Authors/Augustine/On the Trinity/On the Trinity Book XV

AUGUSTINE'S DE TRINITATE BOOK XV

• 15.1 De excellentia animi ad imaginem creatoris sui conditi. Chapter 1.— God is Above the Mind.
• 15.2 De summo bono quod semper inveniendum quaeritur et quaerendum invenitur. Chapter 2.— God, Although Incomprehensible, is Ever to Be Sought. The Traces of the Trinity are Not Vainly Sought in the Creature.
• 15.3 Quid disputatum quidue sit comprehensum praccedentium ratiocinatione librorum. Chapter 3.— A Brief Recapitulation of All the Previous Books.
• 15.4 In quarum rerum contemplatione summa trinitas inquirenda sit. Chapter 4.— What Universal Nature Teaches Us Concerning God.
• 15.5 Omnia quae de deo digne dici videntur posse in pauciora conferri ut nihil minus dictum intellegatur. Chapter 5.— How Difficult It is to Demonstrate the Trinity by Natural Reason.
• 15.6 Quomodo etiam si unum aliquid eligatur ex multis quo digne appelletur deus, in ipsa una appellatione trinitas deitatis possit intellegi. Chapter 6.— How There is a Trinity in the Very Simplicity of God. Whether and How the Trinity that is God is Manifested from the Trinities Which Have Been Shown to Be in Men.
• 15.7 Quo differat trinitas quae invenitur in imagine dei a trinitate quae deus est. Chapter 7.— That It is Not Easy to Discover the Trinity that is God from the Trinities We Have Spoken of.
• 15.8 De speculo in quo per imaginent dei trinitas eius utcumque intellecta conspicitur. Chapter 8.— How the Apostle Says that God is Now Seen by Us Through a Glass.
• 15.9 De aenigmate et tropicis locutionibus. Chapter 9.— Of the Term Enigma, And of Tropical Modes of Speech.
• 15.10 Quomodo per inspectionem verbi quod est in cogitatione mentis humanae ad agnitionem verbi quod deus est aliquatenus possit accedi. Chapter 10.— Concerning the Word of the Mind, in Which We See the Word of God, as in a Glass and an Enigma.
• 15.11 Sicut verbum hominis significatur per vocem vel quodlibet indicium corporale, ita verbum dei manifestatum esse per carnem. Chapter 11.— The Likeness of the Divine Word, Such as It Is, is to Be Sought, Not in Our Own Outer and Sensible Word, But in the Inner and Mental One. There is the Greatest Possible Unlikeness Between Our Word and Knowledge and the Divine Word and Knowledge.
• 15.12 Quantum distent a vera et perfecta similitudine dei quae in natura mentis utcumque deo similia reperiuntur. Chapter 12.— The Academic Philosophy.
• 15.13 De scientia dei patris cui nihil cuiusquam creaturae indiciis conferatur. Chapter 13.— Still Further of the Difference Between the Knowledge and Word of Our Mind, and the Knowledge and Word of God.
• 15.14 De similitudine et aequalitate patris dei et unigeniti eius consubstantialis et coaeterni. Chapter 14.— The Word of God is in All Things Equal to the Father, from Whom It is.
• 15.15 Quam dissimile sit verbum nostrum mutabile verbo dei incommutabili et aeterno. Chapter 15.— How Great is the Unlikeness Between Our Word and the Divine Word. Our Word Cannot Be or Be Called Eternal.
• 15.16 An volubilitas cogitationis deo inesse credenda sit. Chapter 16.— Our Word is Never to Be Equalled to the Divine Word, Not Even When We Shall Be Like God.
• 15.17 De sancto spiritu qui patri et filio aequalis accipitur et utriusque spiritus dicitur et caritatis nomine intellegitur, cum quaelibet in trinitate persona sit caritas. Chapter 17.— How the Holy Spirit is Called Love, and Whether He Alone is So Called. That the Holy Spirit is in the Scriptures Properly Called by the Name of Love.
• 15.18 De excellentia caritatis quae ita ex deo est ut ipsa sit deus. Chapter 18.— No Gift of God is More Excellent Than Love.
• 15.19 Qua ratione donum dei dicatur spiritus sanctus. Chapter 19.— The Holy Spirit is Called the Gift of God in the Scriptures. By the Gift of the Holy Spirit is Meant the Gift Which is the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is Specially Called Love, Although Not Only the Holy Spirit in the Trinity is Love.
• 15.20 Contra eos qui unigenitunt dei non paternae naturae sed uoluntatis filium esse dixerunt. Chapter 20.— Against Eunomius, Saying that the Son of God is the Son, Not of His Nature, But of His Will. Epilogue to What Has Been Said Already.
• 15.21 De similitudinibus trinitatis divinae quae in natura mentis ad imaginem dei factae reperiri utcumque potuerunt. Chapter 21.— Of the Likeness of the Father and of the Son Alleged to Be in Our Memory and Understanding. Of the Likeness of the Holy Spirit in Our Will or Love.
• 15.22 Tria quae sunt in imagine dei, id est memoria, intellectus et amor, unius esse personae quia non hoc est ei esse quod haec habere. Chapter 22.— How Great the Unlikeness is Between the Image of the Trinity Which We Have Found in Ourselves, and the Trinity Itself.
• 15.23 Quam vera in dei trinitate unitas et quam vera in eiusdem unitate sit trinitas. Chapter 23.— Augustine Dwells Still Further on the Disparity Between the Trinity Which is in Man, and the Trinity Which is God. The Trinity is Now Seen Through a Glass by the Help of Faith, that It May Hereafter Be More Clearly Seen in the Promised Sight Face to Face.
• 15.24 De his qui naturam mentis subtiliter intuentur et eam imaginem dei esse non sentiunt. Chapter 24.— The Infirmity of the Human Mind.
• 15.25 Quam beatos faciat fides recta etiam eos qui de naturis incorporeis nequeunt disputare. Chapter 25.— The Question Why the Holy Spirit is Not Begotten, and How He Proceeds from the Father and the Son, Will Only Be Understood When We are in Bliss.
• 15.26 Interuallis temporum diviniae trinitatis carere naturam. Chapter 26.— The Holy Spirit Twice Given by Christ. The Procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and from the Son is Apart from Time, Nor Can He Be Called the Son of Both.
• 15.27 Quid quodam sermone ad populum disputatum sit de differentia generationis filii et processionis spiritus sancti. Chapter 27.— What It is that Suffices Here to Solve the Question Why the Spirit is Not Said to Be Begotten, and Why the Father Alone is Unbegotten. What They Ought to Do Who Do Not Understand These Things.
• 15.28 PROLOGUS Chapter 28.— The Conclusion of the Book with a Prayer, and an Apology for Multitude of Words.

Latin	Latin
LIBER XV	On the Trinity (Book XV)
	Begins by setting forth briefly and in sum the contents of the previous fourteen books. The argument is then shown to have reached so far as to allow of our now inquiring concerning the Trinity, which is God, in those eternal, incorporeal, and unchangeable things themselves, in the perfect contemplation of which a blessed life is promised to us. But this Trinity, as he shows, is here seen by us as by a mirror and in an enigma, in that it is seen by means of the image of God, which we are, as in a likeness that is obscure and hard of discernment. In like manner, it is shown, that some kind of conjecture and explanation may be gathered respecting the generation of the divine Word, from the word of our own mind, but only with difficulty, on account of the exceeding disparity which is discernible between the two words; and, again, respecting the procession of the Holy Spirit, from the love that is joined thereto by the will.
[15.1.1] Volentes in rebus quae factae sunt ad cognoscendum eum a quo factae sunt exercere lectorem iam pervenimus ad eius imaginem quod est homo in eo quo caeteris animalibus antecellit, id est ratione vel intellegentia, et quidquid aliud de anima rationali vel intellectuali dici potest quod pertineat ad eam rem quae mens vocatur vel animus. Quo nomine nonnulli auctores linguae latinae id quod excellit in homine et non est in pecore ab anima quae inest et pecori suo quodam loquendi more distinguunt. Supra hanc ergo naturam si quaerimus aliquid et verum quaerimus, deus est, natura scilicet non creata, sed creatrix. Quae utrum sit trinitas non solum credentibus divinae scripturae auctoritate, verum etiam intellegentibus aliqua si possumus ratione iam demonstrare debemus. Cur autem 'si possumus' dixerim res ipsa cum quaeri disputando coeperit melius indicabit.	1. Desiring to exercise the reader in the things that are made, in order that he may know Him by whom they are made, we have now advanced so far as to His image, which is man, in that wherein he excels the other animals, i.e. in reason or intelligence, and whatever else can be said of the rational or intellectual soul that pertains to what is called the mind. For by this name some Latin writers, after their own peculiar mode of speech, distinguish that which excels in man, and is not in the beast, from the soul, which is in the beast as well. If, then, we seek anything that is above this nature, and seek truly, it is God—namely, a nature not created, but creating. And whether this is the Trinity, it is now our business to demonstrate not only to believers, by authority of divine Scripture, but also to such as understand, by some kind of reason, if we can. And why I say, if we can, the thing itself will show better when we have begun to argue about it in our inquiry.
[15.2.2] Deus quippe ipse quem quaerimus adivuabit, ut spero, ne sit infructuosus labor noster et intellegamus quemadmodum dictum sit in psalmo sancto: Laetetur cor quaerentium dominum. Quaerite dominum et confirmamini, quaerite faciem eius semper. Videtur enim quod semper quaeritur numquam inveniri, et quomodo iam laetabitur et non potius contristabitur cor quaerentium si non potuerint invenire quod quaerunt? Non enim ait: Laetetur cor 'invenientium' sed quaerentium dominum. Et tamen deum dominum inveniri posse dum quaeritur testatur Esaias propheta cum dicit: Quaerite dominum et mox ut inveneritis inuocate eum, et cum appropinquaverit vobis derelinquat impius vias suas et vir iniquus cogitationes suas. Si ergo quaesitus inveniri potest, cur dictum est: Quaerite faciem eius semper? An et inventus forte quaerendus est? Sic enim sunt incomprehensibilia requirenda ne se existimet nihil invenisse qui quam sit incomprehensibile quod quaerebat potuerit invenire. Cur ergo sic quaerit si incomprehensibile comprehendit esse quod quaerit nisi quia cessandum non est quamdiu in ipsa incomprehensibilium rerum inquisitione proficitur, et melior meliorque fit quaerens tam magnum bonum quod et inveniendum quaeritur et quaerendum invenitur? Nam et quaeritur ut inveniatur dulcius et invenitur ut quaeratur avidius. Secundum hoc accipi potest quod dictum est in libro ecclesiastico dicere sapientiam: Qui me manducant adhuc esurient et qui bibunt me adhuc sitient. Manducant enim et bibunt quia inveniunt, et quia esuriunt ac sitiunt adhuc quaerunt. Fides quaerit, intellectus invenit; propter quod ait propheta: Nisi credideritis, non intellegetis. Et rursus intellectus eum quem invenit adhuc quaerit: Deus enim respexit super filios hominum sicut in psalmo sacro canitur, ut videret si est intellegens aut requirens deum. Ad hoc ergo debet esse homo intellegens ut requirat deum.	2. For God Himself, whom we seek, will, as I hope, help our labors, that they may not be unfruitful, and that we may understand how it is said in the holy Psalm, Let the heart of them rejoice that seek the Lord. Seek the Lord, and be strengthened: seek His face evermore. For that which is always being sought seems as though it were never found; and how then will the heart of them that seek rejoice, and not rather be made sad, if they cannot find what they seek? For it is not said, The heart shall rejoice of them that find, but of them that seek, the Lord. And yet the prophet Isaiah testifies, that the Lord God can be found when He is sought, when he says: Seek the Lord; and as soon as you have found Him, call upon Him: and when He has drawn near to you, let the wicked man forsake his ways, and the unrighteous man his thoughts. If, then, when sought, He can be found, why is it said, Seek ye His face evermore? Is He perhaps to be sought even when found? For things incomprehensible must so be investigated, as that no one may think he has found nothing, when he has been able to find how incomprehensible that is which he was seeking. Why then does he so seek, if he comprehends that which he seeks to be incomprehensible, unless because he may not give over seeking so long as he makes progress in the inquiry itself into things incomprehensible, and becomes ever better and better while seeking so great a good, which is both sought in order to be found, and found in order to be sought? For it is both sought in order that it may be found more sweetly, and found in order that it may be sought more eagerly. The words of Wisdom in the book of Ecclesiasticus may be taken in this meaning: They who eat me shall still be hungry, and they who drink me shall still be thirsty. For they eat and drink because they find; and they still continue seeking because they are hungry and thirst. Faith seeks, understanding finds; whence the prophet says, Unless ye believe, you shall not understand. And yet, again, understanding still seeks Him, whom it finds; for God looked down upon the sons of men, as it is sung in the holy Psalm, to see if there were any that would understand, and seek after God. And man, therefore, ought for this purpose to have understanding, that he may seek after God.
