegypto. Chapter 14.— Of the Appearance in the Pillar of Cloud and of Fire.
• 2.15 De his quae divinitus gesta sunt coram Moyse in monte Sina. Chapter 15.— Of the Appearance on Sinai. Whether the Trinity Spoke in that Appearance or Some One Person Specially.
• 2.16 Utrum deus per suam substantiam Moysi apparuerit an per visibilem creaturam. Chapter 16.— In What Manner Moses Saw God.
• 2.17 Quod ex persona domini Iesu Christi dicta intellegenda sint Moysi: "Ponam te super petram et auferam manum meam, et posteriora mea videbis" etc. Chapter 17.— How the Back Parts of God Were Seen. The Faith of the Resurrection of Christ. The Catholic Church Only is the Place from Whence the Back Parts of God are Seen. The Back Parts of God Were Seen by the Israelites. It is a Rash Opinion to Think that God the Father Only Was Never Seen by the Fathers.
• 2.18 De visione Danielis in qua illi et patris et filii persona apparuit in specie corporali. Chapter 18.— The Vision of Daniel.

Latin	Latin
LIBER II	Augustine pursues his defense of the equality of the Trinity; and in treating of the sending of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and of the various appearances of God, demonstrates that He who is sent is not therefore less than He who sends, because the one has sent, the other has been sent; but that the Trinity, being in all things equal, and alike in its own nature unchangeable and invisible and omnipresent, works indivisibly in each sending or appearance.
[2.0.1] Cum homines deum quaerunt et ad intellegentiam trinitatis pro captu infirmitatis humanae animum intendunt experti difficultates laboriosas sive in ipsa acie mentis conantis intueri inaccessibilem lucem sive in ipsa multiplici et multimoda locutione litterarum sacrarum, ubi mihi non videtur nisi atteri Adam ut Christi gratia glorificata dilucescat, cum ad aliquid certum discussa omni ambiguitate peruenerint, facillime debent ignoscere errantibus in tanti peruestigatione secreti. Sed duo sunt quae in errore hominum difficillime tolerantur: praesumptio priusquam veritas pateat, et cum iam patuerit praesumptae defensio falsitatis. A quibus duobus vitiis nimis inimicis inventioni veritatis et tractationi divinorum sanctorumque librorum si me, ut precor et spero, deus defenderit atque muniverit scuto bonae voluntatis suae et gratia misericordiae suae, non ero segnis ad inquirendam substantiam dei sive per scripturam eius sive per creaturam. Quae utraque nobis ad hoc proponitur intuenda ut ipse quaeratur, ipse diligatur qui et illam inspiravit et istam creavit. Nec trepidus ero ad proferendam sententiam meam in qua magis amabo inspici a rectis quam timebo morderi a peruersis. Gratanter enim suscipit oculum columbinum pulcherrima et modestissima caritas, dentem autem caninum vel evitat cautissima humilitas vel retundit solidissima veritas. Magisque optabo a quolibet reprehendi quam sive ab errante sive ab adulante laudari; nullus enim reprehensor formidandus est amatori veritatis. Etenim aut inimicus reprehensurus est aut amicus. Si ergo inimicus insultat, ferendus est; amicus autem si errat, docendus; si docet, audiendus. Laudator vero et errans confirmat errorem, et adulans inlicit in errorem. Emendabit ergo me iustus in misericordia et arguet me, oleum autem peccatoris non impinguabit caput meum.	1. When men seek to know God, and bend their minds according to the capacity of human weakness to the understanding of the Trinity; learning, as they must, by experience, the wearisome difficulties of the task, whether from the sight itself of the mind striving to gaze upon light unapproachable, or, indeed, from the manifold and various modes of speech employed in the sacred writings (wherein, as it seems to me, the mind is nothing else but roughly exercised, in order that it may find sweetness when glorified by the grace of Christ);— such men, I say, when they have dispelled every ambiguity, and arrived at something certain, ought of all others most easily to make allowance for those who err in the investigation of so deep a secret. But there are two things most hard to bear with, in the case of those who are in error: hasty assumption before the truth is made plain; and, when it has been made plain, defence of the falsehood thus hastily assumed. From which two faults, inimical as they are to the finding out of the truth, and to the handling of the divine and sacred books, should God, as I pray and hope, defend and protect me with the shield of His good will, and with the grace of His mercy, I will not be slow to search out the substance of God, whether through His Scripture or through the creature. For both of these are set forth for our contemplation to this end, that He may Himself be sought, and Himself be loved, who inspired the one, and created the other. Nor shall I be afraid of giving my opinion, in which I shall more desire to be examined by the upright, than fear to be carped at by the perverse. For charity, most excellent and unassuming, gratefully accepts the dovelike eye; but for the dog's tooth nothing remains, save either to shun it by the most cautious humility, or to blunt it by the most solid truth; and far rather would I be censured by any one whatsoever, than be praised by either the erring or the flatterer. For the lover of truth need fear no one's censure. For he that censures, must needs be either enemy or friend. And if an enemy reviles, he must be borne with: but a friend, if he errs, must be taught; if he teaches, listened to. But if one who errs praises you, he confirms your error; if one who flatters, he seduces you into error. Let the righteous, therefore, smite me, it shall be a kindness; and let him reprove me; but the oil of the sinner shall not anoint my head.
[2.1.2] Quamobrem quamquam firmissime teneamus de domino nostro Iesu Christo et per scripturas disseminatam et a doctis catholicis earundem scripturarum tractatoribus demonstratam tamquam canonicam regulam quomodo intellegatur dei filius et aequalis patri secundum dei formam in qua est et minor patre secundum serui formam quam accepit, in qua forma non solum patre sed etiam spiritu sancto, neque hoc tantum sed etiam se ipso minor inventus est, non se ipso qui fuit sed se ipso qui est quia forma serui accepta formam dei non amisit, sicut scripturarum quae in superiore libro commemoravimus testimonia docuerunt, sunt tamen quaedam in divinis eloquiis ita posita ut ambiguum sit ad quam potius regulam referantur, utrum ad eam qua intellegimus minorem filium in assumpta creatura, an ad eam qua intellegimus non quidem minorem esse filium sed aequalem patri, tamen ab illo hunc esse deum de deo, lumen de lumine. Filium quippe dicimus deum de deo; patrem autem deum tantum, non 'de deo.' Unde manifestum est quod filius habeas alium de quo sit et cui filius sit; pater autem non filium de quo sit habeas sed tantum cui pater sit. Omnis enim filius de patre est quod est et patri filius est; nullus autem pater de filio est quod est sed filio pater est.	2. Wherefore, although we hold most firmly, concerning our Lord Jesus Christ, what may be called the canonical rule, as it is both disseminated through the Scriptures, and has been demonstrated by learned and Catholic handlers of the same Scriptures, namely, that the Son of God is both understood to be equal to the Father according to the form of God in which He is, and less than the Father according to the form of a servant which He took; in which form He was found to be not only less than the Father, but also less than the Holy Spirit; and not only so, but less even than Himself—not than Himself who was, but than Himself who is; because, by taking the form of a servant, He did not lose the form of God, as the testimonies of the Scriptures taught us, to which we have referred in the former book: yet there are some things in the sacred text so put as to leave it ambiguous to which rule they are rather to be referred; whether to that by which we understand the Son as less, in that He has taken upon Him the creature, or to that by which we understand that the Son is not indeed less than, but equal to the Father, but yet that He is from Him, God of God, Light of light. For we call the Son God of God; but the Father, God only; not of God. Whence it is plain that the Son has another of whom He is, and to whom He is Son; but that the Father has not a Son of whom He is, but only to whom He is father. For every son is what he is, of his father, and is son to his father; but no father is what he is, of his son, but is father to his son.
[2.1.3] Quaedam itaque ita ponuntur in scripturis de patre et filio ut indicent unitatem aequalitatemque substantiae, sicuti est: Ego et pater unum sumus et: Cum in forma dei esset non rapinam arbitratus est esse aequalis deo et quaecumque talia sunt. Quaedam vero ita ut minorem ostendant filium propter formam serui, id est propter assumptam creaturam mutabilis humanaeque substantiae, sicuti est quod ait: Quoniam pater maior me est et: Pater non iudicat quemquam sed omne iudicium dedit filio. Nam paulo post consequenter ait: Et potestatem dedit ei et iudicium facere, quondam filius hominis est. Quaedam porro ita ut nec minor nec aequalis tunc ostendatur sed tantum quod de patre sit intimetur, ut est illud: Sicut habet pater vitam in semetipso, sic dedit filio vitam habere in semetipso et illud: Neque enim potest filius a se facere quidquam nisi quod viderit patrem facientem. Quod si propterea dictum acceperimus quia in forma accepta ex creatura minor est filius, consequens erit ut prior pater super aquas ambulaverit aut alicuius alterius caeci nati de sputo et luto oculos aperuerit, et caetera quae filius in came apparens inter homines fecit, ut possit ea facere qui dixit non posse filium a se facere quidquam nisi quod viderit patrem facientem. Quis autem vel delirus ita sentiat? Restat ergo ut haec ideo dicta sint quia incommutabilis est vita filii sicut patris, et tamen de patre est; et inseparabilis est operatio patris et filii, sed tamen ita operari filio de illo est de quo ipse est, id est de patre; et ita videt filius patrem ut quo eum videt hoc ipso sit filius. Non enim aliud illi est esse de patre, id est nasci de patre, quam videre patrem, aut aliud videre operantem quam pariter operari; sed ideo non a se quia non est a se, et ideo quod viderit patrem quia de patre est. Neque enim alla similiter, sicut pictor alias tabulas pingit quemadmodum alias ab alio pictas vidit; nec eadem dissimiliter, sicut corpus easdem litteras exprimit quas animus cogitavit; sed: Quaecumque, inquit, pater facit, haec eadem et filius facit similiter. Et haec eadem dixit et similiter, ac per hoc inseparabilis et par operatio est patri et filio, sed a patre est filio. Ideo non potest filius a se facere quidquam nisi quod viderit patrem facientem. Ex hac ergo regula qua ita loquuntur scripturae ut non alium alio minorem sed tantum velint ostendere quis de quo sit, nonnulli eum sensum conceperunt tamquam minor filius diceretur. Quidam autem nostri indoctiores et in his minime eruditi dum haec secundum formam serui conantur accipere et eos rectus intellectus non sequitur, perturbantur. Quod ne accidat, tenenda est et haec regula qua non minor filius sed quod de patre sit intimatur, quibus verbis non inaequalitas sed nativitas eius ostenditur.	3. Some things, then, are so put in the Scriptures concerning the Father and the Son, as to intimate the unity and equality of their substance; as, for instance, I and the Father are one; and, Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God; and whatever other texts there are of the kind. And some, again, are so put that they show the Son as less on account of the form of a servant, that is, of His having taken upon Him the creature of a changeable and human substance; as, for instance, that which says, For my Father is greater than I; and, The Father judges no man, but has committed all judgment unto the Son. For a little after he goes on to say, And has given Him authority to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of man. And further, some are so put, as to show Him at that time neither as less nor as equal, but only to intimate that He is of the Father; as, for instance, that which says, For as the Father has life in Himself, so has He given to the Son to have life in Himself; and that other: The Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do. For if we shall take this to be therefore so said, because the Son is less in the form taken from the creature, it will follow that the Father must have walked on the water, or opened the eyes with clay and spittle of some other one born blind, and have done the other things which the Son appearing in the flesh did among men, before the Son did them; in order that He might be able to do those things, who said that the Son was not able to do anything of Himself, except what He has seen the Father do. Yet who, even though he were mad, would think this? It remains, therefore, that these texts are so expressed, because the life of the Son is unchangeable as that of the Father is, and yet He is of the Father; and the working of the Father and of the Son is indivisible, and yet so to work is given to the Son from Him of whom He Himself is, that is, from the Father; and the Son so sees the Father, as that He is the Son in the very seeing Him. For to be of the Father, that is, to be born of the Father, is to Him nothing else than to see the Father; and to see Him working, is nothing else than to work with Him: but therefore not from Himself, because He is not from Himself. And, therefore, those things which He sees the Father do, these also does the Son likewise, because He is of the Father. For He neither does other things in like manner, as a painter paints other pictures, in the same way as he sees others to have been painted by another man; nor the same things in a different manner, as the body expresses the same letters, which the mind has thought; but whatsoever things, says He, the Father does, these same things also does the Son likewise. He has said both these same things, and likewise; and hence the working of both the Father and the Son is indivisible and equal, but it is from the Father to the Son. Therefore the Son cannot do anything of Himself, except what He sees the Father do. From this rule, then, whereby the Scriptures so speak as to mean, not to set forth one as less than another, but only to show which is of which, some have drawn this meaning, as if the Son were said to be less. And some among ourselves who are more unlearned and least instructed in these things, endeavoring to take these texts according to the form of a servant, and so misinterpreting them, are troubled. And to prevent this, the rule in question is to be observed whereby the Son is not less, but it is simply intimated that He is of the Father, in which words not His inequality but His birth is declared.