[15.2.3] Satis itaque remorati fuerimus in his quae deus fecit ut per ea cognosceretur ipse qui fecit: Inuisibilia enim eius a creatura mundi per ea quae facta sunt intellecta conspiciuntur. Unde arguuntur in libro sapientiae qui de his quae videntur bona non potuerunt scire eum qui est neque operibus attenuentes agnoverunt artificem, sed aut ignem aut spiritum aut citatum aerem aut gyrum stellarum aut violentiam aquarum aut luminaria caeli rectores orbis terrarum deos putatteritnt. Quoritm quidem si specie delectati haec deos putaverunt, sciant quanto dominator eorum melior est, speciei enim generator creavit ea. A ut si virtutem et operationem eorum mirati sunt, intellegant ab his quanto qui haec constituit fortior est. A magnitudine enim speciei et creaturae cognoscibiliter poterit horum creator videri. Haec de libro sapientiae propterea posui ne me fidelium quispiam frustra et inaniter existimet in creatura prius per quasdam sui generis trinitates quodam modo gradatim donec ad mentem hominis pervenirem quaesisse indicia summae illius trinitatis quam quaerimus cum deum quaerimus.	3. We shall have tarried then long enough among those things that God has made, in order that by them He Himself may be known that made them. For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made. And hence they are rebuked in the book of Wisdom, who could not out of the good things that are seen know Him that is: neither by considering the works did they acknowledge the workmaster; but deemed either fire, or wind, or the swift air or the circle of the stars, or the violent water, or the lights of heaven, to be the gods which govern the world: with whose beauty if they, being delighted, took them to be gods, let them know how much better the Lord of them is; for the first Author of beauty has created them. But if they were astonished at their power and virtue, let them understand by them how much mightier He is that made them. For by the greatness and beauty of the creatures proportionably the Maker of them is seen. I have quoted these words from the book of Wisdom for this reason, that no one of the faithful may think me vainly and emptily to have sought first in the creature, step by step through certain trinities, each of their own appropriate kind, until I came at last to the mind of man, traces of that highest Trinity which we seek when we seek God.
[15.3.4] Sed quoniam disserendi et ratiocinandi necessitas per quattuordecim libros multa nos compulit dicere quae cuncta simul aspicere non valemus ut ad id quod apprehendere volumus ea celeri cogitatione referamus, faciam quantum domino adivuante potuero ut quidguid in singulis voluminibus ad cognitionem disputatione perduxi remota disputatione breviter congeram, et tamquam sub uno mentis aspectu non quemadmodum res quaeque persuasit sed ipsa quae persuasa sunt ponam ne tam longe sint a praecedentibus consequentia ut oblivionem praecedentium faciat inspectio consequentium, aut certe si fecerit, cito possit quod exciderit relegendo recolligi.	4. But since the necessities of our discussion and argument have compelled us to say a great many things in the course of fourteen books, which we cannot view at once in one glance, so as to be able to refer them quickly in thought to that which we desire to grasp, I will attempt, by the help of God, to the best of my power, to put briefly together, without arguing, whatever I have established in the several books by argument as known, and to place, as it were, under one mental view, not the way in which we have been convinced of each point, but the points themselves of which we have been convinced; in order that what follows may not be so far separated from that which precedes, as that the perusal of the former shall produce forgetfulness of the latter; or at any rate, if it have produced such forgetfulness, that what has escaped the memory may be speedily recalled by re-perusal.
[15.3.5] In primo libro secundum scripturas sanctas unitas et aequalitas summae illius trinitatis ostenditur. In secundo et tertio et quarto eadem, sed de filii missione et spiritus sancti diligenter quaestio pertractata tres libros fecit, demonstratumque est non ideo minorem mittente qui missus est quia ille misit, hic missus est cum trinitas quae per omnia aequalis est pariter quoque in sua natura immutabilis et inuisibilis et ubique praesens inseparabiliter operetur. In quinto propter eos quibus ideo videtur non eandem patris et filii esse substantiam quia omne quod de deo dicitur secundum substantiam dici putant, et propterea gignere et gigni vel genitum esse et ingenitum quoniam diversa sunt contendunt substantias esse diversas, demonstratur non omne quod de deo dicitur secundum substantiam dici sicut secundum substantiam dicitur bonus et magnus et si quid aliud ad se dicitur, sed dici etiam relative, id est non ad se sed ad aliquid quod ipse non est, sicut pater ad filium dicitur vel dominus ad creaturam sibi seruientem; ubi si quid relative, id est ad aliquid quod ipse non est, etiam ex tempore dicitur sicuti est: Domine, refugium factus es nobis nihil ei accidere quo mutetur sed omnino ipsum in natura vel essentia sua immutabilem permanere. In sexto quomodo dictus sit Christus ore apostolico dei virtus et dei sapientia sic disputatur ut differatur eadem quaestio diligentius retractanda, utrum a quo est genitus Christus non sit ipse sapientia sed tantum sapientiae suae pater, an sapientia sapientiam genuerit. Sed quodlibet horum esset etiam in hoc libro apparuit trinitatis aequalitas, et non deus triplex sed trinitas; nec quasi aliquid duplum esse patrem et filium ad simplum spiritum sanctum ubi nec tria plus aliquid sunt quam unum horum. Disputatum est etiam quomodo possit intellegi quod ait Hilarius episcopus: Aeternitas in patre, species in imagine, usus in munere. In septimo quaestio quae dilate fuerat explicatur ita ut deus qui genuit filium non solum sit pater virtutis et sapientiae suae sed etiam ipse virtus atque sapientia, sic et spiritus sanctus; nec tamen simul tres sint virtutes aut tres sapientiae sed una virtus et una sapientia sicut unus deus et una essentia. Deinde quaesitum est quomodo dicantur una essentia, tres personae, vel ut a quibusdam graecis, una essentia, tres substantiae; et inventum est elocutionis necessitate dici ut aliquo uno nomine enuntiaretur cum quaeritur quid tres sint, quos tres esse veraciter confitemur, patrem scilicet et filium et spiritum sanctum. In octauo ratione etiam reddita intellegentibus clarum est in substantia veritatis non solum patrem filio non esse maiorem, sed nec ambos simul aliquid maius esse quam solum spiritum sanctum, aut quoslibet duos in eadem trinitate maius esse aliquid quam unum, aut omnes simul tres maius aliquid esse quam singulos. Deinde per veritatem quae intellecta conspicitur et per bonum summum a quo est omne bonum et per iustitiam propter quam diligitur animus iustus ab animo etiam nondum iusto ut natura non solum incorporalis verum etiam immutabilis quod est deus quantum fieri potest intellegeretur admonui, et per caritatem quae in scripturis sanctis deus dicta est, per quam coepit utcumque etiam trinitas intellegentibus apparere sicut sunt amens et quod amatur et amor. In nono ad imaginem dei quod est homo secundum mentem pervenit disputatio, et in ea quaedam trinitas invenitur, id est mens et notitia qua se novit et amor quo se notitiamque suam diligit, et haec tria aequalia inter se et unius ostenduntur esse essentiae. In decimo hoc idem diligentius subtiliusque tractatum est atque ad id perductum ut inveniretur in mente evidentior trinitas eius, in memoria scilicet et intellegentia et voluntate. Sed quoniam et hoc compertum est quod mens numquam esse ita potuerit ut non sui meminisset, non se intellegeret et diligeret, quamvis non semper se cogitaret, cum autem cogitaret non se a corporalibus rebus eadem cogitatione discerneret, dilata est de trinitate cuius haec imago est disputatio ut in ipsis etiam corporalibus visis inveniretur trinitas et distinctius in ea lectoris exerceretur intentio. In undecimo ergo electus est sensus oculorum in quo id quod inventum esset etiam in caeteris quattuor sensibus corporis et non dictum posset agnosci, atque ita exterioris hominis trinitas primo in his quae cernuntur extrinsecus, ex corpore scilicet quod videtur et forma quae inde in acie cernentis imprimitur et utrumque copulantis intentione voluntatis, apparuit. Sed haec tria non inter se aequalia nec unius esse substantiae claruerunt. Deinde in ipso animo ab his quae extrinsecus sensa sunt velut introducta inventa est altera trinitas ubi apparerent eadem tria unius esse substantiae, imaginatio corporis quae in memoria est et inde informatio cum ad eam convertitur acies cogitantis et utrumque coniungens intentio voluntatis. Sed ideo et ista trinitas ad exteriorem hominem reperta est pertinere quia de corporibus inlata est quae sentiuntur extrinsecus. In duodecimo discernenda visa est sapientia ab scientia, et in ea quae proprie scientia nuncupatur quia inferior est prius quaedam sui generis trinitas inquirenda, quae licet ad interiorem hominem iam pertineat, nondum tamen imago dei vel appellanda sit vel putanda. Et hoc agitur in tertio decimo per commendationem fidei christianae. In quarto decimo autem de sapientia hominis vera, id est dei munere in eius ipsius dei participatione donata, quae ab scientia distincta est disputatur, et eo pervenit disputatio ut trinitas appareat in imagine dci quod est homo secundum mentem quae renouatur in agnitione dei secundum imaginem eius qui creavit hominem ad imaginem suam et sic percipit sapientiam ubi contemplatio est aeternorum.	5. In the first book, the unity and equality of that highest Trinity is shown from Holy Scripture. In the second, and third, and fourth, the same: but a careful handling of the question respecting the sending of the Son and of the Holy Spirit has resulted in three books; and we have demonstrated, that He who is sent is not therefore less than He who sends because the one sent, the other was sent; since the Trinity, which is in all things equal, being also equally in its own nature unchangeable, and invisible, and everywhere present, works indivisibly. In the fifth—with a view to those who think that the substance of the Father and of the Son is therefore not the same, because they suppose everything that is predicated of God to be predicated according to substance, and therefore contend that to beget and to be begotten, or to be begotten and unbegotten, as being diverse, are diverse substances,— it is demonstrated that not everything that is predicated of God is predicated according to substance, as He is called good and great according to substance, or anything else that is predicated of Him in respect to Himself, but that some things also are predicated relatively, i.e. not in respect to Himself, but in respect to something which is not Himself; as He is called the Father in respect to the Son, or the Lord in respect to the creature that serves Him; and that here, if anything thus relatively predicated, i.e. predicated in respect to something that is not Himself, is predicated also as in time, as, e.g., Lord, You have become our refuge, then nothing happens to Him so as to work a change in Him, but He Himself continues altogether unchangeable in His own nature or essence. In the sixth, the question how Christ is called by the mouth of the apostle the power of God and the wisdom of God, is so far argued that the more careful handling of that question is deferred, viz. whether He from whom Christ is begotten is not wisdom Himself, but only the father of His own wisdom, or whether wisdom begot wisdom. But be it which it may, the equality of the Trinity became apparent in this book also, and that God was not triple, but a Trinity; and that the Father and the Son are not, as it were, a double as opposed to the single Holy Spirit: for therein three are not anything more than one. We considered, too, how to understand the words of Bishop Hilary, Eternity in the Father, form in the Image, use in the Gift. In the seventh, the question is explained which had been deferred: in what way that God who begot the Son is not only Father of His own power and wisdom, but is Himself also power and wisdom; so, too, the Holy Spirit; and yet that they are not three powers or three wisdoms, but one power and one wisdom, as one God and one essence. It was next inquired, in what way they are called one essence, three persons, or by some Greeks one essence, three substances; and we found that the words were so used through the needs of speech, that there might be one term by which to answer, when it is asked what the three are, whom we truly confess to be three, viz. Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit. In the eighth, it is made plain by reason also to those who understand, that not only the Father is not greater than the Son in the substance of truth, but that both together are not anything greater than the Holy Spirit alone, nor that any two at all in the same Trinity are anything greater than one, nor all three together anything greater than each severally. Next, I have pointed out, that by means of the truth, which is beheld by the understanding, and by means of the highest good, from which is all good, and by means of the righteousness for which a righteous mind is loved even by a mind not yet righteous, we might understand, so far as it is possible to understand, that not only incorporeal but also unchangeable nature which is God; and by means, too, of love, which in the Holy Scriptures is called God, by which, first of all, those who have understanding begin also, however feebly, to discern the Trinity, to wit, one that loves, and that which is loved, and love. In the ninth, the argument advances as far as to the image of God, viz. man in respect to his mind; and in this we found a kind of trinity, i.e. the mind, and the knowledge whereby the mind knows itself, and the love whereby it loves both itself and its knowledge of itself; and these three are shown to be mutually equal, and of one essence. In the tenth, the same subject is more carefully and subtly handled, and is brought to this point, that we found in the mind a still more manifest trinity of the mind, viz. in memory, and understanding, and will. But since it turned out also, that the mind could never be in such a case as not to remember, understand, and love itself, although it did not always think of itself; but that when it did think of itself, it did not in the same act of thought distinguish itself from things corporeal; the argument respecting the Trinity, of which this is an image, was deferred, in order to find a trinity also in the things themselves that are seen with the body, and to exercise the reader's attention more distinctly in that. Accordingly, in the eleventh, we chose the sense of sight, wherein that which should have been there found to hold good might be recognized also in the other four bodily senses, although not expressly mentioned; and so a trinity of the outer man first showed itself in those things which are discerned from without, to wit, from the bodily object which is seen, and from the form which is thence impressed upon the eye of the beholder, and from the purpose of the will combining the two. But these three things, as was patent, were not mutually equal and of one substance. Next, we found yet another trinity in the mind itself, introduced into it, as it were, by the things perceived from without; wherein the same three things, as it appeared, were of one substance: the image of the bodily object which is in the memory, and the form thence impressed when the mind's eye of the thinker is turned to it, and the purpose of the will combining the two. But we found this trinity to pertain to the outer man, on this account, that it was introduced into the mind from bodily objects which are perceived from without. In the twelfth, we thought good to distinguish wisdom from knowledge, and to seek first, as being the lower of the two, a kind of appropriate and special trinity in that which is specially called knowledge; but that although we have got now in this to something pertaining to the inner man, yet it is not yet to be either called or thought an image of God. And this is discussed in the thirteenth book by the commendation of Christian faith. In the fourteenth we discuss the true wisdom of man, viz. that which is granted him by God's gift in the partaking of that very God Himself, which is distinct from knowledge; and the discussion reached this point, that a trinity is discovered in the image of God, which is man in respect to his mind, which mind is renewed in the knowledge of God, after the image of Him that created man; after His own image; and so obtains wisdom, wherein is the contemplation of things eternal.
[15.4.6] Iam ergo in ipsis rebus aeternis, incorporalibus et immutabilibus in quarum perfecta contemplatione nobis beata quae non nisi aeterna est vita promittitur trinitatem quae deus est inquiramus. Neque enim divinorum librorum tantummodo auctoritas esse deum praedicat, sed omnis quae nos circumstat, ad quam nos etiam pertinemus, universa ipsa rerum natura proclamat habere se praestantissimum conditorem qui nobis mentem rationemque naturalem dedit qua viventia non viventibus, sensu praedita non sentientibus, intellegentia non intellegentibus, immortalia mortalibus, impotentibus potentia, iniustis iusta, speciosa deformibus, bona malis, incorruptibilia corruptibilibus, immutabilia mutabilibus, inuisibilia visibilibus, incorporalia corporalibus, beata miseris praeferenda videamus. Ac per hoc quoniam rebus creatis creatorem sine dubitatione praeponimus, oportet ut eum et summe vivere et cuncta sentire atque intellegere, et mori, corrumpi mutarique non posse; nec corpus esse sed spiritum omnium potentissimum, iustissimum, speciosissimum, optimum beatissimumque fateamur.	6. Let us, then, now seek the Trinity which is God, in the things themselves that are eternal, incorporeal, and unchangeable; in the perfect contemplation of which a blessed life is promised us, which cannot be other than eternal. For not only does the authority of the divine books declare that God is; but the whole nature of the universe itself which surrounds us, and to which we also belong, proclaims that it has a most excellent Creator, who has given to us a mind and natural reason, whereby to see that things living are to be preferred to things that are not living; things that have sense to things that have not; things that have understanding to things that have not; things immortal to things mortal; things powerful to things impotent; things righteous to things unrighteous; things beautiful to things deformed; things good to things evil; things incorruptible to things corruptible; things unchangeable to things changeable; things invisible to things visible; things incorporeal to things corporeal; things blessed to things miserable. And hence, since without doubt we place the Creator above things created, we must needs confess that the Creator both lives in the highest sense, and perceives and understands all things, and that He cannot die, or suffer decay, or be changed; and that He is not a body, but a spirit, of all the most powerful, most righteous, most beautiful, most good, most blessed.
[15.5.7] Sed haec omnia quae dixi et quaecumque alia simili more locutionis humanae digne de deo dici videntur et universae trinitati qui est unus deus et personis singulis in eadem trinitate conveniunt. Quis enim vel unum deum, quod est ipsa trinitas, vel patrem vel filium vel spiritum sanctum audeat dicere aut non viventem aut nihil sentientem vel intellegentem, aut in ea natura qua inter se praedicantur aequales quemquam eorum esse mortalem sive corruptibilem sive mutabilem sive corporeum? Aut quisquam ibi neget aliquem potentissimum, iustissimum, speciosissimum, optimum, beatissimum? Si ergo haec atque huiusmodi omnia et ipsa trinitas et in ea singuli dici possunt, ubi aut quomodo trinitas apparebit? Redigamus itaque prius haec plurima ad aliquam paucitatem. Quae vita enim dicitur in deo ipsa est essentia eius atque natura. Non itaque deus vivit nisi vita quod ipse sibi est. Haec autem vita non talis est qualis inest arbori ubi nullus intellectus, nullus est sensus. Nec talis qualis inest pecori; habet enim vita pecoris sensum quinquepertitum sed intellectum habet nullum, at illa vita quae deus est sentit atque intellegit omnia, et sentit mente, non corpore quia spiritus est deus. Non autem sicut animalia quae habent corpora per corpus sentit deus; non enim ex anima constat et corpore, ac per hoc simplex illa natura sicut intellegit sentit, sicut sentit intellegit, idemque sensus qui intellectus est illi. Nec ita ut aliquando esse desistat aut coeperit; immortalis est enim. Nec frustra de illo dictum est quod solus habeat immortalitatem. Nam immortalitas eius vere immortalitas est in cuius natura nulla est commutatio. Ipsa est etiam vera aeternitas qua est immutabilis deus sine initio, sine fine, consequenter et incorruptibilis. Una ergo eademque res dicitur sive dicatur aeternus deus sive immortalis sive incorruptibilis sive immutabilis, itemque cum dicitur vivens et intellegens quod est utique sapiens, hoc idem dicitur. Non enim percepit sapientiam qua esset sapiens, sed ipse sapientia est. Et haec vita eademque virtus sive potentia, eademque species qua potens atque speciosius dicitur. Quid enim potentius et speciosius sapientia quae attingit a fine usque in finem fortiter et disponit omnia suaviter? Bonitas etiam atque iustitia numquid inter se in dei natura sicut in eius operibus distant tamquam duae diversae sint qualitates dei, una bonitas, alia iustitia? Non utique. Sed quae iustitia ipsa bonitas, et quae bonitas ipsa beatitudo. Incorporalis autem vel incorporeus ideo dicitur deus ut spiritus credatur vel intellegatur esse, non corpus.	7. But all that I have said, and whatever else seems to be worthily said of God after the like fashion of human speech, applies to the whole Trinity, which is one God, and to the several Persons in that Trinity. For who would dare to say either of the one God, which is the Trinity itself, or of the Father, or Son, or Holy Spirit, either that He is not living, or is without sense or intelligence; or that, in that nature in which they are affirmed to be mutually equal, any one of them is mortal, or corruptible, or changeable, or corporeal? Or is there any one who would deny that any one in the Trinity is most powerful, most righteous, most beautiful, most good, most blessed? If, then, these things, and all others of the kind, can be predicated both of the Trinity itself, and of each several one in that Trinity, where or how shall the Trinity manifest itself? Let us therefore first reduce these numerous predicates to some limited number. For that which is called life in God, is itself His essence and nature. God, therefore, does not live, unless by the life which He is to Himself. And this life is not such as that which is in a tree, wherein is neither understanding nor sense; nor such as is in a beast, for the life of a beast possesses the fivefold sense, but has no understanding. But the life which is God perceives and understands all things, and perceives by mind, not by body, because God is a spirit. And God does not perceive through a body, as animals do, which have bodies, for He does not consist of soul and body. And hence that single nature perceives as it understands, and understands as it perceives, and its sense and understanding are one and the same. Nor yet so, that at any time He should either cease or begin to be; for He is immortal. And it is not said of Him in vain, that He only has immortality. For immortality is true immortality in His case whose nature admits no change. That is also true eternity by which God is unchangeable, without beginning, without end; consequently also incorruptible. It is one and the same thing, therefore, to call God eternal, or immortal, or incorruptible, or unchangeable; and it is likewise one and the same thing to say that He is living, and that He is intelligent, that is, in truth, wise. For He did not receive wisdom whereby to be wise, but He is Himself wisdom. And this is life, and again is power or might, and yet again beauty, whereby He is called powerful and beautiful. For what is more powerful and more beautiful than wisdom, which reaches from end to end mightily, and sweetly disposes all things? Or do goodness, again, and righteousness, differ from each other in the nature of God, as they differ in His works, as though they were two diverse qualities of God— goodness one, and righteousness another? Certainly not; but that which is righteousness is also itself goodness; and that which is goodness is also itself blessedness. And God is therefore called incorporeal, that He may be believed and understood to be a spirit, not a body.