[2.2.4] Sunt ergo quaedam in sanctis libris, ut dicere coeperam, ita posita ut ambiguum sit quonam referenda sins, utrum ad illud quod propter assumptam creaturam minor est filius, an ad illud quod quamvis aequalis tamen quia de patre sit indicatur. Et mihi quidem videtur si eo modo ambiguum est ut explicari discernique non possit, ex utralibet regula sine periculo posse intellegi, sicut est quod ait: Mea doctrina non est mea sed eius qui me misit. Nam et ex forma serui potest accipi sicut iam in libro superiore tractavimus, et ex forma dei m qua sic aequalis est patri ut tamen de patre sit. In dei quippe forma sicut non est aliud filius, aliud vita eius, sed ipsa vita filius est, ita non est aliud filius, aliud doctrine eius, sed ipsa doctrina elius est. Ac per hoc sicut id quod dictum est: Dedit filio vitam non aliud intellegitur quam: 'Genuit filium qui est vita,' sic etiam cum dicitur: 'Dedit filio doctrinam,' bene intellegitur: 'Genuit filium qui est doctrinae; ut quod dictum est: Mea doctrina non est mea sed eius qui me misit sic intellegatur ac si dictum sit: 'Ego non sum a me ipso sed ab illo qui me misit.'	4. There are, then, some things in the sacred books, as I began by saying, so put, that it is doubtful to which they are to be referred: whether to that rule whereby the Son is less on account of His having taken the creature; or whether to that whereby it is intimated that although equal, yet He is of the Father. And in my opinion, if this is in such way doubtful, that which it really is can neither be explained nor discerned, then such passages may without danger be understood according to either rule, as that, for instance, My doctrine is not mine, but His that sent me. For this may both be taken according to the form of a servant, as we have already treated it in the former book; or according to the form of God, in which He is in such way equal to the Father, that He is yet of the Father. For according to the form of God, as the Son is not one and His life another, but the life itself is the Son; so the Son is not one and His doctrine another, but the doctrine itself is the Son. And hence, as the text, He has given life to the Son, is no otherwise to be understood than, He has begotten the Son, who is life; so also when it is said, He has given doctrine to the Son, it may be rightly understood to mean, He has begotten the Son, who is doctrine so that, when it is said, My doctrine is not mine, but His who sent me, it is so to be understood as if it were, I am not from myself, but from Him who sent me.
[2.3.5] Nam et de spiritu sancto de quo non dictum est: Semetipsum exinanivit formam serui accipiens ait tamen ipse dominus: Cum autem venerit ille spiritus veritatis, docebit vos omnem veritatem. Non enim loquetur a semetipso, sed quaecumque audiet loquetur, et quae ventura sunt annuntiabit vobis. Ille me clarificabit quia de meo accipiet et annuntiabit vobis. Post haec verba nisi continuo secutus dixisset: Omnia quaecumque habet pater mea sunt; propterea dixi: Quia de meo accipiet et annuntiabit vobis crederetur fortas se ita natus de Christo spiritus sanctus quemadmodum ille de patre. De se quippe dixerat: Mea doctrina non est mea sed eius qui me misit de spiritu autem sancto: Non enim loquetur a semetipso, sed quaecumque audiet loquetur et: Quia de meo accipiet et annuntiabit vobis. Sed quia reddidit causam cur dixerit "de meo accipiet" -- ait enim: Omnia quaecumque habet pater mea sunt, propterea dixi: Quia de meo accipiet restat ut intellegatur etiam spiritus sanctus de patris habere sicut et filius. Quomodo nisi secundum id quod supra diximus: Cum autem venerit paracletus quem ego mittam vobis a patre, spiritum veritatis qui a patre procedit, ille testimonium perhibebit de me? Procedendo itaque a patre dicitur non loqui a semetipso; et sicut non ex eo fit ut minor sit filius quia dixit: Non potest filius a se facere quidquam nisi quod viderit patrem facientem (non enim hoc ex forma serui dixit, sed ex forma dei, sicut iam ostendimus; haec autem verba non indicant quod minor sit sed quod de patre sit); ita non hinc efficitur ut minor sit spiritus sanctus quia dictum est de illo: Non enim loquetur a semetipso, sed quaecumque audiet loquetur secundum hoc enim dictum est quod de patre procedit. Cum vero et filius de patre sit et spiritus sanctus a patre procedat, cur non ambo filii dicantur nec ambo geniti, sed ille unus filius unigenitus, hic autem spiritus sanctus nec filius nec genitus, quia si genitus utique filius, alio loco, si deus donaverit et quantum donaverit, disseremus.	5. For even of the Holy Spirit, of whom it is not said, He emptied Himself, and took upon Him the form of a servant; yet the Lord Himself says, Howbeit, when He the Spirit of Truth has come, He will guide you into all truth. For He shall not speak of Himself, but whatsoever He shall hear that shall He speak; and He will show you things to come. He shall glorify me; for He shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto you. And except He had immediately gone on to say after this, All things that the Father has are mine; therefore said I, that He shall take of mine, and shall show it unto you; it might, perhaps, have been believed that the Holy Spirit was so born of Christ, as Christ is of the Father. Since He had said of Himself, My doctrine is not mine, but His that sent me; but of the Holy Spirit, For He shall not speak of Himself, but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall He speak; and, For He shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto you. But because He has rendered the reason why He said, He shall receive of mine (for He says, All things that the Father has are mine; therefore said I, that He shall take of mine); it remains that the Holy Spirit be understood to have of that which is the Father's, as the Son also has. And how can this be, unless according to that which we have said above, But when the Comforter has come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth which proceeds from the Father, He shall testify of me? He is said, therefore, not to speak of Himself, in that He proceeds from the Father; and as it does not follow that the Son is less because He said, The Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do (for He has not said this according to the form of a servant, but according to the form of God, as we have already shown, and these words do not set Him forth as less than, but as of the Father), so it is not brought to pass that the Holy Spirit is less, because it is said of Him, For He shall not speak of Himself, but whatsoever He shall hear, that shall He speak; for the words belong to Him as proceeding from the Father. But whereas both the Son is of the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, why both are not called sons, and both not said to be begotten, but the former is called the one only-begotten Son, and the latter, viz. the Holy Spirit, neither son nor begotten, because if begotten, then certainly a son, we will discuss in another place, if God shall grant, and so far as He shall grant.
[2.4.6] Verumtamen hic evigilent si possunt qui hoc etiam sibi suffragari put averunt quasi ad demonstrandum patrem filio maiorem, quia dixit filius: Pater, clarifica me. Ecce et spiritus sanctus clarificat eum; numquidnam et ipse maior est illo? Porro autem si propterea spiritus sanctus glorificat filium quia de filii accipiet et ideo de eius accipiet quia omnia quae habet pater ipsius sunt, manifestum est quia cum spiritus sanctus glorificat filium, pater glorificat filium. Unde cognoscitur quod omnia quae habet pater non tantum filii sed etiam spiritus sancti sunt quia potens est spiritus sanctus glorificare filium quem glorificat pater. Quod si ille qui glorificat eo quem glorificat maior est, sinant ut aequales sint qui se invicem glorificant. Scriptum est autem quod et filius glorificet patrem: Ego te, inquit, glorificavi super terram. Sane caveant ne putetur spiritus sanctus maior ambobus quia glorificat filium quem glorificat pater, ipsum autem nec a patre nec a filio glonfican scnptum est.	6. But here also let them wake up if they can, who have thought this, too, to be a testimony on their side, to show that the Father is greater than the Son, because the Son has said, Father, glorify me. Why, the Holy Spirit also glorifies Him. Pray, is the Spirit, too, greater than He? Moreover, if on that account the Holy Spirit glorifies the Son, because He shall receive of that which is the Son's, and shall therefore receive of that which is the Son's because all things that the Father has are the Son's also; it is evident that when the Holy Spirit glorifies the Son, the Father glorifies the Son. Whence it may be perceived that all things that the Father has are not only of the Son, but also of the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit is able to glorify the Son, whom the Father glorifies. But if he who glorifies is greater than he whom he glorifies, let them allow that those are equal who mutually glorify each other. But it is written, also, that the Son glorifies the Father; for He says, I have glorified You on the earth. Truly let them beware lest the Holy Spirit be thought greater than both, because He glorifies the Son whom the Father glorifies, while it is not written that He Himself is glorified either by the Father or by the Son.
[2.5.7] Sed in his conuicti ad illud se convertunt ut dicant: 'Maior est qui mittit quam qui mittitur.' Proinde maior est pater filio quia filius a patre se missum assidue commemorat; maior est et spiritu sancto quia de illo dixit Iesus: Quem mittet pater in nomine meo et spiritus sanctus utroque minor est quia et pater eum mittit, sicut commemoravimus, et filius cum dicit: Si autem abiero, mittam eum ad vos. Qua in quaestione primum quaero unde et quo missus sit filius. Ego, inquit, a patre exii et veni in hunc mundum ergo a patre exire et venire in hunc mundum, hoc est mitti. Quid igitur est quod de illo idem ipse euangelista dicit: In hoc mundo erat, et mundus per ipsum factus est, et mundus eum non cognovit? deinde coniungit: In sua propria venit illuc utique missus est quo venit. At si in hunc mundum missus est quia exiit a patre et venit in hunc mundum, et in hoc mundo erat, illuc ergo missus est ubi erat. Nam et illud quod scriptum est in propheta deum dicere: Caelum et terram ego impleo si de filio dictum est (ipsum enim nonnulli volunt intellegi vel prophetic vel in prophetic locutum), quo missus est nisi illuc ubi "erat?"; ubique enim erat qui ait: Caelum et terram ego impleo. Si autem de patre dictum est, ubi esse potuit sine verbo suo et sine sapientia sua quae pertendit a fine usque ad finem fortiter et disponit omnia suaviter? Sed neque sine spiritu suo usquam esse potuit. Itaque si ubique est deus, ubique est etiam spiritus eius. Illuc ergo et spiritus sanctus missus est ubi erat. Nam et ille qui non invenit locum quo eat a facie dei et dicit: Si ascendero in caelum, tu ibi es, si descendero in infernum, ades ubique volens intellegi praesentem deum, prius nominavit spiritum eius. Nam sic ait: Quo abibo ab spiritu tuo? Et quo a facie tua fugiam?	7. But being proved wrong so far, men betake themselves to saying, that he who sends is greater than he who is sent: therefore the Father is greater than the Son, because the Son continually speaks of Himself as being sent by the Father; and the Father is also greater than the Holy Spirit, because Jesus has said of the Spirit, Whom the Father will send in my name; and the Holy Spirit is less than both, because both the Father sends Him, as we have said, and the Son, when He says, But if I depart, I will send Him unto you. I first ask, then, in this inquiry, whence and whither the Son was sent. I, He says, came forth from the Father, and have come into the world. Therefore, to be sent, is to come forth forth from the Father, and to come into the world. What, then, is that which the same evangelist says concerning Him, He was in the world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not; and then he adds, He came unto His own? Certainly He was sent there, whither He came; but if He was sent into the world, because He came forth from the Father, then He both came into the world and was in the world. He was sent therefore there, where He already was. For consider that, too, which is written in the prophet, that God said, Do not I fill heaven and earth? If this is said of the Son (for some will have it understood that the Son Himself spoke either by the prophets or in the prophets), whither was He sent except to the place where He already was? For He who says, I fill heaven and earth, was everywhere. But if it is said of the Father, where could He be without His own word and without His own wisdom, which reaches from one end to another mightily, and sweetly orders all things? But He cannot be anywhere without His own Spirit. Therefore, if God is everywhere, His Spirit also is everywhere. Therefore, the Holy Spirit, too, was sent there, where He already was. For he, too, who finds no place to which he might go from the presence of God, and who says, If I ascend up into heaven, You are there; if I shall go down into hell, behold, You are there; wishing it to be understood that God is present everywhere, named in the previous verse His Spirit; for He says, Whither shall I go from Your Spirit? Or whither shall I flee from Your presence?
[2.5.8] Quocirca si et filius et spiritus sanctus illuc mittitur ubi erat, quaerendum est quomodo intellegatur ista missio sive filii sive spiritus sancti. Pater enim solus nusquam legitur missus. Et de filio quidem ita scribit apostolus: Cum autem venit plenitudo temporis, misit deus filium suum factum ex muliere, factum sub lege, ut eos qui sub lege erant redimeret. Misit, inquit, filium suum factum ex muliere. Quo nomine quis catholicus nesciat non eum privationem virginitatis sed differentiam sexus hebraeo loquendi more significare voluisse? Cum itaque ait: Misit deus filium suum factum ex muliere satis ostendit eo ipso missum filium quo factus est ex muliere. Quod ergo de deo natus est, in hoc mundo erat; quod autem de Maria natus est, in hunc mundum missus advenit. Proinde mitti a patre sine spiritu sancto non potuit, non solum quia intellegitur pater cum eum misit, id est fecit ex femina, non utique sine spiritu suo fecisse; verum etiam quod manifestissime atque apertissime in euangelio dicitur virgini Mariae quaerenti ab angelo: Quomodo fiet istud? Spiritus sanctus superveniet in te, et virtus altissimi obumbrabit tibi et Matthaeus dicit: Inventa est in utero habens de spiritu sancto quamquam et apud Esaiam prophetam ipse Christus intellegitur de adventu suo futuro dicere: Et nunc dominus misit me, et spiritus eius.	8. For this reason, then, if both the Son and the Holy Spirit are sent there where they were, we must inquire, how that sending, whether of the Son or of the Holy Spirit, is to be understood; for of the Father alone, we nowhere read that He is sent. Now, of the Son, the apostle writes thus: But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law. He sent, he says, His Son, made of a woman. And by this term, woman, what Catholic does not know that he did not wish to signify the privation of virginity; but, according to a Hebraism, the difference of sex? When, therefore, he says, God sent His Son, made of a woman, he sufficiently shows that the Son was sent in this very way, in that He was made of a woman. Therefore, in that He was born of God, He was in the world; but in that He was born of Mary, He was sent and came into the world. Moreover, He could not be sent by the Father without the Holy Spirit, not only because the Father, when He sent Him, that is, when He made Him of a woman, is certainly understood not to have so made Him without His own Spirit; but also because it is most plainly and expressly said in the Gospel in answer to the Virgin Mary, when she asked of the angel, How shall this be? The Holy Ghost shall come upon you, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow you. And Matthew says, She was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Although, too, in the prophet Isaiah, Christ Himself is understood to say of His own future advent, And now the Lord God and His Spirit has sent me.