[15.5.8] Proinde si dicamus: 'Aeternus, immortalis, incorruptibilis, immutabilis, vivus, sapiens, potens, speciosus, iustus, bonus, beatus, spiritus,' horum omnium novissimum quod posui quasi tantummodo videtur significare substantiam, caetera vero huius substantiae qualitates, sed non ita est in illa ineffabili simplicique natura. Quidquid enim secundum qualitates illic dici videtur secundum substantiam vel essentiam est intellegendum. Absit enim ut spiritus secundum substantiam dicatur deus et bonus secundum qualitatem, sed utrumque secundum substantiam. Sic omnia caetera quae commemoravimus unde in superioribus libris multa iam diximus. De quattuor igitur primis quae modo a nobis enumerata atque digesta sunt id est aeternus, immortalis, incorruptibilis, immutabilis, unum aliquid eligamus quia unum quattuor ista significant sicut iam disserui, ne per multa distendatur intentio, et illud potius quod positum est prius, id est aeternus. Hoc faciamus et de quattuor secundis quae sunt vivus, sapiens, potens, speciosus. Et quoniam vita qualiscumque inest et pecori cui sapientia non inest, duo vero ista, sapientia scilicet atque potentia, ita sunt inter se in homine comparata ut sancta scriptura diceret: Melior est sa piens quam fortis speciosa porro etiam corpora dici solent; unum ex his quattuor quod eligimus sapiens eligatur, quamvis haec quattuor in deo non aequalia dicenda sint; nomina enim quattuor, res autem una est. De tertiis vero ultimis quattuor, quamvis in deo idem sit iustum esse quod bonum, quod beatum, idemque spiritum esse quod iustum et bonum et beatum esse, tamen quia in hominibus potest esse spiritus non beatus, potest et iustus et bonus nondum beatus, qui vero beatus est profecto et iustus et bonus et spiritus est; hoc potius eligamus quod nec in hominibus esse sine illis tribus potest, quod est beatus.	8. Further, if we say, Eternal, immortal, incorruptible, unchangeable, living, wise, powerful, beautiful, righteous, good, blessed spirit; only the last of this list as it were seems to signify substance, but the rest to signify qualities of that substance; but it is not so in that ineffable and simple nature. For whatever seems to be predicated therein according to quality, is to be understood according to substance or essence. For far be it from us to predicate spirit of God according to substance, and good according to quality; but both according to substance. And so in like manner of all those we have mentioned, of which we have already spoken at length in the former books. Let us choose, then, one of the first four of those in our enumeration and arrangement, i.e. eternal, immortal, incorruptible, unchangeable; since these four, as I have argued already, have one meaning; in order that our aim may not be distracted by a multiplicity of objects. And let it be rather that which was placed first, viz. eternal. Let us follow the same course with the four that come next, viz. living, wise, powerful, beautiful. And since life of some sort belongs also to the beast, which has not wisdom; while the next two, viz. wisdom and might, are so compared to one another in the case of man, as that Scripture says, Better is he that is wise than he that is strong; and beauty, again, is commonly attributed to bodily objects also: out of these four that we have chosen, let Wise be the one we take. Although these four are not to be called unequal in speaking of God; for they are four names, but one thing. But of the third and last four—although it is the same thing in God to be righteous that it is to be good or to be blessed; and the same thing to be a spirit that it is to be righteous, and good, and blessed; yet, because in men there can be a spirit that is not blessed, and there can be one both righteous and good, but not yet blessed; but that which is blessed is doubtless both just, and good, and a spirit,— let us rather choose that one which cannot exist even in men without the three others, viz. blessed.
[15.6.9] Num igitur cum dicimus: 'Aeternus, sapiens, beatus,' haec tria sunt trinitas quae appellatur deus? Redigimus quidem illa duodecim in istam paucitatem trium, sed eo modo forsitan possumus et haec tria in unum aliquid horum. Nam si una eademque res in dei natura potest esse sapientia et potentia aut vita et sapientia, cur non una eademque res esse possit in dei natura aeternitas et sapientia aut beatitudo et sapientia? Ac per hoc sicut nihil intererat utrum illa duodecim an ista tria diceremus quando illa multa in istam redegimus paucitatem, ita nihil interest utrum tria ista dicamus an illud unum in cuius singularitate duo caetera similiter redigi posse monstravimus. Quis itaque disputandi modus, quaenam tandem vis intellegendi atque potentia, quae vivacitas rationis, quae acies cogitationis ostendet, ut alia iam taceam, hoc unum quod sapientia dicitur deus quomodo sit trinitas? Neque enim sicut nos de illo percipimus sapientiam ita deus de aliquo, sed sua est ipse sapientia quia non est aliud sapientia eius, aliud essentia cui hoc est esse quod sapientem esse. Dicitur quidem in scripturis sanctis Christus dei virtus, et dei sapientia, sed quemadmodum sit intellegendum ne patrem filius videatur facere sapientem in libro septimo disputatum est et ad hoc ratio pervenit ut sic sit filius sapientia de sapientia quemadmodum lumen de lumine, deus de deo. Nec aliud potuimus invenire spiritum sanctum nisi et ipsum esse sapientiam, et simul omnes unam sapientiam sicut unum deum, unam essentiam. Hanc ergo sapientiam quod est deus, quomodo intellegimus esse trinitatem? Non dixi: 'Quomodo credimus?' (nam hoc inter fideles non debet habere quaestionem), sed si aliquo modo per intellegentiam possumus videre quod credimus, quis iste erit modus?	9. When, then, we say, Eternal, wise, blessed, are these three the Trinity that is called God? We reduce, indeed, those twelve to this small number of three; but perhaps we can go further, and reduce these three also to one of them. For if wisdom and might, or life and wisdom, can be one and the same thing in the nature of God, why cannot eternity and wisdom, or blessedness and wisdom, be one and the same thing in the nature of God? And hence, as it made no difference whether we spoke of these twelve or of those three when we reduced the many to the small number; so does it make no difference whether we speak of those three, or of that one, to the singularity of which we have shown that the other two of the three may be reduced. What fashion, then, of argument, what possible force and might of understanding, what liveliness of reason, what sharp-sightedness of thought, will set forth how (to pass over now the others) this one thing, that God is called wisdom, is a trinity? For God does not receive wisdom from any one as we receive it from Him, but He is Himself His own wisdom; because His wisdom is not one thing, and His essence another, seeing that to Him to be wise is to be. Christ, indeed, is called in the Holy Scriptures, the power of God, and the wisdom of God. But we have discussed in the seventh book how this is to be understood, so that the Son may not seem to make the Father wise; and our explanation came to this, that the Son is wisdom of wisdom, in the same way as He is light of light, God of God. Nor could we find the Holy Spirit to be in any other way than that He Himself also is wisdom, and altogether one wisdom, as one God, one essence. How, then, do we understand this wisdom, which is God, to be a trinity? I do not say, How do we believe this? For among the faithful this ought to admit no question. But supposing there is any way by which we can see with the understanding what we believe, what is that way?