[2.5.9] Fortasse aliquis cogat ut dicamus etiam a se ipso missum esse filium quia ille Mariae conceptus et partus operatio trinitatis est qua creante omnia creantur. 'Et quomodo iam,' inquit, 'pater eum misit si ipse se misit?' Cui primum respondeo quaerens ut dicat, si potest: quomodo eum pater sanctificavit si se ipse sanctificavit? Utrumque enim idem dominus ait: Quem pater, inquit, sanctificavit et misit in hunc mundum, vos dicitis quia blasphemat quondam dixi: Filius dei sum alio autem loco ait: Et pro eis sanctifico me ipsum. Item quaero quomodo eum pater tradidit si ipse se tradidit. Utrumque enim dicit apostolus Paulus: Qui filio, inquit, proprio non pepercit, sed pro nobis omnibus tradidit eum. Alibi autem de ipso saluatore ait: Qui me dilexit et tradidit se ipsum pro me. Credo respondebit si haec probe sapit quia una voluntas est patris et filii et inseparabilis operatio. Sic ergo intellegat illam incarnationem et ex virgine nativitatem in qua filius intellegitur missus una eademque operatione patris et filii inseparabiliter esse factam, non utique inde separato spiritu sancto de quo aperte dicitur: Inventa est in utero habens de spiritu sancto. Nam etiam si ita quaeramus, enodatius fortassis quod dicimus apparebit. Quomodo misit deus filium suum? Iussit ut veniret, atque ille iubenti obtemperans venit? An rogavit? An tantummodo admonuit? Sed quodlibet horum sit verbo utique factum est; dei autem verbum ipse est dei filius. Quapropter cum eum pater verbo misit, a patre et verbo eius factum est ut mitteretur. Ergo a patre et filio missus est idem filius quia verbum patris est ipse filius. Quis enim se tam sacrilege induat opinione ut putet temporale verbum a patre factum esse ut aeternus filius mitteretur et in came appareret ex tempore? Sed utique in ipso dei verbo quod erat in principio apud deum et deus erat, in ipsa scilicet sapientia dei sine tempore erat quo tempore illam in came apparere oporteret. Itaque cum sine ullo initio temporis in principio esset verbum, et verbum esset apud deum, et deus esset verbum; sine ullo tempore in ipso verbo erat quo tempore verbum caro fieret et habitaret in nobis. Quae plenitudo temporis cum venisset, misit deus filium suum factum ex muliere id est factum in tempore ut incarnatum verbum hominibus appareret; quod in ipso verbo sine tempore erat in quo tempore fieret. Ordo quippe temporum in aeterna dei sapientia sine tempore est. Cum itaque hoc a patre et filio factum esset ut in came filius appareret, congruenter dictus est missus ille qui in ea came apparuit, misisse autem ille qui in ea non apparuit. Quoniam illa quae coram corporeis oculis foris geruntur ab interiore apparatu naturae spiritalis exsistunt, propterea convenienter missa dicuntur. Forma porro illa suscepti hominis filii persona est, non etiam patris. Quapropter pater inuisibilis una cum filio secum inuisibili eundem filium visibilem faciendo misisse eum dictus est; qui si eo modo visibilis fieret ut cum patre inuisibilis esse desisteret, id est si substantia inuisibilis verbi in creaturam visibilem mutate et transiens verteretur, ita missus a patre intellegeretur filius ut tantum missus non etiam cum patre mittens inveniretur. Cum vero sic accepta est forma serui ut maneret incommutabilis forma dei, manifestum est quod a patre et filio non apparentibus factum sit quod appareret in filio, id est ab inuisibili patre cum inuisibili filio idem ipse filius visibilis mitteretur. Cur ergo ait: Et a me ipso non veni? Iam hoc secundum formam serui dictum est, secundum quam dictum est: Ego non iudico quemquam.	9. Perhaps some one may wish to drive us to say, that the Son is sent also by Himself, because the conception and childbirth of Mary is the working of the Trinity, by whose act of creating all things are created. And how, he will go on to say, has the Father sent Him, if He sent Himself? To whom I answer first, by asking him to tell me, if he can, in what manner the Father has sanctified Him, if He has sanctified Himself? For the same Lord says both; Say of Him, He says, whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world, You blaspheme, because I said, I am the Son of God; while in another place He says, And for their sake I sanctify myself. I ask, also, in what manner the Father delivered Him, if He delivered Himself? For the Apostle Paul says both: Who, he says, spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all; while elsewhere he says of the Saviour Himself, Who loved me, and delivered Himself for me. He will reply, I suppose, if he has a right sense in these things, Because the will of the Father and the Son is one, and their working indivisible. In like manner, then, let him understand the incarnation and nativity of the Virgin, wherein the Son is understood as sent, to have been wrought by one and the same operation of the Father and of the Son indivisibly; the Holy Spirit certainly not being thence excluded, of whom it is expressly said, She was found with child by the Holy Ghost. For perhaps our meaning will be more plainly unfolded, if we ask in what manner God sent His Son. He commanded that He should come, and He, complying with the commandment, came. Did He then request, or did He only suggest? But whichever of these it was, certainly it was done by a word, and the Word of God is the Son of God Himself. Wherefore, since the Father sent Him by a word, His being sent was the work of both the Father and His Word; therefore the same Son was sent by the Father and the Son, because the Son Himself is the Word of the Father. For who would embrace so impious an opinion as to think the Father to have uttered a word in time, in order that the eternal Son might thereby be sent and might appear in the flesh in the fullness of time? But assuredly it was in that Word of God itself which was in the beginning with God and was God, namely, in the wisdom itself of God, apart from time, at what time that wisdom must needs appear in the flesh. Therefore, since without any commencement of time, the Word was in the beginning, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God, it was in the Word itself without any time, at what time the Word was to be made flesh and dwell among us. And when this fullness of time had come, God sent His Son, made of a woman, that is, made in time, that the Incarnate Word might appear to men; while it was in that Word Himself, apart from time, at what time this was to be done; for the order of times is in the eternal wisdom of God without time. Since, then, that the Son should appear in the flesh was wrought by both the Father and the Son, it is fitly said that He who appeared in that flesh was sent, and that He who did not appear in it, sent Him; because those things which are transacted outwardly before the bodily eyes have their existence from the inward structure (apparatu) of the spiritual nature, and on that account are fitly said to be sent. Further, that form of man which He took is the person of the Son, not also of the Father; on which account the invisible Father, together with the Son, who with the Father is invisible, is said to have sent the same Son by making Him visible. But if He became visible in such way as to cease to be invisible with the Father, that is, if the substance of the invisible Word were turned by a change and transition into a visible creature, then the Son would be so understood to be sent by the Father, that He would be found to be only sent; not also, with the Father, sending. But since He so took the form of a servant, as that the unchangeable form of God remained, it is clear that that which became apparent in the Son was done by the Father and the Son not being apparent; that is, that by the invisible Father, with the invisible Son, the same Son Himself was sent so as to be visible. Why, therefore, does He say, Neither came I of myself? This, we may now say, is said according to the form of a servant, in the same way as it is said, I judge no man.
[2.5.10] Si ergo missus dicitur in quantum apparuit foris in creatura corporali qui intus in natura spiritali oculis mortalium semper occultus est, iam in promptu est intellegere etiam de spiritu sancto cur missus et ipse dicatur. Facta est enim quaedam creaturae species ex tempore in qua visibiliter ostenderetur spiritus sanctus, sive cum super ipsum dominum corporali specie velut columba descendit, sive cum decem diebus peractis post eius ascensionem die pentecostes factus est subito de caelo sonus quasi ferretur fiatus uehemens, et visae sunt illis linguae divisae sicut ignis qui et insedit super unumquemque eorum. Haec operatio visibiliter expressa et oculis oblata mortalibus missio spiritus sancti dicta est; non ut appareret eius ipsa substantia qua et ipse inuisibilis et incommutabilis est sicut pater et filius, sed ut exterioribus visis hominum corda commota a temporali manifestatione venientis ad occultam aeternitatem semper praesentis converterentur.	10. If, therefore, He is said to be sent, in so far as He appeared outwardly in the bodily creature, who inwardly in His spiritual nature is always hidden from the eyes of mortals, it is now easy to understand also of the Holy Spirit why He too is said to be sent. For in due time a certain outward appearance of the creature was wrought, wherein the Holy Spirit might be visibly shown; whether when He descended upon the Lord Himself in a bodily shape as a dove, or when, ten days having past since His ascension, on the day of Pentecost a sound came suddenly from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and cloven tongues like as of fire were seen upon them, and it sat upon each of them. This operation, visibly exhibited, and presented to mortal eyes, is called the sending of the Holy Spirit; not that His very substance appeared, in which He himself also is invisible and unchangeable, like the Father and the Son, but that the hearts of men, touched by things seen outwardly, might be turned from the manifestation in time of Him as coming to His hidden eternity as ever present.
[2.6.11] Ideo autem nusquam scriptum est quod deus pater maior sit spiritu sancto, vel spiritus sanctus minor deo patre, quia non sic est assumpta creatura in qua appareret spiritus sanctus sicut assumptus est filius hominis in qua forma ipsius verbi dei persona praesentaretur, non ut haberet verbum dei sicut alii sancti sapientes, sed prae participibus suis; non utique quod amplius habebat verbum ut esset quam caeteri excellentiore sapientia, sed quod ipsum verbum erat. Aliud est enim verbum in carne, aliud verbum caro; id est aliud est verbum in homine, aliud verbum homo. Caro enim pro homine posita est in eo quod ait: Verbum caro factum est sicut et illud: Et videbit omnis caro salutare dei. Non enim sine anima vel sine mente, sed ita omnis caro ac si diceretur 'omnis homo.' Non ergo sic est assumpta creatura in qua appareret spiritus sanctus sicut assumpta est caro illa et humana illa forma ex virgine Maria. Neque enim columbam beatificavit spiritus, vel illum flatum vel illum ignem sibique et personae suae in unitatem habitumque coniunxit in aeternum; aut vero mutabilis et convertibilis est natura spiritus sancti ut non haec ex creatura fierent, sed ipse in illud atque illud mutabiliter verteretur sicut aqua in glaciem. Sed apparuerunt ista sicut opportune apparere debuerunt creatura seruiente creatori et ad nutum eius incommutabiliter in se ipso permanentis ad eum significandum et demonstrandum, sicut significari et demonstrari mortalibus oportebat, mutata atque conversa. Proinde quamquam illa columba spiritus dicta sit, et de illo igne cum diceretur: Visae sunt illis, inquit, linguae divisae velut ignis qui et insedit super unumquemque eorum, et coeperunt linguis loqui quemadmodum spiritus dabat eis pronuntiare ut ostenderet per illum ignem spiritum demonstratum sicut per columbam; non tamen ita possumus dicere spiritum sanctum et deum et columbam aut et deum et ignem, sicut dicimus filium et deum et hominem nec sicut dicimus filium agnum dei, non solum Iohanne baptista dicente: Ecce agnus dei sed etiam Iohanne euangelista vidente agnum occisum in apocalypsi. Illa quippe visio prophetica non est exhibita oculis corporeis per formas corporeas sed in spiritu per spiritales imagines corporum. Columbam vero illam et ignem oculis viderunt quicumque viderunt, quamquam de igne disceptari potest utrum oculis an spiritu visus sit propter verba sic posita; non enim ait: 'Viderunt linguas divisas velut ignem,' sed: Visae sunt eis. Non autem sub eadem significatione solemus dicere: 'Visum est mihi,' qua dicimus: 'Vidi.' Et in illis quidem spiritalibus visis imaginum corporalium solet dici et 'Visum est mihi' et Vidi, in istis vero quae per expressam corporalem speciem oculis demonstrantur non solet dici 'Visum est mihi' sed Vidi. De illo ergo igne potest esse quaestio quomodo visus sit, utrum intus in spiritu tamquam foris, an vere foris coram oculis carnis; de illa vero columba quae dicta est corporali specie descendisse nullus umquam dubitavit quod oculis visa sit. Nec sicut dicimus filium patram (scriptum est enim: Petra autem erat Christus), ita possumus dicere spiritum columbam vel ignem. Illa enim patra iam erat in creatura et per actionis modum connuncupata est nomine Christi quem significabat, sicut lapis ille quem Iacob positum ad caput etiam unctione ad significandum dominum assumpsit; sicut Isaac Christus erat cum ad se immolandum ligna portabat. Accessit istis actio quaedam significativa iam exsistentibus; non autem sicut illa columba et ignis ad haec tantummodo significanda repente exstiterunt. Magis ista similia mihi videntur flammae illi quae in rubo apparuit Moysi, et illi columnae quam populus in heremo sequebatur, et fulguribus ac tonitribus quae fiebant cum lex daretur in monte. Ad hoc enim rerum illarum corporalis exstitit species ut aliquid significaret atque praeteriret.	11. It is, then, for this reason nowhere written, that the Father is greater than the Holy Spirit, or that the Holy Spirit is less than God the Father, because the creature in which the Holy Spirit was to appear was not taken in the same way as the Son of man was taken, as the form in which the person of the Word of God Himself should be set forth not that He might possess the word of God, as other holy and wise men have possessed it, but above His fellows; not certainly that He possessed the word more than they, so as to be of more surpassing wisdom than the rest were, but that He was the very Word Himself. For the word in the flesh is one thing, and the Word made flesh is another; i.e. the word in man is one thing, the Word that is man is another. For flesh is put for man, where it is said, The Word was made flesh; and again, And all flesh shall see the salvation of God. For it does not mean flesh without soul and without mind; but all flesh, is the same as if it were said, every man. The creature, then, in which the Holy Spirit should appear, was not so taken, as that flesh and human form were taken, of the Virgin Mary. For the Spirit did not beatify the dove, or the wind, or the fire, and join them for ever to Himself and to His person in unity and fashion. Nor, again, is the nature of the Holy Spirit mutable and changeable; so that these things were not made of the creature, but He himself was turned and changed first into one and then into another, as water is changed into ice. But these things appeared at the seasons at which they ought to have appeared, the creature serving the Creator, and being changed and converted at the command of Him who remains immutably in Himself, in order to signify and manifest Him in such way as it was fit He should be signified and manifested to mortal men. Accordingly, although that dove is called the Spirit; and in speaking of that fire, There appeared unto them, he says, cloven tongues, like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them; and they began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance; in order to show that the Spirit was manifested by that fire, as by the dove; yet we cannot call the Holy Spirit both God and a dove, or both God and fire, in the same way as we call the Son both God and man; nor as we call the Son the Lamb of God; which not only John the Baptist says, Behold the Lamb of God, but also John the Evangelist sees the Lamb slain in the Apocalypse. For that prophetic vision was not shown to bodily eyes through bodily forms, but in the spirit through spiritual images of bodily things. But whosoever saw that dove and that fire, saw them with their eyes. Although it may perhaps be disputed concerning the fire, whether it was seen by the eyes or in the spirit, on account of the form of the sentence. For the text does not say, They saw cloven tongues like fire, but, There appeared to them. But we are not wont to say with the same meaning, It appeared to me; as we say, I saw. And in those spiritual visions of corporeal images the usual expressions are, both, It appeared to me; and, I saw: but in those things which are shown to the eyes through express corporeal forms, the common expression is not, It appeared to me; but, I saw. There may, therefore, be a question raised respecting that fire, how it was seen; whether within in the spirit as it were outwardly, or really outwardly before the eyes of the flesh. But of that dove, which is said to have descended in a bodily form, no one ever doubted that it was seen by the eyes. Nor, again, as we call the Son a Rock (for it is written, And that Rock was Christ ), can we so call the Spirit a dove or fire. For that rock was a thing already created, and after the mode of its action was called by the name of Christ, whom it signified; like the stone placed under Jacob's head, and also anointed, which he took in order to signify the Lord; or as Isaac was Christ, when he carried the wood for the sacrifice of himself. A particular significative action was added to those already existing things; they did not, as that dove and fire, suddenly come into being in order simply so to signify. The dove and the fire, indeed, seem to me more like that flame which appeared to Moses in the bush, or that pillar which the people followed in the wilderness, or the thunders and lightnings which came when the Law was given in the mount. For the corporeal form of these things came into being for the very purpose, that it might signify something, and then pass away.
[2.7.12] Propter has ergo corporales formas quae ad eum significandum et sicut humanis sensibus oportebat demonstrandum temporaliter exstiterunt missus dicitur etiam spiritus sanctus; non tamen minor patre dictus est sicut filius propter formam serui, quia illa forma serui inhaesit ad unitatem personae, illae vero species corporales ad demonstrandum quod opus fuit ad tempus apparuerunt et esse postea destiterunt. Cur ergo non et pater dicitur missus per illas species corporales, ignem rubi et columnam nubis vel ignis et fulgura in monte et si qua talia tunc apparuerunt, cum eum coram locutum patribus teste scriptura didicimus, si per illos creaturae modos et formas corporaliter ex press as et humanis aspectibus praesentatas ipse demonstrabatur? Si autem filius per ea demonstrabatur, cur tanto post dicitur missus cum ex femina factus est, sicut dicit apostolus: Cum autem venit plenitudo temporis, misit deus filium suum factum ex muliere quandoquidem et antea mittebatur cum per illas creaturae mutabiles formas patribus apparebat? Aut si non recte posset dici missus nisi cum verbum caro factum est, cur missus dicitur spiritus sanctus cuius nulla talis incorporatio facta est? Si vero per illa visibilia quae in lege et prophetis commendantur nec pater nec filius sed spiritus sanctus ostendebatur, cur etiam ipse nunc dicitur missus cum illis modis et antea mitteretur?	12. The Holy Spirit, then, is also said to be sent, on account of these corporeal forms which came into existence in time, in order to signify and manifest Him, as He must needs be manifested, to human senses; yet He is not said to be less than the Father, as the Son, because He was in the form of a servant, is said to be; because that form of a servant inhered in the unity of the person of the Son, but those corporeal forms appeared for a time, in order to show what was necessary to be shown, and then ceased to be. Why, then, is not the Father also said to be sent, through those corporeal forms, the fire of the bush, and the pillar of cloud or of fire, and the lightnings in the mount, and whatever other things of the kind appeared at that time, when (as we have learned from Scripture testimony) He spoke face to face with the fathers, if He Himself was manifested by those modes and forms of the creature, as exhibited and presented corporeally to human sight? But if the Son was manifested by them, why is He said to be sent so long after, when He was made of a woman, as the apostle says, But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, seeing that He was sent also before, when He appeared to the fathers by those changeable forms of the creature? Or if He cannot rightly be said to be sent, unless when the Word was made flesh, why is the Holy Spirit said to be sent, of whom no such incarnation was ever wrought? But if by those visible things, which are put before us in the Law and in the prophets, neither the Father nor the Son but the Holy Spirit was manifested, why also is He said to be sent now, when He was sent also before after these modes?
[2.7.13] In huius perplexitate quaestionis primum domino adivuante quaerendum est utrum pater an filius an spiritus sanctus, an aliquando pater, aliquando filius, aliquando spiritus sanctus; an sine ulla distinctione personarum sicut dicitur deus unus et solus, id est ipsa trinitas, per illas creaturae formas patribus apparuerit. Deinde quodlibet horum inventum visumue fuerit, utrum ad hoc opus tantummodo creatura formata sit in qua deus sicut tunc oportuisse iudicavit humanis ostenderetur aspectibus, an angeli qui iam erant ita mittebantur ut ex persona dei loquerentur assumentes corporalem speciem de creatura corporea in usum ministerii sui sicut cuique opus esset, aut ipsum corpus suum cui non subduntur sed subditum regunt in species quas vellent adcommodatas atque aptas actionibus suds mutantes atque vertentes secundum attributam sibi a creatore potentiam. Postremo videbimus id quod quaerere institueramus, utrum filius an spiritus sanctus et antea mittebantur, et si mittebantur, quid inter illam missionem et eam quam in euangelio legimus distet; an missus non sit aliquus eorum msi cum vel filius factus esset ex Maria virgine vel cum spiritus sanctus visibili specie sive in columba sive in igneis linguis apparuit.	13. In the perplexity of this inquiry, the Lord helping us, we must ask, first, whether the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit; or whether, sometimes the Father, sometimes the Son, sometimes the Holy Spirit; or whether it was without any distinction of persons, in such way as the one and only God is spoken of, that is, that the Trinity itself appeared to the Fathers by those forms of the creature. Next, whichever of these alternatives shall have been found or thought true, whether for this purpose only the creature was fashioned, wherein God, as He judged it suitable at that time, should be shown to human sight; or whether angels, who already existed, were so sent, as to speak in the person of God, taking a corporeal form from the corporeal creature, for the purpose of their ministry, as each had need; or else, according to the power the Creator has given them, changing and converting their own body itself, to which they are not subject, but govern it as subject to themselves, into whatever appearances they would that were suited and apt to their several actions. Lastly, we shall discern that which it was our purpose to ask, viz. whether the Son and the Holy Spirit were also sent before; and, if they were so sent, what difference there is between that sending, and the one which we read of in the Gospel; or whether in truth neither of them were sent, except when either the Son was made of the Virgin Mary, or the Holy Spirit appeared in a visible form, whether in the dove or in tongues of fire.
[2.8.14] Omittamus igitur eos qui nimis carnaliter naturam verbi dei atque sapientiam quae in se ipsa manens innouat omnia, quem unicum filium dei dicimus, non solum mutabilem verum etiam visibilem esse putaverunt. Hi enim multum crassum cor divinis rebus inquirendis audacius quam religiosius attulerunt. Anima quippe cum sit substantia spiritalis, cumque etiam ipsa facta sit nec per alium fieri potuerit nisi per quem facta sunt omnia et sine quo factum est nihil quamvis sit mutabilis, non est tamen visibilis. Quod illi de verbo ipso atque ipsa dei sapientia per quam facta est anima crediderunt, cum sit illa non inuisibilis tantum, quod et anima est, sed etiam incommutabilis, quod anima non est. Eadem quippe incommutabilitas eius commemorate est ut diceretur: In se ipsa manens innouat omnia. Et isti quidem ruinam erroris sui divinarum scripturarum testimoniis quasi fulcire conantes adhibent Pauli apostoli sententiam, et quod dictum est de uno solo deo in quo ipsa trinitas intellegitur, tantum de patre, non et de filio et de spiritu sancto dictum accipiunt: Regi autem saeculorum immortali, inuisibili, soli deo honor et gloria in saecula saeculorum et illud alterum: Beatus et solus potens, rex regum et dominus dominantium, qui solus habet immortalitatem et lucem habitat inaccessibilem; quem nemo hominum vidit nec videre potest. Haec quemadmodum intellegenda sint iam satis nos disseruisse arbitror.	14. Let us therefore say nothing of those who, with an over carnal mind, have thought the nature of the Word of God, and the Wisdom, which, remaining in herself, makes all things new, whom we call the only Son of God, not only to be changeable, but also to be visible. For these, with more audacity than religion, bring a very dull heart to the inquiry into divine things. For whereas the soul is a spiritual substance, and whereas itself also was made, yet could not be made by any other than by Him by whom all things were made, and without whom nothing is made, it, although changeable, is yet not visible; and this they have believed to be the case with the Word Himself and with the Wisdom of God itself, by which the soul was made; whereas this Wisdom is not only invisible, as the soul also is, but likewise unchangeable, which the soul is not. It is in truth the same unchangeableness in it, which is referred to when it was said, Remaining in herself she makes all things new. Yet these people, endeavoring, as it were, to prop up their error in its fall by testimonies of the divine Scriptures, adduce the words of the Apostle Paul; and take that, which is said of the one only God, in whom the Trinity itself is understood, to be said only of the Father, and neither of the Son nor of the Holy Spirit: Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honor and glory for ever and ever; and that other passage, The blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; who only has immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man has seen, nor can see. How these passages are to be understood, I think we have already discoursed sufficiently.
[2.9.15] Verum illi qui ista non de filio nec de spiritu sancto sed tantum de patre accipi volunt, dicunt visibilem filium non per carnem de virgine assumptam sed etiam antea per se ipsum. 'Nam ipse,' inquiunt, 'apparuit oculis patrum.' Quibus si dixeris: 'Quomodo ergo visibilis per se ipsum filius, ita et mortalis per se ipsum, ut constet vobis quod tantummodo de patre uultis intellegi quod dictum est: Qui solus habet immortalitatem? Nam si propter carnem susceptam mortalis est filius, propter hanc sinite ut sit et visibilis.' Respondent nec propter hanc se mortalem filium dicere, sed sicut et ante visibilem ita et ante mortalem. Nam si propter carnem filium dicunt esse mortalem, iam non pater sine filio solus habet immortalitatem quia et verbum eius per quod omnia facta sunt habet immortalitatem. Neque enim quia carnem assumpsit mortalem ideo amisit immortalitatem suam quandoquidem nec animae humanae hoc accidere potuit ut cum corpore moreretur dicente ipso domino: Nolite timere eos qui corpus occidunt, animam autem non possum occidere. Aut vero etiam spiritus sanctus carnem assumpsit (de quo utique sine dubio turbabuntur). Si propter carnem mortalis est filius, quomodo accipiant patrem tantummodo sine filio et sine spiritu sancto habere immortalitatem quandoquidem spiritus sanctus non assumpsit carnem? Qui si non habet immortalitatem, non ergo propter carnem mortalis est filius; si autem habet spiritus sanctus immortalitatem, non de patre tantummodo dictum est quia solus habet immortalitatem. Quocirca ita se arbitrantur et ante incarnationem per se ipsum mortalem filium posse conuincere quia ipsa mutabilitas non inconvenienter mortalitas dicitur, secundum quam et anima dicitur mori, non quia in corpus vel in aliquam alteram substantiam mutatur et vertitur, sed in ipsa sua substantia quidquid alio modo nunc est ac fun', secundum id quod destitit esse quod erat mortale deprehenditur. 'Quia itaque,' inquiunt, 'antequam natus esset filius dei de virgine Maria, ipse apparuit patribus nostris non in una eademque specie sed multiformiter, aliter atque aliter, et visibilis est per se ipsum quia nondum came assumpta substantia eius conspicua mortalibus oculis fun', et mortalis in quantum mutabilis. Ita et spiritus sanctus qui alias columba, alias ignis apparuit. Unde non trinitati,' aiunt, 'sea singulariter et proprie patri tantummodo convenit quod dictum est: Immortali, inuisibili, soli deo et: Qui solus habet immortalitatem et lucem habitat inaccessibilem; quem nemo hominum vidit nec videre potest.'	15. But they who will have these texts understood only of the Father, and not of the Son or the Holy Spirit, declare the Son to be visible, not by having taken flesh of the Virgin, but aforetime also in Himself. For He Himself, they say, appeared to the eyes of the Fathers. And if you say to them, In whatever manner, then, the Son is visible in Himself, in that manner also He is mortal in Himself; so that it plainly follows that you would have this saying also understood only of the Father, viz., Who only has immortality; for if the Son is mortal from having taken upon Him our flesh, then allow that it is on account of this flesh that He is also visible: they reply, that it is not on account of this flesh that they say that the Son is mortal; but that, just as He was also before visible, so He was also before mortal. For if they say the Son is mortal from having taken our flesh, then it is not the Father alone without the Son who has immortality; because His Word also has immortality, by which all things were made. For He did not therefore lose His immortality, because He took mortal flesh; seeing that it could not happen even to the human soul, that it should die with the body, when the Lord Himself says, Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul. Or, forsooth, also the Holy Spirit took flesh: concerning whom certainly they will, without doubt, be troubled to say— if the Son is mortal on account of taking our flesh— in what manner they understand that the Father only has immortality without the Son and the Holy Spirit, since, indeed, the Holy Spirit did not take our flesh; and if He has not immortality, then the Son is not mortal on account of taking our flesh; but if the Holy Spirit has immortality, then it is not said only of the Father, Who only has immortality. And therefore they think they are able to prove that the Son in Himself was mortal also before the incarnation, because changeableness itself is not unfitly called mortality, according to which the soul also is said to die; not because it is changed and turned into body, or into some substance other than itself, but because, whatever in its own selfsame substance is now after another mode than it once was, is discovered to be mortal, in so far as it has ceased to be what it was. Because then, say they, before the Son of God was born of the Virgin Mary, He Himself appeared to our fathers, not in one and the same form only, but in many forms; first in one form, then in another; He is both visible in Himself, because His substance was visible to mortal eyes, when He had not yet taken our flesh, and mortal, inasmuch as He is changeable. And so also the Holy Spirit, who appeared at one time as a dove, and another time as fire. Whence, they say, the following texts do not belong to the Trinity, but singularly and properly to the Father only: Now unto the King eternal, immortal, and invisible, the only wise God; and, Who only has immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man has seen, nor can see.