[15.6.10] Si enim recolamus ubi nostro intellectui coeperit in his libris trinitas apparere, octauus occurrit. Ibi quippe ut potuimus disputando erigere temptavimus mentis intentionem ad intellegendam illam praestantissimam immutabilemque naturam quod nostra mens non est. Quam tamen sic intuebamur ut nec longe a nobis esset et supra nos esset, non loco sed ipsa sui venerabili mirabilique praestantia ita ut apud nos esse suo praesenti lumine videretur. In qua tamen nobis adhuc nulla trinitas apparebat quia non ad eam quaerendam in fulgore illo firmam mentis aciem tenebamus; tantum quia non erat aliqua moles ubi credi oporteret magnitudinem duorum vel trium plus esse quam unius cernebamus utcumque. Sed ubi ventum est ad caritatem quae in sancta scriptura deus dicta est eluxit paululum trinitas, id est amans et quod amatur et amor. Sed quia lux illa ineffabilis nostrum reuerberabat obtutum et ei nondum posse contemperari nostrae mentis quod am modo conuincebatur infirmitas, ad ipsius nostrae mentis secundum quam factus est homo ad imaginem dei velut familiariorem considerationem reficiendae laborantis intentionis causa inter coeptum dispositumque refleximus, et inde in creatura quod nos sumus ut inuisibilia dei per ea quae facta sunt conspicere intellecta possemus immorati sumus a nono usque ad quartum decimum librum. Et ecce iam quantum necesse fuerat aut forte plus quam necesse fuerat exercitata in inferioribus intellegentia ad summam trinitatem quae deus est conspiciendam nos erigere volumus nec valemus. Num enim sicut certissimas videmus trinitates, sive quae forinsecus de rebus corporalibus fiunt, sive cum ea ipsa quae forinsecus sensa sunt cogitantur; sive cum illa quae oriuntur in animo nec pertinent ad corporis sensus sicut fides, sicut virtutes quae sunt artes agendae vitae manifesta ratione cernuntur et scientia continentur; sive cum mens ipsa qua novimus quidquid nosse nos veraciter dicimus sibi cognita est vel se cogitat; sive cum aliquid quod ipsa non est, aeternum atque incommutabile conspicit; num ergo sicut in his omnibus certissimas videmus trinitates quia in nobis fiunt vel in nobis sunt, cum ista meminimus, aspicimus, volumus ita videmus etiam trinitatem deum quia et illic intellegendo conspicimus tamquam dicentem et verbum eius, id est patrem et filium, atque inde procedentem caritatem utrique communem, sanctum scilicet spiritum? An trinitates istas ad sensus nostros vel animum pertinentes videmus potius quam credimus, deum vero esse trinitatem credimus potius quam videmus? Quod si ita est, profecto aut inuisibilia eius per ea quae facta sunt nulla intellecta conspicimus, aut si ulla conspicimus, non in eis conspicimus trinitatem, et est illic quod conspiciamus, est quod etiam non conspectum credere debeamus. Conspicere autem nos immutabile bonum quod nos non sumus fiber octauus ostendit, et quartus decimus cum de sapientia quae homini ex deo est loqueremur admonuit. Cur itaque ibi non agnoscimus trinitatem? An haec sapientia quae deus dicitur non se intellegit, non se diligit? Quis hoc dixerit? Aut quis est qui non videat ubi nulla scientia est nullo modo esse sapientiam? Aut vero putandum est sapientiam quae deus est scire alla et nescire se ipsam, vel diligere alla nec diligere se ipsam? Quae sive dici sive credi stultum et impium est. Ecce ergo trinitas, sapientia scilicet et notitia sui et dilectio suit Sic enim et in homine invenimus trinitatem, id est mentem et notitiam qua se novit et dilectionem qua se diligit.	10. For if we recall where it was in these books that a trinity first began to show itself to our understanding, the eighth book is that which occurs to us; since it was there that to the best of our power we tried to raise the aim of the mind to understand that most excellent and unchangeable nature, which our mind is not. And we so contemplated this nature as to think of it as not far from us, and as above us, not in place, but by its own awful and wonderful excellence, and in such wise that it appeared to be with us by its own present light. Yet in this no trinity was yet manifest to us, because in that blaze of light we did not keep the eye of the mind steadfastly bent upon seeking it; only we discerned it in a sense, because there was no bulk wherein we must needs think the magnitude of two or three to be more than that of one. But when we came to treat of love, which in the Holy Scriptures is called God, then a trinity began to dawn upon us a little, i.e. one that loves, and that which is loved, and love. But because that ineffable light beat back our gaze, and it became in some degree plain that the weakness of our mind could not as yet be tempered to it, we turned back in the midst of the course we had begun, and planned according to the (as it were) more familiar consideration of our own mind, according to which man is made after the image of God, in order to relieve our overstrained attention; and thereupon we dwelt from the ninth to the fourteenth book upon the consideration of the creature, which we are, that we might be able to understand and behold the invisible things of God by those things which are made. And now that we have exercised the understanding, as far as was needful, or perhaps more than was needful, in lower things, lo! We wish, but have not strength, to raise ourselves to behold that highest Trinity which is God. For in such manner as we see most undoubted trinities, whether those which are wrought from without by corporeal things, or when these same things are thought of which were perceived from without; or when those things which take their rise in the mind, and do not pertain to the senses of the body, as faith, or as the virtues which comprise the art of living, are discerned by manifest reason, and, held fast by knowledge; or when the mind itself, by which we know whatever we truly say that we know, is known to itself, or thinks of itself; or when that mind beholds anything eternal and unchangeable, which itself is not—in such way, then, I say, as we see in all these instances most undoubted trinities, because they are wrought in ourselves, or are in ourselves, when we remember, look at, or desire these things—do we, I say, in such manner also see the Trinity that is God; because there also, by the understanding, we behold both Him as it were speaking, and His Word, i.e. the Father and the Son; and then, proceeding thence, the love common to both, namely, the Holy Spirit? These trinities that pertain to our senses or to our mind, do we rather see than believe them, but rather believe than see that God is a trinity? But if this is so, then doubtless we either do not at all understand and behold the invisible things of God by those things that are made, or if we behold them at all, we do not behold the Trinity in them; and there is therein somewhat to behold, and somewhat also which we ought to believe, even though not beheld. And as the eighth book showed that we behold the unchangeable good which we are not, so the fourteenth reminded us thereof, when we spoke of the wisdom that man has from God. Why, then, do we not recognize the Trinity therein? Does that wisdom which God is said to be, not perceive itself, and not love itself? Who would say this? Or who is there that does not see, that where there is no knowledge, there in no way is there wisdom? Or are we, in truth, to think that the Wisdom which is God knows other things, and does not know itself; or loves other things, and does not love itself? But if this is a foolish and impious thing to say or believe, then behold we have a trinity—to wit, wisdom, and the knowledge wisdom has of itself, and its love of itself. For so, too, we find a trinity in man also, i.e. mind, and the knowledge wherewith mind knows itself, and the love wherewith it loves itself.
[15.7.11] Sed haec tria ita sunt in homine ut non ipsa sint homo. Homo est enim sicut ueteres definierunt animal rationale, mortale. Illa ergo excellunt in homine, non ipsa sunt homo. Et una persona, id est singulus quisque homo, habet illa tria in mente vel mentem. Quod si etiam sic definiamus hominem, ut dicamus: 'Homo est substantia rationalis constans ex anima et corpore,' non est dubium hominem habere animam quae non est corpus, habere corpus quod non est anima. Ac per hoc illa tria non homo sunt sed hominis sunt vel in homine sunt. Detracto etiam corpore si sola anima cogitetur, aliquid eius est mens tamquam caput eius vel oculus vel facies, sed non haec ut corpora cogitanda sunt. Non igitur anima sed quod excellit in anima mens vocatur. Numquid autem possumus dicere trinitatem sic esse in deo ut aliquid dei sit nec ipsa sit deus? Quapropter singulus quisque homo qui non secundum omnia quae ad naturam pertinent eius sed secundum solam mentem imago dei dicitur una persona est et imago est trinitatis in mente. Trinitas vero illa cuius imago est nihil aliud est tote quam deus, nihil aliud est tote quam trinitas. Nec aliquid ad naturam dei pertinet quod ad illam non pertineat trinitatem, et tres personae sunt unius essentiae non sicut singulus quisque homo una persona.	11. But these three are in such way in man, that they are not themselves man. For man, as the ancients defined him, is a rational mortal animal. These things, therefore, are the chief things in man, but are not man themselves. And any one person, i.e. each individual man, has these three things in his mind. But if, again, we were so to define man as to say, Man is a rational substance consisting of mind and body, then without doubt man has a soul that is not body, and a body that is not soul. And hence these three things are not man, but belong to man, or are in man. If, again, we put aside the body, and think of the soul by itself, the mind is somewhat belonging to the soul, as though its head, or eye, or countenance; but these things are not to be regarded as bodies. It is not then the soul, but that which is chief in the soul, that is called the mind. But can we say that the Trinity is in such way in God, as to be somewhat belonging to God, and not itself God? And hence each individual man, who is called the image of God, not according to all things that pertain to his nature, but according to his mind alone, is one person, and is an image of the Trinity in his mind. But that Trinity of which he is the image is nothing else in its totality than God, is nothing else in its totality than the Trinity. Nor does anything pertain to the nature of God so as not to pertain to that Trinity; and the Three Persons are of one essence, not as each individual man is one person.
[15.7.12] Itemque in hoc magna distantia est quod sive mentem dicamus in homine eiusque notitiam et dilectionem, sive memoriam, intellegentiam, voluntatem, nihil mentis meminimus nisi per memoriam nec intellegimus nisi per intellegentiam nec amamus nisi per voluntatem. At vero in illa trinitate quis audeat dicere patrem nec se ipsum nec filium nec spiritum sanctum intellegere nisi per filium, vel diligere nisi per spiritum sanctum, per se autem meminisse tantummodo vel sui vel filii vel spiritus sancti; eodemque modo filium nec sui nec patris meminisse nisi per patrem, nec diligere nisi per spiritum sanctum, per se autem non nisi intellegere et patrem et se ipsum et spiritum sanctum; similiter et spiritum sanctum per patrem meminisse et patris et filii et sui, et per filium intellegere et patrem et filium et se ipsum, per se autem non nisi diligere et se et patrem et filium, tamquam memoria sit pater et sue et filii et spiritus sancti, filius autem intellegentia et sue et patris et spiritus sancti, spiritus vero sanctus caritas et sue et patris et filii? Quis haec in illa trinitate opinari vel affirmare praesumat? Si enim solus ibi filius intellegit et sibi et patri et spiritui sancto, ad illam reditur absurditatem ut pater non sit sapiens de se ipso sed de filio, nec sapientia sapientiam genuerit sed ea sapientia pater dicatur sapiens esse quam genuit. Ubi enim non est intellegentia nec sapientia potest esse, ac per hoc si pater non intellegit ipse sibi sed filius intellegit patri, profecto filius patrem sapientem facit. Et si hoc est deo esse quod sapere et ea illi essentia est quae sapientia, non filius a patre, quod verum est, sed a filio potius habet pater essentiam, quod absurdissimum atque falsissimum est. Hanc absurditatem nos in libro septimo discussisse, conuicisse, abiecisse certissimum est. Est ergo deus pater sapiens ea qua ipse sue est sapientia, et filius sapientia patris de sapientia quod est pater de quo est genitus filius. Quocirca consequenter est et intellegens pater ea qua ipse sue est intellegentia; neque enim esset sapiens qui non esset intellegens. Eilius autem intellegentia patris de intellegentia genitus quod est pater. Hoc et de memoria non inconvenienter dici potest. Quomodo est enim sapiens qui nihil meminit, vel sui non meminit? Proinde quia sapientia pater, sapientia filius, sicut sibi meminit pater ita et filius; et sicut sui et filii meminit pater memoria non filii sed sua, ita sui et patris meminit filius memoria non patris sed sua. Dilectio quoque ubi nulla est quis ullam dicat esse sapientiam? Ex quo colligitur ita esse patrem dilectionem suam ut intellegentiam et memoriam suam. Ecce ergo tria illa, id est memoria, intellegentia, dilectio seu voluntas in illa summa et immutabili essentia quod est deus, non pater et filius et spiritus sanctus sunt, sed pater solus. Et quia filius quoque sapientia est genita de sapientia, sicut nec pater ei nec spiritus sanctus intellegit sed ipse sibi, ita nec pater ei meminit nec spiritus sanctus ei diligit sed ipse sibi; sue enim est et ipse memoria, sue intellegentia, sue dilectio, sed ita se habere de patre ilk est de quo natus est. Spiritus etiam sanctus quia sapientia est procedens de sapientia non patrem habet memoriam et filium intellegentiam et se dilectionem; neque enim sapientia esset si alius ei meminisset eique alius intellegeret ac tantummodo sibi ipse diligeret; sed ipse habet haec tria et ea sic habet ut haec ipsa ipse sit. Verumtamen ut ita sit inde illi est unde procedit.	12. There is, again, a wide difference in this point likewise, that whether we speak of the mind in a man, and of its knowledge and love; or of memory, understanding, will,— we remember nothing of the mind except by memory, nor understand anything except by understanding, nor love anything except by will. But in that Trinity, who would dare to say that the Father understands neither Himself, nor the Son, nor the Holy Spirit, except by the Son, or loves them except by the Holy Spirit; and that He remembers only by Himself either Himself, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit; and in the same way that the Son remembers neither Himself nor the Father, except by the Father, nor loves them except by the Holy Spirit; but that by Himself He only understands both the Father and Son and Holy Spirit: and in like manner, that the Holy Spirit by the Father remembers both the Father and the Son and Himself, and by the Son understands both the Father and the Son and Himself; but by Himself only loves both Himself and the Father and the Son;— as though the Father were both His own memory, and that of the Son and of the Holy Spirit; and the Son were the understanding of both Himself, and the Father and the Holy Spirit; but the Holy Spirit were the love both of Himself, and of the Father and of the Son? Who would presume to think or affirm this of that Trinity? For if therein the Son alone understands both for Himself and for the Father and for the Holy Spirit, we have returned to the old absurdity, that the Father is not wise from Himself, but from the Son, and that wisdom has not begotten wisdom, but that the Father is said to be wise by that wisdom which He begot. For where there is no understanding there can be no wisdom; and hence, if the Father does not understand Himself for Himself, but the Son understands for the Father, assuredly the Son makes the Father wise. But if to God to be is to be wise, and essence is to Him the same as wisdom, then it is not the Son that has His essence from the Father, which is the truth, but rather the Father from the Son, which is a most absurd falsehood. And this absurdity, beyond all doubt, we have discussed, disproved, and rejected, in the seventh book. Therefore God the Father is wise by that wisdom by which He is His own wisdom, and the Son is the wisdom of the Father from the wisdom which is the Father, from whom the Son is begotten; whence it follows that the Father understands also by that understanding by which He is His own understanding (for he could not be Wise that did not understand); and that the Son is the understanding of the Father, begotten of the understanding which is the Father. And this same may not be unfitly said of memory also. For how is he wise, that remembers nothing, or does not remember himself? Accordingly, since the Father is wisdom, and the Son is wisdom, therefore, as the Father remembers Himself, so does the Son also remember Himself; and as the Father remembers both Himself and the Son, not by the memory of the Son, but by His own, so does the Son remember both Himself and the Father, not by the memory of the Father, but by His own. Where, again, there is no love, who would say there was any wisdom? And hence we must infer that the Father is in such way His own love, as He is His own understanding and memory. And therefore these three, i.e. memory, understanding, love or will in that highest and unchangeable essence which is God, are, we see, not the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, but the Father alone. And because the Son too is wisdom begotten of wisdom, as neither the Father nor the Holy Spirit understands for Him, but He understands for Himself; so neither does the Father remember for Him, nor the Holy Spirit love for Him, but He remembers and loves for Himself: for He is Himself also His own memory, His own understanding, and His own love. But that He is so comes to Him from the Father, of whom He is born. And because the Holy Spirit also is wisdom proceeding from wisdom, He too has not the Father for a memory, and the Son for an understanding, and Himself for love: for He would not be wisdom if another remembered for Him, and yet another understood for Him, and He only loved for Himself; but Himself has all three things, and has them in such way that they are Himself. But that He is so comes to Him thence, whence He proceeds.