[2.9.16] Omissis ergo istis qui nec animae substantiaminuisibilem nosse potuerunt, unde longe remotum ab eis erat ut nossent unius et solius dei, id est patris et filii et spiritus sancti, non solum inuisibtlem verum et incommutabile.n permanere substantiam ac per hoc in vera et sincere immortalitate consistere; nos qui numquam apparuisse corporeis oculis deum nec patrem nec filium nec spiritum sanctum dicimus nisi per subiectam suae potestati corpoream creaturam, in pace catholica pactfico studio requiramus parati corrigi si fraterne ac recte reprehendimur, parati etiamsi ab inimico vera tamen dicente mordemur, utrum indiscrete deus apparuerit patribus nostris antequam Christus veniret in carne, an aliqua ex trinitate persona, an singillatim quasi per vices.	16. Passing by, then, these reasoners, who are unable to know the substance even of the soul, which is invisible, and therefore are very far indeed from knowing that the substance of the one and only God, that is, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, remains ever not only invisible, but also unchangeable, and that hence it possesses true and real immortality; let us, who deny that God, whether the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit, ever appeared to bodily eyes, unless through the corporeal creature made subject to His own power; let us, I say— ready to be corrected, if we are reproved in a fraternal and upright spirit, ready to be so, even if carped at by an enemy, so that he speak the truth— in catholic peace and with peaceful study inquire, whether God indiscriminately appeared to our fathers before Christ came in the flesh, or whether it was any one person of the Trinity, or whether severally, as it were by turns.
[2.10.17] Ac primum in eo quod in genesi scriptum est locutum deum cum homine quem de limo finxerat, si excepta figurata significatione ut rei gestae fides etiam ad litteram teneatur ista tractamus, in specie hominis videtur deus cum homine tunc locutus. Non quidem expresse hoc in libro positum est, sed circumstantia lectionis id resonat maxime illo quod scriptum est vocem dei audisse Adam deambulantis in paradiso ad uesperam et abscondisse se in medio ligni quod erat in paradiso, deoque dicenti: Adam, ubi es? respondisse: Audivi vocem tuam et abscondi me a facie tua quoniam nudus sum. Quomodo enim possit ad litteram intellegi talis dei deambulatio et conlocutio nisi in specie humane non video. Neque enim dici potest vocem solam factam ubi deambulasse dictus est deus, aut eum qui deambulabat in loco non fuisse visibilem cum et Adam dicat quod se absconderit a facie dei. Quis erat ergo ille? Utrum pater an filius an spiritus sanctus? An omnino deus indiscrete ipsa trinitas in forma hominis homini loquebatur? Contextio quidem ipsa scripturae nusquam transire sentitur a persona ad personam, sed ille videtur loqui ad primum hominem qui dicebat: Fiat lux et: Fiat firmamentum et caetera per illos singulos dies, quem deum patrem solemus accipere dicentem ut fiat quidquid facere voluit. Omnia enim per verbum suum fecit, quod verbum eius unicum filium eius secundum rectam fidei regulam novimus. Si ergo deus pater locutus est ad primum hominem et ipse deambulabat in paradiso ad uesperam et ab eius facie se in medio ligni paradisi peccator absconderat, cur non iam ipse intellegatur apparuisse Abrahae et Moysi et quibus voluit quemadmodum voluit per subiectam sibi commutabilem atque visibilem creaturam, cum ipse in se ipso atque in substantia sua qua est incommutabilis atque inuisibilis maneat? Sed fieri potuit ut a persona ad personam occulte scriptura transiret, et cum patrem dixisse narrasset: Fiat lux et caetera quae per verbum fecisse commemoratur, iam filium indicaret loqui ad primum hominem non aperte hoc explicans sed eis qui possent intellegendum intimans.	17. And first, in that which is written in Genesis, viz., that God spoke with man whom He had formed out of the dust; if we set apart the figurative meaning, and treat it so as to place faith in the narrative even in the letter, it should appear that God then spoke with man in the appearance of a man. This is not indeed expressly laid down in the book, but the general tenor of its reading sounds in this sense, especially in that which is written, that Adam heard the voice of the Lord God, walking in the garden in the cool of the evening, and hid himself among the trees of the garden; and when God said, Adam, where are you? replied, I heard Your voice, and I was afraid because I was naked, and I hid myself from Your 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 firmament, 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 spoke 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 among 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 the first man; not unfolding this openly, but intimating it to be understood by those who could understand it.
[2.10.18] Qui ergo habet vires quibus hoc secretum possit mentis acie penetrare ut ei liquido appareat vel posse etiam patrem vel non posse nisi filium et spiritum sanctum per creaturam visibilem humanis oculis apparere pergat in haec scrutanda, si potest, etiam verbis enuntianda atque tractanda; res tamen quantum ad hoc scripturae testimonium attinet ubi deus cum homine locutus est, quantum existimo, occulta est quia etiam utrum soleret Adam corporeis oculis deum videre non evidenter apparel, cum praesertim magna sit quaestio cuiusmodi oculi eis aperti fuerint quando uetitum cibum gustaverunt; hi enim antequam gustassent clausi erant. Illud tantum non temere dixerim si paradisum corporalem quendam locum illa scriptura insinuat, deambulare ibi deum nisi in aliqua corporea forma nullo modo potuisse. Nam et solas voces factas quas audiret homo nec aliquam formam videret dici potest; nec quia scriptum est: Abscondit se Adam a facie dei continuo sequitur ut soleret eius faciem videre. Quid si enim non quidem videre ipse poterat sed videri ipse metuebat ab eo cuius vocem audierat et deambulantis praesentiam senserat? Nam et Cain dixit deo: A facie tua abscondam me nec ideo fateri cogimur eum solere cernere faciem dei corporeis oculis in qualibet forma visibili, quamvis de facinore suo vocem interrogantis secumque loquentis audisset. Cuiusmodi autem loquela tunc deus exterioribus hominum auribus insonaret maxime ad primum hominem loquens, et invenire difficile est et non hoc isto sermone suscepimus. Verumtamen si solae voces et sonitus fiebant quibus quaedam sensibilis praesentia dei primis illis hominibus praeberetur, cur ibi person am dei patris non intellegam nescio quandoquidem persona eius ostenditur et in ea voce cum Iesus in monte coram tribus discipulis praefulgens apparuit et in illa ubi super baptizatum columba descendit et in illa ubi ad patrem de sua glorificatione clamavit eique responsum est: Et clarificavi et iterum clarificabo non quia fieri potuit vox sine opere filii et spiritus sancti (trinitas quippe inseparabiliter operatur), sed quia ea vox facta est quae solius personam patris ostenderet, sicut humanam illam formam ex virgine Maria trinitas operate est sed solius filii persona est, visibilem namque filii solius personam inuisibilis trinitas operate est. Nec nos aliquid prohibet illas voces factas ad Adam non solum a trinitate factas intellegere sed etiam personam demonstrantes eiusdem trinitatis accipere. Ibi enim cogimur non nisi patris accipere ubi dictum est: Hic est filius meus dilectus neque enim Iesus etiam spiritus sancti filius aut etiam suus filius credi aut intellegi potest. Et ubi sonuit: Et clarificavi et iterum clarificabo non nisi patris personam fatemur, responsio quippe est ad illam domini vocem qua dixerat: Pater, clarifica filium tuum quod non potuit dicere nisi deo patri tantum non et spiritui sancto cuius non est filius. Hic autem ubi scriptum est: Et dixit dominus deus ad Adam cur non ipsa trinitas intellegatur nihil dici potest.	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 Spirit are able, to appear to human eyes through a visible creature; let him, I say, proceed to examine these things if he can, or even to express and handle them in words; but the thing itself, so far as concerns this testimony of Scripture, where God spoke with man, is, in my judgment, not discoverable, 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 immediately 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 Your 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 disciples; 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 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 your 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.
[2.10.19] Similiter etiam quod scriptum est: Et dixit dominus ad Abraham: Exi de terra tua et de cognatione tua et de domo patris tui non est apertum utrum sola vox facta sit ad aures Abrahae an et oculis eius aliquid apparuerit. Paulo post autem aliquanto apertius dictum est: Et visus est dominus Abrahae et dixit illi: Semini tuo dabo terram hanc. Sed nec ibi expressum est in qua specie visus ei sit dominus, aut utrum pater an filius an spiritus sanctus ei visus sit. Nisi forte ideo putant filium visum esse Abrahae quia non scriptum est: 'Visus est ei deus,' sed: Visus est ei dominus tamquam enim proprie videtur filius dominus vocari dicente apostolo: Nam et si sunt qui dicuntur dii sive in caelo sive in terra sicuti sunt dii multi et domini multi, sed nobis unus deus pater ex quo omnia et nos in ipso, et unus dominus Iesus Christus per quem omnia et nos per ipsum. Sed cum et deus pater multis locis inveniatur dominus dictus sicut est illud: Dominus dixit ad me: Filius meus es tu; ego hodie genui te et illud: Dixit dominus domino meo: Sede ad dexteram meam cum etiam spiritus sanctus dominus dictus inveniatur ubi apostolus ait: Dominus autem spiritus est et ne quisquam arbitraretur filium significatum et ideo dictum spiritum propter incorpoream substantiam secutus contexuit: Ubi autem spiritus domini, ibi libertas spiritum autem domini spiritum sanctum esse nemo dubitaverit. Neque hic ergo evidenter apparet utrum aliqua ex trinitate persona an deus ipse trinitas, de quo uno deo dictum est: Dominum deum tuum adorabis et illi soli seruies, visus fuerit Abrahae. Sub ilice autem Mambre tres viros vidit quibus et inuitatis hospitioque susceptis et epulantibus ministravit. Sic tamen scriptura illam rem gestam narrare coepit ut non dicat: 'Visi sunt ei tres viri,' sed: Visus est ei dominus. Atque inde consequenter exponens quomodo ei sit visus dominus attexit narrationem de tribus viris quos Abraham per pluralem numerum inuitat ut hospitio suscipiat; et postea singulariter sicut unum alloquitur, et sicut unus ei de Sara filium pollicetur, quem dominum dicit scriptura sicut in eiusdem narrationis exordio: Visus est, inquit, dominus Abrahae. Inuitat ergo et pedes lauat et deducit abeuntes tamquam homines; loquitur autem tamquam cum domino deo sive cum ei promittitur filius sive cum ei Sodomae imminens interitus indicatur.	19. Likewise, also, in that which is written, Now the Lord had said unto Abraham, Get you out of your country, and from your kindred, and your 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 your 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 though 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 has said unto me, You are my Son; this day have I begotten You; and again, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit 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 incorporeal 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, You shall fear the Lord your God, and Him only shall you 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 appeared 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 Abraham 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.
[2.11.20] Non paruam neque transitoriam considerationem postulat iste scripturae locus. Si enim vir unus visus fuisset, iam illi qui dicunt et priusquam de virgine nasceretur per suam substantiam visibilem filium, quid aliud quam ipsum esse clamarent? Quoniam 'De patre,' inquiunt,'dictum est: Inuisibili soli deo.' Et tamen possem adhuc quaerere quomodo ante susceptam carnem habitu est inventus ut homo, quandoquidem pedes ei loti sunt et humanis epulis epulatus est. Quomodo istud fieri poterat cum adhuc in forma dei esset, non rapinam arbitratus esse aequalis deo? Numquid enim iam semetipsum exinanierat formam serui accipiens, in similitudine hominum factus et habitu inventus ut homo cum hoc quando fecerit per partum virginis noverimus? Quomodo igitur antequam hoc fecisset ut vir unus apparuit Abrahae? An illa forma vera non erat? Possem ista quaerere si unus vir apparuisset Abrahae idemque dei filius crederetur. Cum vero tres visi sunt nec quisquam in eis vel forma vel aetate vel potestate maior caeteris dictus est, cur non hic accipiamus visibiliter insinuatam per creaturam visibilem trinitatis aequalitatem atque in tribus personis unam eandemque substantiam?	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 that his 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? For, 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 appeared, 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 understand, as visibly intimated by the visible creature, the equality of the Trinity, and one and the same substance in three persons?
[2.11.21] Nam ne quisquam putaret sic intimatum unum in tribus fuisse maiorem et eum dominum dei filium intellegendum, duos autem illos angelos eius quia cum tres visi sint, uni domino illic loquitur Abraham, sancta scriptura futuris talibus cogitationibus atque opinionibus contradicendo non praetermisit occurrere quando paulo post duos angelos dicit venisse ad Loth in quibus et ille vir iustus qui de Sodomorum incendio meruit liberari ad unum dominum loquitur. Sic enim sequitur scriptura dicens: Abiit autem dominus postquam cessavit loquens ad Abraham, et Abraham reuersus est ad locum suum. Venerunt autem duo angeli in Sodomis uespere.	21. For, 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 contradiction, 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. For 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.
[2.12.21] Hic attentius considerandum est quod ostendere institui. Cum tribus certe loquebatur Abraham et eum dominum singulariter appellavit. 'Forte,' inquit aliquis, 'unum ex tribus agnoscebat dominum, altos autem duos angelos eius.' Quid sibi ergo vult quod consequenter dicit scriptura: Abiit autem dominus postquam cessavit loquens ad Abraham, et Abraham reuersus est ad locum suum. Venerunt autem duo angeli in Sodomis uespere? An forte ille unus abscesserat qui dominus cognoscebatur in tribus, et duos angelos qui cum illo erant ad consumendam Sodoma miserat? Ergo sequentia videamus. Venerunt, inquit, duo angeli in Sodomis uespere. Loth autem sedebat ad portam Sodomorum. Et cum vidisset eos Loth, surrexit in obuiam illis et adoravit in faciem super terram et dixit: Ecce, domini, divertite in domum pueri uestri. Hic manifestum est et duos angelos fuisse et in hospitium pluraliter inuitatos et honorifice appellatos dominos cum fortasse homines putarentur.	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 recognized 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 angels to Sodom at even? Are we to suppose that the one who, among the three, was recognized as the Lord, had departed, 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 honorably designated lords, when they perchance were thought to be men.
[2.12.22] Sed rursus moves quia nisi angeli dei cognoscerentur, non adoraret Loth in faciem super terram. Cur ergo tamquam tall humanitate indigentibus et hospitium praebetur et victus? Sed quodlibet hic lateat, illud nunc quod suscepimus exsequamur. Duo apparent; angeli ambo dicuntur; pluraliter inuitantur tamquam cum duobus pluraliter loquitur donec exeatur a Sodomis. Deinde sequitur scriptura et dicit: Et factum est postquam eduxerunt eos foras et dixerunt: Saluans salua animam tuam; ne respexeris retro neque stes in hac universa regione; in montem uade et ibi saluaberis ne forte comprehendaris. Dixit autem Loth ad eos: Rogo, domine, quoniam invenit puer tuus ante te misericordiam... etc. Quid est hoc: Dixit ad eos: Rogo, domine si iam ille discesserat qui dominus erat et angelos miserat? Cur dicitur, Rogo, domine, et non, 'Rogo, domini'? Aut si unum ex eis voluit appellare, cur ait scripturae Dixit autem Loth ad eos: Rogo, domine, quondam invenit puer tuus ante te misericordiam? An et hic intellegimus in pluralium ero personas duas, cum autem idem duo tamquam unus conpellantur, unius substantiae unum dominum deum? Sed quas duas personas hic intellegimus? Patris et filii, an patris et spiritus sancti, an filii et spiritus sancti? Hoc forte congruentius quod ultimum dixi. Missos enim se dixerunt, quod de filio et de spiritu sancto dicimus. Nam patrem missum nusquam scripturarum nobis occurrit.	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 succor? But whatever may here lie hidden, 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 your life; look not behind you, neither stay in all the plain; escape to the mountain, and there you shall be saved, lest you be consumed. And Lot said unto them, Oh! not so, my lord: behold now, your servant has found grace in your sight, etc. What is meant by his saying 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? 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, your servant has found grace in your sight, etc.? Are we here, too, to understand two persons in the plural number, but when the two are addressed as one, then the one Lord God of one substance? But which two persons do we here understand?— 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? The last, perhaps, is the more suitable; for they said of themselves 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.
[2.13.23] Moyses autem quando ad populum Israhel ex Aegypto educendum missus est, sic ei dominum apparuisse scriptum est: Pascebat, inquit, oves Iethro soceri sui sacerdotis Madian, et egit oves in desertum et venit in montem dei Choreb. Apparuit autem illi angelus domini in fiamma ignis de rubo. Et vidit quia in rubo arderet ignis, rubus vero non comburebatur. Et ait Moyses: Ibo et videbo visum istud quod tam magnum vidi quondam non comburitur rubus. Cum ergo vidit dominus quia venit videre, clamavit eum dominus de rubo dicens: Ego sum deus patris tui, deus Abraham et deus Isaac et deus Iacob. Et hic primo angelus domini dictus est deinde deus. Numquid ergo angelus est deus Abraham et deus Isaac et deus Iacob? Potest ergo recte intellegi ipse saluator de quo dicit apostolus: Quorum patres et ex quibus Christus secundum carnem, qui est super omnia deus benedictus in saecula. Qui ergo super omnia est deus benedictus in saecula non absurde etiam hic ipse intellegitur deus Abraham et deus Isaac et deus Iacob. Sed cur prius angelus domini dictus est cum de rubo in flamma ignis apparuit? Utrum quia unus ex multis angelis, erat sed per dispensationem personam domini sui gerebat, an assumptum erat aliquid creaturae quod ad praesens negotium visibiliter appareret et unde voces sensibiliter ederentur quibus praesentia domini per subiectam creaturam corporeis etiam sensibus hominis sicut oportebat exhiberetur? Si enim unus ex angelis erat, quis facile affirmare possit utrum ei filii persona nuntianda imposita fuerit an spiritus sancti an dei patris an ipsius omnino trinitatis qui est unus et solus deus ut diceret: Ego sum deus Abraham et deus Isaac et deus Iacob? Neque enim possumus dicere deum Abraham et deum Isaac et deum Iacob filium dei esse et patrem non esse. Aut spiritum sanctum aut ipsam trinitatem quam credimus et intellegimus unum deum audebit aliquis negare deum Abraham et deum Isaac et deum Iacob? Ille enim non est illorum patrum deus qui non est deus. Porro si non solum pater deus est sicut omnes etiam haeretici concedunt, sed etiam filius quod velint nolint coguntur fateri dicente apostolo: Qui est super omnia deus benedictus in saecula, et spiritus sanctus dicente ipso apostolo: Clarificate ergo deum in corpore uestro cum supra diceret: Nescitis quia corpora uestra templum in vobis spiritus sancti est quem habetis a deo? et hi tres unus deus sicut catholica sanitas credit, non satis elucet quam in trinitate personam, et utrum aliquam an ipsius trinitatis gerebat ille angelus, si unus ex caeteris angelis erat. Si autem in usum rei praesentis assumpta creatura est quae humanis et oculis appareret et auribus insonaret et appellaretur et angelus domini et dominus et deus, non potest hic deus pater intellegi, sed aut filius aut spiritus sanctus, quamquam spiritum sanctum alicubi angelum dictum non recolam. Sed ex opere possit intellegi; dictum enim de illo est: Quae ventura sunt annuntiabit vobis et utique angelus graece, latine nuntius interpretatur. De domino autem Iesu Christo evidentissime legimus apud prophetam quod magni consilii angelus dictus sit, cum et spiritus sanctus et dei filius sit deus et dominus angelorum.	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: Now 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 your 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 [or arrangement] 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 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. Furthermore, 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, Do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost, which is in you, which you have of God? 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.
[2.14.24] Item in exitu de Aegypto filiorum Israhel scriptum est: Deus autem praeibat illos, die quidem in columna nubis et ostendebat illis viam, nocte autem in columna ignis; et non deficiebat columna nubis die et columna ignis nocte ante populum. Quis et hic dubitet per subiectam creaturam eandemque corpoream non per suam substantiam deum oculis apparuisse mortalium? Sed utrum patrem an filium an spiritum sanctum an ipsam trinitatem unum deum similiter non apparet. Nec ibi hoc distinguitur, quantum existimo, ubi scriptum est: Et maiestas domini apparuit in nube, et locutus est dominus ad Moysen dicens: Exaudivi murmur filiorum Israhel... etc.	24. Also in the going forth of the children of Israel from Egypt it is written, And the Lord went before them, by day in a pillar of cloud to lead them 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 corporeal creature made subject to Him, and not by His own substance? But it is not similarly apparent whether the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit, or the Trinity itself, 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 spoke unto Moses, saying, I have heard the murmurings of the children of Israel, etc.
[2.15.25] Iam vero de nubilous et vocibus et fulguribus et tuba et fumo in monte Sina cum diceretur: Sina autem mons fumabat totus propterea quod descendisset deus in eum in igne, et ascendebat fumus tamquam fumus fornacis. Et mente confusus est omnis populus uehementer, fiebant autem voces tubae prodeuntes fortiter valde. Moyses loquebatur et deus respondebat ei voce. Et paulo post data lege in decem praeceptis consequenter dicitur: Et omnis populus videbat voces et lampadas et voces tubae et montem fumantem. Et paulo post: Et stabat, inquit, omnis populus a longe. Moyses autem intravit in nebulam ubi erat deus, et dixit dominus ad Moysen... etc. Quid hinc dicam nisi quod nemo tam uecors est qui credat fumum, ignem, nubes et nebulam et si qua huiusmodi verbi et sapientiae dei quod est Christus vel spiritus sancti esse substantiam? Nam de patre deo nec arriani hoc umquam ausi sunt dicere. Ergo creatura seruiente creatorifacta sunt illa omnia et humanis sensibus pro dispensatione congrua praesentata, nisi forte quia dictum est: Moyses autem intravit in nebulam ubi erat deus hoc arbitrabitur carnalis cogitatio, a populo quidem nebulam visam, intra nebulam vero Moysen oculis carneis vidisse filium dei quem delirantes haeretici in sua substantia visum volunt. Sane viderit eum Moyses oculis carneis si oculis carneis potest videri non modo sapientia dei quod est Christus, sed vel ipsa cuiuslibet hominis et qualiscumque sapientis. Aut quia scriptum est de senioribus Israhel quia viderunt locum ubi steterat deus Israhel et quia sub pedibus eius tamquam opus lapidis sapphiri et tamquam aspectus firmamenti caeli, propterea credendum est verbum et sapientiam dei per suam substantiam in spatio loci terreni stetisse, quae pertendit a fine usque in finem fortiter et disponit omnia suaviter, et ita esse mutabile verbum dei per quod facta sunt omnia ut modo se contrahat modo distendat? Mundet dominus a talibus cogitationibus corda fidelium suorum. Sed per subiectam, ut saepe diximus, creaturam exhibentur haec omnia visibilia et sensibilia ad significandum inuisibilem atque intellegibilem deum, non solum patrem sed et filium et spiritum sanctum, ex quo omnia, per quem omnia, in quo omnia; quamvis inuisibilia dei a creatura mundi per ea quae facta sunt intellecta conspiciantur, sempiterna quoque virtus eius ac divinitas.	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 spoke, and God answered 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 (dispensatio) to human senses; unless, perhaps, because it is said, And Moses drew near to the cloud where God was, carnal thoughts 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 reaches firmly from end to end, and sweetly orders all things; and that the Word of God, by whom all things were made, is in such wise changeable, as now to contract, 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 invisible 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.
[2.15.26] Sed quod attinet ad id quod nunc suscepimus nec in monte Sina video quemadmodum appareat per illa omnia quae mortalium sensibus terribiliter ostendebantur utrum deus trinitas an pater an filius an spiritus sanctus proprie loquebatur. Verumtamen si quid hinc sine affirmandi temeritate modeste atque cunctanter coniectare conceditur, si una ex trinitate persona potest intellegi, cur non spiritum sanctum potius intellegimus quando et tabulis lapideis lex ipsa quae ibi data est digito dei scripta dicitur, quo nomine spiritum sanctum in euangelio significari novimus. Et quinquaginta dies numerantur ab occisione agni et celebratione paschae usque ad diem quo haec fieri coepta sunt in monte Sina, sicut post domini passionem ab eius resurrectione quinquaginta dies numerantur et venit promissus a filio dei spiritus sanctus. Et in ipso eius adventu quem in apostolorum actibus legimus, per divisionem linguarum ignis apparuit qui et insedit super unumquemque eorum, quod exodo congruit ubi scriptum est: Sina autem mons fumabat totus propterea quod descendisset in eum deus in igne et aliquanto post: Aspectus, inquit, maiestatis domini tamquam ignis ardens super verticem montis coram filiis Israhel. Aut si haec ideo facta sunt quia nec pater nec filius illic eo modo praesentari poterant sine spiritu sancto quo ipsam legem scribi oportebat, deum quidem non per substantiam suam quae inuisibilis et incommutabilis manet sed per illam speciem creaturae illic apparuisse cognoscimus. Sed aliquam ex trinitate personam signo quodam proprio, quantum ad mei sensus capacitatem pertinet, non videmus.	26. But as far as concerns our present undertaking, neither on Mount Sinai do I see how it appears, by all those things which were fearfully displayed to the senses of mortal men, whether God the Trinity spoke, or the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit severally. But if it is allowable, without rash assertion, to venture upon a modest and hesitating conjecture from this passage, if it is possible to understand it of one person of the Trinity, why do we not rather understand the Holy Spirit to be spoken of, since the Law itself also, which was given there, is said to have been written upon tables of stone with the finger of God, by which name we know the Holy Spirit to be signified in the Gospel. And fifty days are numbered from the slaying of the lamb and the celebration of the Passover until the day in which these things began to be done in Mount Sinai; just as after the passion of our Lord fifty days are numbered from His resurrection, and then came the Holy Spirit which the Son of God had promised. And in that very coming of His, which we read of in the Acts of the Apostles, there appeared cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them: which agrees with Exodus, where it is written, And Mount Sinai was altogether on a smoke, because the Lord descended upon it in fire; and a little after, And the sight of the glory of the Lord, he says, was like devouring fire on the top of the mount in the eyes of the children of Israel. Or if these things were therefore wrought because neither the Father nor the Son could be there presented in that mode without the Holy Spirit, by whom the Law itself must needs be written; then we know doubtless that God appeared there, not by His own substance, which remains invisible and unchangeable, but by the appearance above mentioned of the creature; but that some special person of the Trinity appeared, distinguished by a proper mark, as far as my capacity of understanding reaches, we do not see.