[15.7.13] Quis ergo hominum potest istam sapientiam qua novit deus omnia ita ut nec ea quae dicuntur praeterita ibi praetereant, nec ea quae dicuntur future quasi desint exspectentur ut veniant, sed et praeterita et future cum praesentibus sint cuncta praesentia; nec singula cogitentur et ab aliis ad alia cogitando transeatur, sed in uno conspectu simul praesto sint universa; quis, inquam, hominum comprehendit istam sapientiam eandemque prudentiam eandemque scientiam quandoquidem a nobis nec nostra comprehenditur? Ea quippe quae vel sensibus vel intellegentiae nostrae adsunt possumus utcumque conspicere; ea vero quae absunt et tamen adfuerunt per memoriam novimus, quae obliti non sumus. Nec ex futuris praeterita sed futura ex praeteritis non tamen firma cognitione conicimus. Nam quasdam cogitationes nostras quas futuras velut manifestius atque certius proximas quasque prospicimus memoria faciente id agimus cum agere valemus quantum valemus, quae videtur non ad ea quae futura sunt sed ad praeterita pertinere. Quod licet experiri in eis dictis vel canticis quorum seriem memoriter reddimus; nisi enim praevideremus cogitatione quod sequitur non utique diceremus. Et tamen ut praevideamus non providentia nos instruit sed memoria. Nam donec finiatur omne quod dicimus sive canimus nihil est quod non provisum prospectumque proferatur. Et tamen cum id agimus non dicimur providenter sed memoriter canere vel dicere, et qui hoc in multis ita proferendis valent plurimum, non solet eorum providentia sed memoria praedicari. Fieri ista in animo vel ab animo nostro novimus et certissimi sumus. Quomodo autem fiant quanto attentius voluerimus advertere tanto magis noster et sermo succumbit et ipsa non perdurat intentio ut ad liquidum aliquid nostra intellegentia etsi non lingua perveniat. Et putamus nos utrum dei providentia eadem sit quae memoria et intellegentia qui non singula cogitando aspicit sed una, aeterna et immutabili atque ineffabili visione complectitur cuncta quae novit, tanta mentis infirmitate posse comprehendere? In hac igitur difficultate et angustiis libet exclamare ad deum vivum: Mirificata est scientia tua ex me, inualuit, et non potero ad illam. Ex me quippe intellego quam sit mirabilis et incomprehensibilis scientia tua qua me fecisti quando nec me ipsum comprehendere valeo quem fecisti, et tamen in meditatione mea exardescit ignis ut quaeram faciem tuam semper.	13. What man, then, is there who can comprehend that wisdom by which God knows all things, in such wise that neither what we call things past are past therein, nor what we call things future are therein waited for as coming, as though they were absent, but both past and future with things present are all present; nor yet are things thought severally, so that thought passes from one to another, but all things simultaneously are at hand in one glance—what man, I say, is there that comprehends that wisdom, and the like prudence, and the like knowledge, since in truth even our own wisdom is beyond our comprehension? For somehow we are able to behold the things that are present to our senses or to our understanding; but the things that are absent, and yet have once been present, we know by memory, if we have not forgotten them. And we conjecture, too, not the past from the future, but the future from the past, yet by all unstable knowledge. For there are some of our thoughts to which, although future, we, as it were, look onward with greater plainness and certainty as being very near; and we do this by the means of memory when we are able to do it, as much as we ever are able, although memory seems to belong not to the future, but to the past. And this may be tried in the case of any words or songs, the due order of which we are rendering by memory; for we certainly should not utter each in succession, unless we foresaw in thought what came next. And yet it is not foresight, but memory, that enables us to foresee it; for up to the very end of the words or the song, nothing is uttered except as foreseen and looked forward to. And yet in doing this, we are not said to speak or sing by foresight, but by memory; and if any one is more than commonly capable of uttering many pieces in this way, he is usually praised, not for his foresight, but for his memory. We know, and are absolutely certain, that all this takes place in our mind or by our mind; but how it takes place, the more attentively we desire to scrutinize, the more do both our very words break down, and our purpose itself fails, when by our understanding, if not our tongue, we would reach to something of clearness. And do such as we are, think, that in so great infirmity of mind we can comprehend whether the foresight of God is the same as His memory and His understanding, who does not regard in thought each several thing, but embraces all that He knows in one eternal and unchangeable and ineffable vision? In this difficulty, then, and strait, we may well cry out to the living God, Such knowledge is too wonderful for me: it is high, I cannot attain unto it. For I understand by myself how wonderful and incomprehensible is Your knowledge, by which You made me, when I cannot even comprehend myself whom You have made! And yet, while I was musing, the fire burned, so that I seek Your face evermore.
[15.8.14] Incorporalem substantiam scio esse sapientiam et lumen esse in quo videntur quae oculis carnalibus non videntur, et tamen vir tantus tamque spiritalis: Videmus nunc inquit, per speculum in aenigmate, tunc autem facie ad faciem. Quale sit et quod sit hoc speculum si quaeramus, profecto illud occurrit quod in speculo nisi imago non cernitur. Hoc ergo facere conati sumus ut per hanc imaginem quod nos sumus videremus utcumque a quo facti sumus tamquam per speculum. Hoc significat etiam illud quod ait idem apostolus: Nos autem reuelata facie gloriam domini speculantes in eandem imaginem transformamur de gloria in gloriam tamquam a domini spiritu. Speculantes dixit, per speculum videntes, non de specula prospicientes. Quod in graeca lingua non est ambiguum unde in latinam translatae sunt apostolicae litterae. Ibi quippe speculum ubi apparent imagines rerum ab specula de cuius altitudine longius aliquid intuemur etiam sono verbi distat omnino. Satisque apparet apostolum ab speculo, non ab specula dixisse gloriam domini speculantes. Quod vero ait, in eandem imaginem transformamur, utique imaginem dei vult intellegi eandem dicens, istam ipsam scilicet id est quam speculamur, quia eadem imago est et gloria dei sicut alibi dicit: Vir quidem non debet velare caput cum sit imago et gloria dei de quibus verbis iam in libro duodecimo disseruimus. Transformamur ergo dixit, de forma in formam mutamur atque transimus de forma obscura in formam lucidam, quia et ipsa obscura imago dei est, et si imago, profecto etiam et gloria in qua homines creati sumus praestantes caeteris animalibus. De ipsa quippe natura humana dictum est: Vir quidem non debet velare caput cum sit imago et gloria dei. Quae natura in rebus creatis excellentissima cum a suo creatore ab impietate iustificatur a deformi forma formosam transformatur in formam. Est quippe et in ipsa impietate quanto magis damnabile vitium tanto certius natura laudabilis. Et propter hoc addidit de gloria in gloriam, de gloria creationis in gloriam iustificationis. Quamvis possit hoc et aliis modis intellegi quod dictum est de gloria in gloriam: de gloria fidei in gloriam speciei, de gloria qua filii dei sumus in gloriam qua similes ei erimus quoniam videbimus eum sicuti est. Quod vero adiunxit, tamquam a domini spiritu, ostendit gratia dei nobis conferri tam optabilis transformationis bonum.	14. I know that wisdom is an incorporeal substance, and that it is the light by which those things are seen that are not seen by carnal eyes; and yet a man so great and so spiritual [as Paul] says, We see now through a glass, in an enigma, but then face to face. If we ask what and of what sort is this glass, this assuredly occurs to our minds, that in a glass nothing is discerned but an image. We have endeavored, then, so to do; in order that we might see in some way or other by this image which we are, Him by whom we are made, as by a glass. And this is intimated also in the words of the same apostle: But we with open face, beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are transformed into the same image, from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord. Beholding as in a glass, he has said, i.e. seeing by means of a glass, not looking from a watchtower: an ambiguity that does not exist in the Greek language, whence the apostolic epistles have been rendered into Latin. For in Greek, a glass, in which the images of things are visible, is wholly distinct in the sound of the word also from a watchtower, from the height of which we command a more distant view. And it is quite plain that the apostle, in using the word speculantes in respect to the glory of the Lord, meant it to come from speculum, not from specula. But where he says, We are transformed into the same image, he assuredly means to speak of the image of God; and by calling it the same, he means that very image which we see in the glass, because that same image is also the glory of the Lord; as he says elsewhere, For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God, — a text already discussed in the twelfth book. He means, then, by We are transformed, that we are changed from one form to another, and that we pass from a form that is obscure to a form that is bright: since the obscure form, too, is the image of God; and if an image, then assuredly also glory, in which we are created as men, being better than the other animals. For it is said of human nature in itself, The man ought not to cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God. And this nature, being the most excellent among things created, is transformed from a form that is defaced into a form that is beautiful, when it is justified by its own Creator from ungodliness. Since even in ungodliness itself, the more the faultiness is to be condemned, the more certainly is the nature to be praised. And therefore he has added, from glory to glory: from the glory of creation to the glory of justification. Although these words, from glory to glory, may be understood also in other ways—from the glory of faith to the glory of sight, from the glory whereby we are sons of God to the glory whereby we shall be like Him, because we shall see Him as He is. But in that he has added as from the Spirit of the Lord, he declares that the blessing of so desirable a transformation is conferred upon us by the grace of God.