[2.16.27] Est etiam quo plerique moveri solent quia scriptum est: Et locutus est dominus ad Moysen facie ad faciem sicut quis loquitur ad amicum suum cum paulo post dicat idem Moyses: Si ergo inveni gratiam ante te, ostende mihi temetipsum manifeste ut videam te, ut sim inveniens gratiam ante te et ut sciam quia populus tuus est gens haec et paulo post iterum: Dixitque Moyses ad dominum: Ostende mihi maiestatem tuam. Quid est hoc quod in omnibus quae supra fiebant deus videri per suam substantiam putabatur, unde a miseris creditus est non per creaturam sed per se ipsum visibilis filius dei, et quod intraverat in nebulam Moyses ad hoc intrasse videbatur ut oculis quidem populi ostenderetur caligo nebulosa, ille autem intus verba dei tamquam eius faciem contemplatus audiret? Et quomodo dictum est: Locutus est dominus ad Moysen facie ad faciem sicut quis loquitur ad amicum suum? Ecce idem dicit: Si inveni gratiam in conspectu tuo, ostende mihi temetipsum manifeste. Noverat utique quod corporaliter videbat, et veram visionem dei spiritaliter requirebat. Locutio quippe illa quae fiebat in vocibus sic modificabatur tamquam esset amici loquentis ad amicum. Sed deum patrem quis corporeis oculis videt? Et quod in principio erat verbum et verbum erat apud deum et deus erat verbum per quod facta sunt omnia quis corporeis oculis videt? Et spiritum sapientiae quis corporeis oculis videt? Quid est autem: Ostende mihi temetipsum manifeste ut videam te nisi ostende mihi substantiam tuam? Hoc autem si non dixisset Moyses, utcumque ferendi essent stulti qui putant per ea quae supra gesta vel dicta sunt substantiam dei oculis eius fuisse conspicuam; cum vero hic apertissime demonstretur nec desideranti hoc fuisse concessum, quis audeat dicere per similes formas quae huic quoque visibiliter apparuerant non creaturam deos eruientem sed hoc ipsum quod deus est cuiusquam oculis apparuisse mortalium?	26. There is yet another difficulty which troubles most people, viz. that it is written, And the Lord spoke unto Moses face to face, as a man speaks unto his friend; whereas a little after, the same Moses says, Now therefore, I pray You, if I have found grace in Your sight, show me now Yourself plainly, that I may see You, that I may find grace in Your sight, and that I may consider that this nation is Your people; and a little after Moses again said to the Lord, Show me Your glory. What means this then, that in everything which was done, as above said, God was thought to have appeared by His own substance; whence the Son of God has been believed by these miserable people to be visible not by the creature, but by Himself; and that Moses, entering into the cloud, appeared to have had this very object in entering, that a cloudy darkness indeed might be shown to the eyes of the people, but that Moses within might hear the words of God, as though he beheld His face; and, as it is said, And the Lord spoke unto Moses face to face, as a man speaks unto his friend; and yet, behold, the same Moses says, If I have found grace in Your sight, show me Yourself plainly? Assuredly he knew that he saw corporeally, and he sought the true sight of God spiritually. And that mode of speech accordingly which was wrought in words, was so modified, as if it were of a friend speaking to a friend. Yet who sees God the Father with the eyes of the body? And that Word, which was in the beginning, the Word which was with God, the Word which was God, by which all things were made, — who sees Him with the eyes of the body? And the spirit of wisdom, again, who sees with the eyes of the body? Yet what is, Show me now Yourself plainly, that I may see You, unless, Show me Your substance? But if Moses had not said this, we must indeed have borne with those foolish people as we could, who think that the substance of God was made visible to his eyes through those things which, as above mentioned, were said or done. But when it is here demonstrated most evidently that this was not granted to him, even though he desired it; who will dare to say, that by the like forms which had appeared visibly to him also, not the creature serving God, but that itself which is God, appeared to the eyes of a mortal man?
[2.16.28] Et hic quidem quod postea dominus dicit ad Moysen: Non poteris videre faciem meam et vivere; non enim videbit homo faciem meam et vivet. Et ait dominus: Ecce locus penes me, et stabis super patram statim ut transiet mea maiestas, et ponam te in spelunca patrae. Et tegam manu mea super te donec transeam, et auferam manum, et tunc videbis posteriora mea; nam facies mea non apparebit tibi.	28. Add, too, that which the Lord afterward said to Moses, You can not see my face: for there shall no man see my face, and live. And the Lord said, Behold, there is a place by me, and you shall stand upon a rock: and it shall come to pass, while my glory passes by, that I will put you into a watchtower of the rock, and will cover you with my hand while I pass by: and I will take away my hand, and you shall see my back parts; but my face shall not be seen.
[2.17.28] Non incongruenter ex persona domini nostri Iesu Christi praefiguratum soles intellegi ut posteriora eius accipiantur caro eius in qua de virgine natus est et mortuus et resurrexit, sive propter postremitatem mortalitatis posteriora dicta sint, sive quod eam prope in fine saeculi hoc est posterius, suscipere dignatus est. Facies autem eius ilia dei forma in qua non rapinam arbitratus esse aequalis deo patri, quod nemo utique potest videre et vivere; sive quia post hanc vitam in qua peregrinamur a domino et ubi corpus quod corrumpitur aggrauat animam, videbimus facie ad faciem sicut dicit apostolus. De hac enim vita in psalmis dicitur: Verumtamen universa uanitas omnis homo vivens et iterum: Quoniam non iustificabitur in conspectu tuo omnis vivens. In qua vita etiam secundum Iohannem nondum apparuit quod erimus. Scimus, inquit, quia cum apparuerit, similes ei erimus quoniam videbimus eum sicuti est quod utique post hanc vitam intellegi voluit cum mortis debitum soluerimus et resurrectionis promissum receperimus -- sive quod etiam nunc in quantum dei sapientiam per quam facta sunt omnia spiritaliter intellegimus, in tantum carnalibus affectibus morimur ut mortuum nobis hunc mundum deputantes nos quoque ipsi huic mundo moriamur et dicamus quod ait apostolus: Mundus mihi crucifixus est et ego mundo. De hac enim morte item dicit: Si autem mortui estis cum Christo, quid adhuc velut viventes de hoc mundo decernitis? Non ergo immerito nemo poterit faciem, id est ipsam manifestationem sapientiae dei, videre et vivere. Ipsa est enim species cui contemplandae suspirat omnis qui affectat diligere deum ex toto corde et ex tota anima et ex tota mente ad quam contemplandam etiam proximum quantum potest aedificat qui diligit et proximum sicut se ipsum, in quibus duobus praeceptis tota lex pendet et prophetae Quod significatur etiam in ipso Moyse. Nam cum dixisset propter dilectionem dei qua praecipue flagrabat: Si inveni gratiam in conspectu tuo, ostende mihi temetipsum manifeste ut sim inveniens gratiam ante te continuo propter dilectionem etiam proximi subiecit atque ait: Et ut sciam quia populus tuus est gens haec. Illa est ergo species quae rapit omnem animam rationalem desiderio sui tanto ardentiorem quanto mundiorem et tanto mundiorem quanto ad spiritalia resurgentem, tanto autem ad spiritalia resurgentem quanto a carnalibus morientem. Sed dum peregrinamur a domino et per fidem ambulamus non per speciem posteriora Christi, hoc est carnem, per ipsam fidem videre debemus, id est in solido fidei fundamento stantes quod significat patra, et eam de tali tutissima specula intuentes, in catholica scilicet ecclesia de qua dictum est: Et super hanc patram aedificabo ecclesiam meam. Tanto enim certius diligimus quam videre desideramus faciem Christi quanto in posterioribus eius agnoscimus quantum nos prior dilexerit Christus.	Not unfitly is it commonly understood to be prefigured from the person of our Lord Jesus Christ, that His back parts are to be taken to be His flesh, in which He was born of the Virgin, and died, and rose again; whether they are called back parts on account of the posteriority of mortality, or because it was almost in the end of the world, that is, at a late period, that He deigned to take it: but that His face was that form of God, in which He thought it not robbery to be equal with God, which no one certainly can see and live; whether because after this life, in which we are absent from the Lord, and where the corruptible body presses down the soul, we shall see face to face, as the apostle says— (for it is said in the Psalms, of this life, Verily every man living is altogether vanity; and again, For in Your sight shall no man living be justified; and in this life also, according to John, It does not yet appear what we shall be, but we know, he says, that when He shall appear, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is, which he certainly intended to be understood as after this life, when we shall have paid the debt of death, and shall have received the promise of the resurrection);— or whether that even now, in whatever degree we spiritually understand the wisdom of God, by which all things were made, in that same degree we die to carnal affections, so that, considering this world dead to us, we also ourselves die to this world, and say what the apostle says, The world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world. For it was of this death that he also says, Wherefore, if you be dead with Christ, why as though living in the world are you subject to ordinances? Not therefore without cause will no one be able to see the face, that is, the manifestation itself of the wisdom of God, and live. For it is this very appearance, for the contemplation of which every one sighs who strives to love God with all his heart, and with all his soul, and with all his mind; to the contemplation of which, he who loves his neighbor, too, as himself builds up his neighbor also as far as he may; on which two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. And this is signified also in Moses himself. For when he had said, on account of the love of God with which he was specially inflamed, If I have found grace in your sight, show me now Yourself plainly, that I may find grace in Your sight; he immediately subjoined, on account of the love also of his neighbor, And that I may know that this nation is Your people. It is therefore that appearance which hurries away every rational soul with the desire of it, and the more ardently the more pure that soul is; and it is the more pure the more it rises to spiritual things; and it rises the more to spiritual things the more it dies to carnal things. But while we are absent from the Lord, and walk by faith, not by sight, we ought to see the back parts of Christ, that is His flesh, by that very faith, that is, standing on the solid foundation of faith, which the rock signifies, and beholding it from such a safe watchtower, namely in the Catholic Church, of which it is said, And upon this rock I will build my Church. For so much the more certainly we love that face of Christ, which we earnestly desire to see, as we recognize in His back parts how much first Christ loved us.
[2.17.29] Sed in ipsa carne fides resurrectionis eius saluos facit atque iustificat. Si enim credideris, inquit, in corde tuo quia deus illum suscitavit a mortuis, saluus eris et iterum: Qui traditus est, inquit, propter delicta nostra et resurrexit propter iustificationem nostram. Ideoque meritum fidei nostrae resurrectio corporis domini est. Nam mortuam esse illam carnem in cruce passionis etiam inimici eius credunt, sed resurrexisse non credunt. Quod firmissime nos credentes tamquam de patrae soliditate contuemur, unde certa spe adoptionem exspectamus redemptionem corporis nostri quia hoc in membris Christi speramus quae nos ipsi sumus quod perfectum esse in ipso tamquam in capite nostro fidei sanitate cognoscimus. Inde non vult nisi cum transierit videri posteriora sua ut in eius resurrectionem credatur. Pascha enim hebraeum verbum dicitur quod transitum interpretamur. Unde et Iohannes euangelista dicit: Ante diem autem festum paschae sciens Iesus quia venit eius hora ut transeat de hoc mundo ad patrem.	29. But in the flesh itself, the faith in His resurrection saves and justifies us. For, If you shall believe, he says, in your heart, that God has raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved; and again, Who was delivered, he says, for our offenses, and was raised again for our justification. So that the reward of our faith is the resurrection of the body of our Lord. For even His enemies believe that that flesh died on the cross of His passion, but they do not believe it to have risen again. Which we believing most firmly, gaze upon it as from the solidity of a rock: whence we wait with certain hope for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body; because we hope for that in the members of Christ, that is, in ourselves, which by a sound faith we acknowledge to be perfect in Him as in our Head. Thence it is that He would not have His back parts seen, unless as He passed by, that His resurrection may be believed. For that which is Pascha in Hebrew, is translated Passover. Whence John the Evangelist also says, Before the feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that His hour had come, that He should pass out of this world unto the Father.
[2.17.30] Hoc autem qui credunt nec tamen in catholica sed in schismate aliquo aut in haeresi credunt non de loco qui est penes eum vident posteriora domini. Quid enim sibi vult quod ait dominus: Ecce locus est penes me, et stabis super patram? Quis locus terrenus est penes dominum nisi hoc est penes eum quod eum spiritaliter attingit? Nam quis locus non est penes dominum qui attingit a fine usque in finem fortiter et disponit omnia suaviter et cuius dictum est caelum sedes et terra scabellum pedum eius, et qui dixit: Quam domum aedificabitis mihi? Aut quis locus quietis meae? Nonne manus mea fecit haec omnia? Sed videlicet intellegitur locus penes eum in quo statur super patram ipsa ecclesia catholica ubi salubriter videt pascha domini, id est transitum domini, et posteriora eius, id est corpus eius, qui credit in resurrectionem eius. Et stabis, inquit, super patram statim ut transiet mea maiestas. Re vera enim statim ut transiit maiestas domini in clarificatione domini qua resurgens ascendit ad patrem solidati sumus super patram. Et ipse Petrus tunc solidatus est ut cum fiducia praedicaret quem priusquam esset solidatus ter timore negaverat, iam quidem praedestinatione positus in specula patrae sed adhuc menu domini sibi superposita ne videret. Posteriora enim eius visurus erat et nondum ille transierat utique a morte ad vitam; nondum resurrectione clarificatus erat.	30. But they who believe this, but believe it not in the Catholic Church, but in some schism or in heresy, do not see the back parts of the Lord from the place that is by Him. For what does that mean which the Lord says, Behold, there is a place by me, and you shall stand upon a rock? What earthly place is by the Lord, unless that is by Him which touches Him spiritually? For what place is not by the Lord, who reaches from one end to another mightily, and sweetly does order all things, and of whom it is said, Heaven is His throne, and earth is His footstool; and who said, Where is the house that you build unto me, and where is the place of my rest? For has not my hand made all those things? But manifestly the Catholic Church itself is understood to be the place by Him, wherein one stands upon a rock, where he healthfully sees the Pascha Domini, that is, the Passing by of the Lord, and His back parts, that is, His body, who believes in His resurrection. And you shall stand, He says, upon a rock while my glory passes by. For in reality, immediately after the majesty of the Lord had passed by in the glorification of the Lord, in which He rose again and ascended to the Father, we stood firm upon the rock. And Peter himself then stood firm, so that he preached Him with confidence, whom, before he stood firm, he had thrice from fear denied; although, indeed, already before placed in predestination upon the watchtower of the rock, but with the hand of the Lord still held over him that he might not see. For he was to see His back parts, and the Lord had not yet passed by, namely, from death to life; He had not yet been glorified by the resurrection.
[2.17.31] Nam et quod sequitur in exodo et dicit: Tegam manu mea super te donec transeam, et auferam manum et tunc videbis posteriora mea. Multi israhelitae quorum tunc erat figura Moyses post resurrectionem domini crediderunt in eum tamquam iam videntes posteriora eius remote menu eius ab oculis suds. Unde et Esaiae talem prophetiam euangelista commemorat: Incrassa cor populi huius et aures eorum oppila et oculos eorum graua. Denique in psalmo non absurde intellegitur ex eorum persona dici: Quoniam die ac nocte grauata est super me manus tua die fortasse cum manifesta miracula faceret nec ab eis agnosceretur; nocte autem cum in passione moreretur quando certius putaverunt sicut quemlibet hominem peremptum et exstinctum. Sed quondam cum transisset ut eius posteriora viderentur praedicante sibi apostolo Petro quia oportebat Christum pati et resurgere, compuncti sunt dolore poenitentiae ut fieret in baptizatis quod in capite psalmi eius dicitur: Beati quorum remissae sunt iniquitates et quorum tecta sunt peccata. Propterea cum dictum esset: Grauata est super me manus tua tamquam domino transeunte ut iam removeret manum et viderentur posteriora eius, sequitur vox dolentis et confitentis et ex fide resurrectionis domini peccatorum remissionem accipientis: Conversus sum, inquit, in aerumna dum confringeretur spina. Peccatum meum cognovi et iniustitiam meam non operui. Dixi: Pronuntiabo adversum me iniustitiam meam domino et tu dimisisti impietatem cordis mei. Neque enim tanto carnis nubilo debemus inuolui ut putemus faciem quidem esse domini inuisibilem, dorsum vero visibile, quandoquidem in forma serui utrumque visibiliter apparuit; in forma autem dei absit ut tale aliquid cogitetur. Absit ut verbum dei et sapientia dei ex una parte habeat faciem, ex alia dorsum sicut corpus humanum, aut omnino ulla specie vel motione sive loco sive tempore commutetur.	31. For as to that, too, which follows in Exodus, I will cover you with mine hand while I pass by, and I will take away my hand and you shall see my back parts; many Israelites, of whom Moses was then a figure, believed in the Lord after His resurrection, as if His hand had been taken off from their eyes, and they now saw His back parts. And hence the evangelist also mentions that prophesy of Isaiah, Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes. Lastly, in the Psalm, that is not unreasonably understood to be said in their person, For day and night Your hand was heavy upon me. By day, perhaps, when He performed manifest miracles, yet was not acknowledged by them; but by night, when He died in suffering, when they thought still more certainly that, like any one among men, He was cut off and brought to an end. But since, when He had already passed by, so that His back parts were seen, upon the preaching to them by the Apostle Peter that it behooved Christ to suffer and rise again, they were pricked in their hearts with the grief of repentance, that that might come to pass among the baptized which is said in the beginning of that Psalm, Blessed are they whose transgressions are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; therefore, after it had been said, Your hand is heavy upon me, the Lord, as it were, passing by, so that now He removed His hand, and His back parts were seen, there follows the voice of one who grieves and confesses and receives remission of sins by faith in the resurrection of the Lord: My moisture, he says, is turned into the drought of summer. I acknowledged my sin unto You, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord, and You forgave the iniquity of my sin. For we ought not to be so wrapped up in the darkness of the flesh, as to think the face indeed of God to be invisible, but His back visible, since both appeared visibly in the form of a servant; but far be it from us to think anything of the kind in the form of God; far be it from us to think that the Word of God and the Wisdom of God has a face on one side, and on the other a back, as a human body has, or is at all changed either in place or time by any appearance or motion.
[2.17.32] Quapropter si in illis vocibus quae fiebant in exodo et illis omnibus corporalibus demonstrationibus dominus Iesus Christus ostendebatur, aut alias Christus sicut loci huius consideratio persuadet, alias spiritus sanctus sicut ea quae supra diximus admonent, non hoc efficitur ut deus pater numquam tali aliqua specie patribus visus sit. Multa enim talia visa facta sunt illis temporibus non evidenter nominato et designato in eis vel patre vel filio vel spiritu sancto, sed tamen per quasdam valde probabiles significationes nonnullis indiciis exsistentibus ut nimis temerarium sit dicere deum patrem numquam patribus aut prophetis per aliquas visibiles formas apparuisse. Hanc enim opinionem illi pepererunt qui non potuerunt in unitate trinitatis intellegere quod dictum est: Regi autem saeculorum immortali, inuisibili soli deo, et Quem nemo hominum vidit nec videre potest quod de ipsa substantia summa summeque divina et incommutabili ubi et pater et filius et spiritus sanctus unus et solus deus per sanam fidem intellegitur. Visiones autem illae per creaturam commutabilem deo incommutabili subditam factae sunt, non proprie sicuti est, sed significative sicut pro rerum causis et temporibus oportuit ostendentes deum.	32. Wherefore, if in those words which were spoken in Exodus, and in all those corporeal appearances, the Lord Jesus Christ was manifested; or if in some cases Christ was manifested, as the consideration of this passage persuades us, in others the Holy Spirit, as that which we have said above admonishes us; at any rate no such result follows, as that God the Father never appeared in any such form to the Fathers. For many such appearances happened in those times, without either the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit being expressly named and designated in them; but yet with some intimations given through certain very probable interpretations, so that it would be too rash to say that God the Father never appeared by any visible forms to the fathers or the prophets. For they gave birth to this opinion who were not able to understand in respect to the unity of the Trinity such texts as, Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God; and, Whom no man has seen, nor can see. Which texts are understood by a sound faith in that substance itself, the highest, and in the highest degree divine and unchangeable, whereby both the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit is the one and only God. But those visions were wrought through the changeable creature, made subject to the unchangeable God, and did not manifest God properly as He is, but by intimations such as suited the causes and times of the several circumstances.
[2.18.33] Quamquam nescio quemadmodum isti intellegant quod Danieli apparuerit antiquus dierum a quo filius hominis quod propter nos esse dignatus est accepisse intellegitur regnum, ab illo scilicet qui ei dicit in psalmis: Filius meus es tu, ego hodie genui te; postula a me, et dabo tibi gentes haereditatem tuam, et qui omnia subiecit sub pedibus eius. Si ergo Danieli et pater dans regnum et filius accipiens apparuerunt in specie corporali, quomodo isti dicunt patrem numquam visum esse prophetis et ideo solum debere intellegi inuisibilem, quem nemo hominum vidit nec videre potest? Ita enim narravit Daniel: Aspiciebam, inquit, donec throni positi sunt, et uetustus dierum sedebat. Et indumentum eius quasi nix album, et capillus capitis eius quasi lana munda; thronus eius flamma ignis, rotae eius ignis flagrans, et fiumen ignis trahebat in conspectu eius. Et mille milia deseruiebant ei, et dena milia denum milium assistebant ei. Et iudicium conlocavit, et libri aperti sunt... etc. Et paulo post: Aspiciebam, inquit, in visu noctis; et ecce cum caeli nubibus quasi filius hominis veniens erat, et usque ad ueterem dierum pervenit et oblatus est ei. Et ipsi datus est principatus et honor et regnum; et omnes populi, tribus, Iinguae ipsi seruient. Potestas eius potestas aeterna quae non praeteribit, et regnum eius non corrumpetur. Ecce pater dans et filius accipiens regnum sempiternum, et sunt ambo in conspectu prophetantis visibili specie. Non ergo inconvenienter creditur etiam deus pater eo modo solere apparere mortalibus.	33. I do not know in what manner these men understand that the Ancient of Days appeared to Daniel, from whom the Son of man, which He deigned to be for our sakes, is understood to have received the kingdom; namely, from Him who says to Him in the Psalms, You are my Son; this day have I begotten You; ask of me, and I shall give You the heathen for Your inheritance; and who has put all things under His feet. If, however, both the Father giving the kingdom, and the Son receiving it, appeared to Daniel in bodily form, how can those men say that the Father never appeared to the prophets, and, therefore, that He only ought to be understood to be invisible whom no man has seen, nor can see? For Daniel has told us thus: I beheld, he says, till the thrones were set, and the Ancient of Days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of His head like the pure wool: His throne was like the fiery flame, and His wheels as burning fire; a fiery stream issued and came forth from before Him: thousand thousands ministered unto Him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before Him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened, etc. And a little after, I saw, he says, in the night visions, and behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of Days, and they brought Him near before Him. And there was given Him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him: His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and His kingdom that which shall not be destroyed. Behold the Father giving, and the Son receiving, an eternal kingdom; and both are in the sight of him who prophesies, in a visible form. It is not, therefore, unsuitably believed that God the Father also was wont to appear in that manner to mortals.
[2.18.34] Nisi forte aliquis dicet ideo non esse visibilem patrem quia in conspectu somniantis apparuit, ideo autem filium visibilem et spiritum sanctum quia Moyses illa omnia vigilans viderit. Quasi vero verbum et sapientiam dei viderit Moyses carnalibus oculis, aut videri spiritus vel humanus potest qui carnem istam vivificat vel ipse corporeus qui ventus dicitur, quanto minus ille spiritus dei qui omnium hominum et angelorum mentes ineffabilu excellentia divinae substantiae supergreditur; aut quisquam tali praecipitetur errore ut audeat dicere filium et spiritum sanctum etiam vigilantibus hominibus esse visibilem, patrem autem non nisi somniantibus. Quomodo ergo de patre solo accipiunt: Quem nemo hominum vidit nec videre potest? An cum dormiunt homines, tunc non sunt homines? Aut qui formare similitudinem corporis potest ad se significandum per visa somniantium non potest form are ipsam corpoream creaturam ad se significandum oculis vigilantium, cum eius ipsa substantia qua est ipse quod est nulla corporis similitudine dormienti, nulla corporea specie vigilanti possit ostendi, sed non solum patris verum etiam filii et spiritus sancti? Et certe qui vigilantium visis moventur ut non patrem sed tantum filium vel spiritum sanctum credant corporalibus hominum apparuisse conspectibus, ut omittam tantam latitudinem sanctarum paginarum et tam multiplicem earum intellegentiam unde nemo sani capitis affirmare debet nusquam personam patris per aliquam speciem corporalem vigilantium oculis demonstratam; sed ut hoc, ut dixi, omittam, quid dicunt de patre nostro Abraham cui certe vigilanti et ministranti, cum scriptura praemisisset dicens: Visus est dominus Abrahae non unus aut duo sed tres apparuerunt viri quorum nullus excelsius aliis eminuisse dictus est, nullus honoratius effulsisse, nullus imperiosius egisse?	34. Unless, perhaps, some one shall say, that the Father is therefore not visible, because He appeared within the sight of one who was dreaming; but that therefore the Son and the Holy Spirit are visible, because Moses saw all those things being awake; as if, forsooth, Moses saw the Word and the Wisdom of God with fleshly eyes, or that even the human spirit which quickens that flesh can be seen, or even that corporeal thing which is called wind—how much less can that Spirit of God be seen, who transcends the minds of all men, and of angels, by the ineffable excellence of the divine substance? Or can any one fall headlong into such an error as to dare to say, that the Son and the Holy Spirit are visible also to men who are awake, but that the Father is not visible except to those who dream? How, then, do they understand that of the Father alone, Whom no man has seen, nor can see.? When men sleep, are they then not men? Or cannot He, who can fashion the likeness of a body to signify Himself through the visions of dreamers, also fashion that same bodily creature to signify Himself to the eyes of those who are awake? Whereas His own very substance, whereby He Himself is that which He is, cannot be shown by any bodily likeness to one who sleeps, or by any bodily appearance to one who is awake; but this not of the Father only, but also of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. And certainly, as to those who are moved by the visions of waking men to believe that not the Father, but only the Son, or the Holy Spirit, appeared to the corporeal sight of men—to omit the great extent of the sacred pages, and their manifold interpretation, such that no one of sound reason ought to affirm that the person of the Father was nowhere shown to the eyes of waking men by any corporeal appearance—but, as I said, to omit this, what do they say of our father Abraham, who was certainly awake and ministering, when, after Scripture had premised, The Lord appeared unto Abraham, not one, or two, but three men appeared to him; no one of whom is said to have stood prominently above the others, no one more than the others to have shone with greater glory, or to have acted more authoritatively?
[2.18.35] Quapropter quoniam in illa tripertita nostra distributione primum quaerere instituimus utrum pater an filius an spiritus sanctus; an aliquando pater aliquando filius, aliquando spiritus sanctus; an sine ulla distinctione personarum sicut dicitur deus unus et solus, id est ipsa trinitas, per illas creaturae formas patribus apparuerit; interrogatis quae potuimus quantum sufficere visum est sanctarum scripturarum locis, nihil aliud, quantum existimo, divinorum sacramentorum modesta et cauta consideratio persuadet nisi ut temere non dicamus quaenam ex trinitate persona cuilibet patrum vel prophetarum in aliquo corpore vel similitudine corporis apparuerit nisi cum continentia lectionis aliqua probabilia circumponit indicia. Ipsa enim natura vel substantia vel essentia vel quolibet alio nomine appellandum est idipsum quod deus est, quidquid illud est, corporaliter videri non potest. Per subiectam vero creaturam non solum filium vel spiritum sanctum sed etiam patrem corporali specie sive similitudine mortalibus sensibus significationem sui dare potuisse credendum est. Quae cum ita sint, ne immoderatius progrediatur secundi huius voluminis longitudo, ea quae restant inconsequentibus videamus. LIBER III	35. Wherefore, since in that our threefold division we determined to inquire, first, whether the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit; or whether sometimes the Father, sometimes the Son, sometimes the Holy Spirit; or whether, without any distinction of persons, as it is said, the one and only God, that is, the Trinity itself, appeared to the fathers through those forms of the creature: now that we have examined, so far as appeared to be sufficient what places of the Holy Scriptures we could, a modest and cautious consideration of divine mysteries leads, as far as I can judge, to no other conclusion, unless that we may not rashly affirm which person of the Trinity appeared to this or that of the fathers or the prophets in some body or likeness of body, unless when the context attaches to the narrative some probable intimations on the subject. For the nature itself, or substance, or essence, or by whatever other name that very thing, which is God, whatever it be, is to be called, cannot be seen corporeally: but we must believe that by means of the creature made subject to Him, not only the Son, or the Holy Spirit, but also the Father, may have given intimations of Himself to mortal senses by a corporeal form or likeness. And since the case stands thus, that this second book may not extend to an immoderate length, let us consider what remains in those which follow.	}