[15.9.15] Haec dicta sunt propter quod ait apostolus nunc per speculum nos videre. Quia vero addidit in aenigmate, multis hoc incognitum est qui eas litteras nesciunt in quibus est doctrina quaedam de locutionum modis quos graeci 'tropos' vocant eoque graeco vocabulo etiam nos utimur pro latino. Sicut enim 'schemata' usitatius dicimus quam 'figuras' ita usitatius 'tropos' quam 'modos.' Singulorum autem modorum sive troporum nomina ut singulis singula referantur difficillimum est et insolentissimum latine enuntiare. Unde quidam interpretes nostri quod ait apostolus, quae sunt in allegoria, nolentes graecum vocabulum ponere circumloquendo interpretati sunt dicentes, 'quae sunt aliud ex alio significantia.' Huius autem tropi, id est allegoriae, plures sunt species in quibus est etiam quod dicitur aenigma. Definitio autem ipsius nominis generalis omnes etiam species complectatur necesse est. Ac per hoc sicut omnis equus animal est, non omne animal equus est, ita omne aenigma allegoria est, non omnis allegoria aenigma est. Quid est ergo allegoria nisi tropus ubi ex alio aliud intellegitur, quale illud est ad thessalonicenses: Itaque non dormiamus sicut et caeteri sed vigilemus et sobrii simus. Nam qui dormiunt nocte dormiunt, et qui inebriantur nocte ebrii sunt, nos autem qui dici sumus sobrii simus? Sed haec allegoria non est aenigma. Nam nisi multum tardis iste sensus in promptu est. Aenigma est autem ut breviter explicem obscura allegoria sicuti est: Sanguisugae tres erant filiae et quaecumque similia. Sed ubi allegoriam nominavit apostolus non in verbis eam reperit sed in facto cum ex duobus filiis Abrahae, uno de ancilla, altero de libera, quod non dic tum sed etiam fac tum fu it duo test amen ta in t ellegen da monstravit. Quod antequam exponeret obscurum fuit. Proinde allegoria talis, quod est generale nomen, posset specialiter aenigma nominari.	15. What has been said relates to the words of the apostle, that we see now through a glass; but whereas he has added, in an enigma, the meaning of this addition is unknown to any who are unacquainted with the books that contain the doctrine of those modes of speech, which the Greeks call Tropes, which Greek word we also use in Latin. For as we more commonly speak of schemata than of figures, so we more commonly speak of tropes than of modes. And it is a very difficult and uncommon thing to express the names of the several modes or tropes in Latin, so as to refer its appropriate name to each. And hence some Latin translators, through unwillingness to employ a Greek word, where the apostle says, Which things are an allegory, have rendered it by a circumlocution— Which things signify one thing by another. But there are several species of this kind of trope that is called allegory, and one of them is that which is called enigma. Now the definition of the generic term must necessarily embrace also all its species; and hence, as every horse is an animal, but not every animal is a horse, so every enigma is an allegory, but every allegory is not an enigma. What then is an allegory, but a trope wherein one thing is understood from another? As in the Epistle to the Thessalonians, Let us not therefore sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober: for they who sleep, sleep in the night; and they who are drunken, are drunken in the night: but let us who are of the day, be sober. But this allegory is not an enigma. for here the meaning is patent to all but the very dull; but an enigma is, to explain it briefly, an obscure allegory, as, e.g., The horseleech had three daughters, and other like instances. But when the apostle spoke of an allegory, he does not find it in the words, but in the fact; since he has shown that the two Testaments are to be understood by the two sons of Abraham, one by a bondmaid, and the other by a free woman, which was a thing not said, but also done. And before this was explained, it was obscure; and accordingly such an allegory, which is the generic name, could be specifically called an enigma.
[15.9.16] Sed quia non soli qui eas litteras nesciunt quibus discuntur tropi quaerunt quid dixerit apostolus nunc in aenigmate nos videre, verum etiam qui sciunt, tamen quod sit illud aenigma ubi nunc videmus, nosse desiderant; ex utroque una est invenienda sententia, et ex illo scilicet quod ait, videmus nunc per speculum et ex isto quod addidit, in aenigmate. Una est enim cum tota sic dicitur: Videmus nunc per speculum in aenigmate. Proinde quantum mihi videtur sicut nomine speculi imaginem voluit intellegi, ita nomine aenigmatis quamvis similitudinem tamen obscuram et ad perspiciendum difficilem. Cum igitur speculi et aenigmatis nomine quaecumque similitudines ab apostolo significatae intellegi possint quae accommodatae sunt ad intellegendum deum eo modo quo potest, nihil tamen est adcommodatius quam id quod imago eius non frustra dicitur. Nemo itaque miretur etiam in isto videndi modo qui concessus est huic vitae, per speculum scilicet in aenigmate, laborare nos ut quomodocumque videamus. Nomen quippe hic non sonaret aenigmatis si esset facilitas visionis. Et hoc est grandius aenigma ut non videamus quod non videre non possumus. Quis enim non videt cogitationem suam? Et quis videt cogitationem suam (non oculis carnalibus dico sed ipso interiore conspectu)? Quis non eam videt, et quis eam videt? Quandoquidem cogitatio visio est animi quaedam sive adsint ea quae oculis quoque corporalibus videantur vel caeteris sentiantur sensibus, sive non adsint et eorum similitudines cogitatione cernantur; sive nihil eorum sed ea cogitentur quae nec corporalia sunt nec corporalium similitudines sicut virtutes et vitia, sicut ipsa denique cogitatio cogitatur; sive illa quae per disciplinas traduntur liberalesque doctrinas, sive omnium istorum causae superiores atque rationes in natura immutabili cogitentur; sive etiam mala et uana ac falsa cogitemus vel non consentiente sensu vel errante consensu.	16. But because it is not only those that are ignorant of the books that contain the doctrine of tropes, who inquire the apostle's meaning, when he said that we see now in an enigma, but those, too, who are acquainted with the doctrine, but yet desire to know what that enigma is in which we now see; we must find a single meaning for the two phrases, viz. for that which says, we see now through a glass, and for that which adds, in an enigma. For it makes but one sentence, when the whole is so uttered, We see now through a glass in an enigma. Accordingly, as far as my judgment goes, as by the word glass he meant to signify an image, so by that of enigma any likeness you will, but yet one obscure, and difficult to see through. While, therefore, any likenesses whatever may be understood as signified by the apostle when he speaks of a glass and an enigma, so that they are adapted to the understanding of God, in such way as He can be understood; yet nothing is better adapted to this purpose than that which is not vainly called His image. Let no one, then, wonder, that we labor to see in any way at all, even in that fashion of seeing which is granted to us in this life, viz. through a glass, in an enigma. For we should not hear of an enigma in this place if sight were easy. And this is a yet greater enigma, that we do not see what we cannot but see. For who does not see his own thought? And yet who does see his own thought, I do not say with the eye of the flesh, but with the inner sight itself? Who does not see it, and who does see it? Since thought is a kind of sight of the mind; whether those things are present which are seen also by the bodily eyes, or perceived by the other senses; or whether they are not present, but their likenesses are discerned by thought; or whether neither of these is the case, but things are thought of that are neither bodily things nor likenesses of bodily things, as the virtues and vices; or as, indeed, thought itself is thought of; or whether it be those things which are the subjects of instruction and of liberal sciences; or whether the higher causes and reasons themselves of all these things in the unchangeable nature are thought of; or whether it be even evil, and vain, and false things that we are thinking of, with either the sense not consenting, or erring in its consent.
[15.10.17] Sed nunc de his loquamur quae nota cogitamus et habemus in notitia etiam si non cogitemus, sive ad contemplativam scientiam pertineant quam proprie sapientiam, sive ad activam quam proprie scientiam nuncupandam esse disserui. Simul enim utrumque mentis est unius et imago dei una. Cum vero de inferiore distinctius et seorsus agitur tunc non est vocanda imago dei, quamvis et tunc in ea nonnulla reperiatur similitudo illius trinitatis, quod in tertio decimo volumine ostendimus. Nunc ergo simul de universa scientia hominis loquimur in qua nobis nota sunt quaecumque sunt nota, quae utique vera sunt alioquin nota non essent. Nemo enim falsa novit nisi cum falsa esse novit. Quod si novit verum novit; verum est enim quod illa falsa sint. De his ergo nunc disserimus quae nota cogitamus et nota sunt nobis etiam Si non cogitentur a nobis. Sed certe si ea dicere velimus, nisi cogitate non possumus. Nam etsi verba non sonent, in corde suo dicit utique qui cogitat. Unde illud est in libro sapientiae: Dixerunt apud se cogitantes non recte. Exposuit enim quid sit, dixerunt apud se, cum addidit cogitantes. Huic simile est in euangelio quod quidam scribae cum audissent a domino dictum paralytico: Confide, fili, remittuntur tibi peccata tua. Dixerunt intra se: Hic blasphemat. Quid est enim, Dixerunt intra se, nisi cogitando? Denique sequitur: Et cum vidisset Iesus cogitationes eorum dixit: Utquid cogitatis mala in cordibus uestris? Sic Matthaeus. Lucas autem hoc idem ita narrat: Coeperunt cogitare scribae et pharisaei dicentes: Quis est hic qui loquitur blasphemias? Quis potest dimittere peccata nisi solus deus? Ut cognovit autem Iesus cogitationes eorum respondens dixit ad illos: Quid cogitatis in cordibus uestris? Quale est in libro sapientiae, dixerunt cogitantes, tale hic est, cogitaverunt dicentes. Et illic enim et hie ostenditur intra se atque in corde suo dicere id esse cogitando dicere. Dixerunt quippe intra se, et dictum est eis: Quid cogitatis? Et de illo divite cuius uberes fructus ager attulit ait ipse dominus: Et cogitabat intra se dicens.	17. But let us now speak of those things of which we think as known, and have in our knowledge even if we do not think of them; whether they belong to the contemplative knowledge, which, as I have argued, is properly to be called wisdom, or to the active which is properly to be called knowledge. For both together belong to one mind, and are one image of God. But when we treat of the lower of the two distinctly and separately, then it is not to be called an image of God, although even then, too, some likeness of that Trinity may be found in it; as we showed in the thirteenth book. We speak now, therefore, of the entire knowledge of man altogether, in which whatever is known to us is known; that, at any rate, which is true; otherwise it would not be known. For no one knows what is false, except when he knows it to be false; and if he knows this, then he knows what is true: for it is true that that is false. We treat, therefore, now of those things which we think as known, and which are known to us even if they are not being thought of. But certainly, if we would utter them in words, we can only do so by thinking them. For although there were no words spoken, at any rate, he who thinks speaks in his heart. And hence that passage in the book of Wisdom: They said within themselves, thinking not aright. For the words, They said within themselves, are explained by the addition of thinking. A like passage to this is that in the Gospel—that certain scribes, when they heard the Lord's words to the paralytic man, Be of good cheer, my son, your sins are forgiven you, said within themselves, This man blasphemes. For how did they say within themselves, except by thinking? Then follows, And when Jesus saw their thoughts, He said, Why do you think evil in your thoughts? So far Matthew. But Luke narrates the same thing thus: The scribes and Pharisees began to think, saying, Who is this that speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins but God alone? But when Jesus perceived their thoughts, He, answering, said unto them, What think ye in your hearts? That which in the book of Wisdom is, They said, thinking, is the same here with, They thought, saying. For both there and here it is declared, that they spoke within themselves, and in their own heart, i.e. spoke by thinking. For they spoke within themselves, and it was said to them, What do you think? And the Lord Himself says of that rich man whose ground brought forth plentifully, And he thought within himself, saying.
[15.10.18] Quaedam ergo cogitationes locutiones sunt cordis ubi et os esse dominus ostendit cum ait: Non quod intrat in os coinquinat hominem, sed quod procedit ex ore, hoc coinquinat hominem. Una sententia duo quaedam hominis ore complexus est, unum corporis, alterum cordis. Nam utique unde illi hominem putaverant inquinari in os intrat corporis; unde autem dominus dixit inquinari hominem de cordis ore procedit. Ita quippe exposuit ipse quod dixerat. Nam paulo post de hac re discipulis suis: Adhuc et vos, inquit, sine intellectu estis? Non intellegitis quia omne quod in os intrat in ventrem uadit et in secessum emittitur? Hic certe apertissime demonstravit os corporis. At in eo quod sequitur os cordis ostendens: Quae autem procedunt, inquit, de ore de corde exeunt et ea coinquinant hominem. De corde enim exeunt cogitationes malae... etc. Quid hae expositione lucidius? Nec tamen quia dicimus locutiones cordis esse cogitationes ideo non sunt etiam visiones exortae de notitiae visionibus quando verae sunt. Foris enim eum per corpus haec fiunt aliud est locutio, aliud visio; intus autem eum cogitamus utrumque unum est. Sicut auditio et visio duo quaedam sunt inter se distantia in sensibus corporis, in animo autem non est aliud atque aliud videre et audire. Ac per hoc cum locutio foris non videatur sed potius audiatur, locutiones tamen interiores, hoc est eogitationes, visas dixit a domino sanctum euangelium, non auditas. Dixerunt, inquit, intra se: Hic blasphemat deinde subiunxit: Et cum vidisset Iesus cogitationes eorum. Vidit ergo quod dixerunt. Vidit enim cogitatione sue cogitationes eorum quas illi sold se putabant videre.	18. Some thoughts, then, are speeches of the heart, wherein the Lord also shows that there is a mouth, when He says, Not that which enters into the mouth defiles a man; but that which proceeds out of the mouth, that defiles a man. In one sentence He has comprised two diverse mouths of the man, one of the body, one of the heart. For assuredly, that from which they thought the man to be defiled, enters into the mouth of the body; but that from which the Lord said the man was defiled, proceeds out of the mouth of the heart. So certainly He Himself explained what He had said. For a little after, He says also to His disciples concerning the same thing: Are ye also yet without understanding? Do ye not understand, that whatsoever enters in at the mouth goes into the belly, and is cast out into the draught? Here He most certainly pointed to the mouth of the body. But in that which follows He plainly speaks of the mouth of the heart, where He says, But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, etc. What is clearer than this explanation? And yet, when we call thoughts speeches of the heart, it does not follow that they are not also acts of sight, arising from the sight of knowledge, when they are true. For when these things are done outwardly by means of the body, then speech and sight are different things; but when we think inwardly, the two are one—just as sight and hearing are two things mutually distinct in the bodily senses, but to see and hear are the same thing in the mind; and hence, while speech is not seen but rather heard outwardly, yet the inward speeches, i.e. thoughts, are said by the holy Gospel to have been seen, not heard, by the Lord. They said within themselves, This man blasphemes, says the Gospel; and then subjoined, And when Jesus saw their thoughts. Therefore He saw, what they said. For by His own thought He saw their thoughts, which they supposed no one saw but themselves.
[15.10.19] Quisquis igitur potest intellegere verbum non solum antequam sonet, verum etiam antequam sonorum eius imagines cogitatione voluantur (hoc est enim quod ad nullam pertinet linguam, earum scilicet quae linguae appellantur gentium quarum nostra latina est), quisquis, inquam, hoe intellegere potest iam potest videre per hoc speculum atque in hoc aenigmate aliquam verbi illius similitudinem de quo dictum est: In principio erat verbum, et verbum erat apud deum, et deus erat verbum. Necesse est enim cum verum loquimur, id est quod scimus loquimur, ex ipsa scientia quam memoria tenemus nascatur verbum quod eiusmodi sit omnino cuiusmodi est illa scientia de qua nascitur. Formata quippe cogitatio ab ea re quam scimus verbum est quod in corde dicimus, quod nec graecum est nec latinum nec linguae alicuius alterius, sed cum id opus est in eorum quibus loquimur perferre notitiam aliquod signum quo significetur assumitur. Et plerumque sonus, aliquando etiam nutus, ille auribus, ille oculis exhibetur ut per signa corporalia etiam corporis sensibus verbum quod mente gerimus innotescat. Nam et innuere quid est nisi quodam modo visibiliter dicere? Est in scripturis sanctis huius sententiae tcstimonium. Nam in euangelio secundum Iohannem ita legitur: Amen, amen dico vobis quia unus ex vobis tradet me. Aspiciebant ergo ad invicem discipuli haesitantes de quo diceret. Erat ergo unus ex discipulis eius in sinu Iesu quem diligebat Iesus. Innuit ergo huic Simon Petrus et dicit ei: Quis est de quo dicit? Ecce innuendo dixit quod sonando dicere non audebat. Sed haec atque huiusmodi signa corporalia suie auribus sive oculis praesentibus quibus loquimur exhibemus. Inventae sunt etiam litterae per quas possemus et cum absentibus conloqui, sed ista signa sunt vocum, cum ipsae voces in sermone nostro earum quas cogitamus signa sint rerum.	19. Whoever, then, is able to understand a word, not only before it is uttered in sound, but also before the images of its sounds are considered in thought—for this it is which belongs to no tongue, to wit, of those which are called the tongues of nations, of which our Latin tongue is one—whoever, I say, is able to understand this, is able now to see through this glass and in this enigma some likeness of that Word of whom it is said, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. For of necessity, when we speak what is true, i.e. speak what we know, there is born from the knowledge itself which the memory retains, a word that is altogether of the same kind with that knowledge from which it is born. For the thought that is formed by the thing which we know, is the word which we speak in the heart: which word is neither Greek nor Latin, nor of any other tongue. But when it is needful to convey this to the knowledge of those to whom we speak, then some sign is assumed whereby to signify it. And generally a sound, sometimes a nod, is exhibited, the former to the ears, the latter to the eyes, that the word which we bear in our mind may become known also by bodily signs to the bodily senses. For what is to nod or beckon, except to speak in some way to the sight? And Holy Scripture gives its testimony to this; for we read in the Gospel according to John: Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me. Then the disciples looked one upon another, doubting of whom He spoke. Now there was leaning on Jesus' breast one of His disciples whom Jesus loved. Simon Peter therefore beckons to him, and says to him, Who is it of whom He speaks? Here he spoke by beckoning what he did not venture to speak by sounds. But whereas we exhibit these and the like bodily signs either to ears or eyes of persons present to whom we speak, letters have been invented that we might be able to converse also with the absent; but these are signs of words, as words themselves are signs in our conversation of those things which we think.
[15.11.20] Proinde verbum quod foris sonat signum est verbi quod intus lucet cui magis verbi competit nomen. Nam illud quod profertur carnis ore vox verbi est, verbumque et ipsum dicitur propter illud a quo ut foris appareret assumptum est. Ita enim verbum nostrum vox quodam modo corporis fit assumendo eam in qua manifestetur sensibus hominum sicut verbum dei caro factum est assumendo eam in qua et ipsum manifestaretur sensibus hominum. Et sicut verbum nostrum fit vox nec mutatur in vocem, ita verbum dei caro quidem factum est, sed absit ut mutaretur in carnem. Assumendo quippe illam, non in eam se consumendo, et hoc nostrum vox fit et illud caro factum est. Quapropter qui cupit ad qualemcumque similitudinem dei verbi quamvis per multa dissimilem pervenire non intueatur verbum nostrum quod sonat in auribus nec quando voce profertur nec quando silentio cogitatur. Omnium namque sonantium verba linguarum etiam in silentio cogitantur, et carmina percurruntur animo tacente ore corporis, nec solum numeri syllabarum verum etiam modi cantilenarum cum sint corporales et ad eum qui vocatur auditus sensum corporis pertinentes per incorporeas quasdam imagines suas praesto sunt cogitantibus et tacite cuncta ista voluentibus. Sed transeunda sunt haec ut ad illud perveniatur hominis verbum per cuius qualemcumque similitudinem sicut in aenigntate videatur utcumque dei verbum. Non illud quod factum est ad illum vel illum prophetam (et de quo dictum est: Verbum autem dei crescebat et multiplicabatur et de quo iterum dictum est: Igitur fides ex auditu, auditus autem per verbum Christi et iterum: Cum accepissetis a nobis verbum auditus dei, accepistis non ut verbum hominum sed sicuti est vere verbum dei. Et innumerabilia similiter in scripturis dicuntur de dei verbo quod in sonis multarum diversarumque linguarum per corda et ora disseminatur humane. Ideo autem verbum dei dicitur quia doctrine divina traditur, non humana). Sed illud verbum dei quaerimus qualitercumque per hanc similitudinem nunc videre de quo dictum est: Deus erat verbum de quo dictum est: Omnia per ipsum facta sunt de quo dictum est: Et verbum caro factum est de quo dictum est: Fons sapientiae verbum dei in excelsis. Perveniendum est ergo ad illud verbum hominis, ad verbum rationalis animantis, ad verbum non de deo natae sed a deo factae imaginis dei, quod neque prolativum est in sono neque cogitativum in similitudine soni quod alicuius linguae esse necesse sit, sed quod omnia quibus significatur signa praecedit et gignitur de scientia quae manes in animo quando eadem scientia intus dicitur sicuti est. Simillima est enim visio cogitationis visioni scientiae. Nam quando per sonum dicitur vel per aliquod corporale signum, non dicitur sicuti est sed sicut potest videri audirive per corpus. Quando ergo quod est in notitia hoc est in verbo, tunc est verum verbum et veritas qualis exspectatur ab homine ut quod est in ista, hoc sit et in illo; quod non est in ista, non sit et in illo. Hic agnoscitur: Est, est, non, non. Sic accedit quantum potest ista similitudo imaginis factae ad illam similitudinem imaginis natae qua deus filius patri per omnia substantialiter similis praedicatur. Animadvertenda est in hoc aenigmate etiam ista verbi dei similitudo quod sicut de illo verbo dictum est: Omnia per ipsum facta sunt ubi deus per unigenitum verbum suum praedicatur universa fecisse, ita hominis opera nulla sunt quae non prius dicantur in corde. Unde scriptum est: Initiurn omnis operis verbum. Sed etiam hic cum verum verbum est tunc est initium bond operis. Verum autem verbum est cum de scientia bene operandi gignitur ut etiam ibi seruetur: Est est, non, non ut si est in ea scientia qua vivendum est, sit et in verbo per quod operandum est; si non, non, alioquin mendacium erit verbum tale, non veritas, et inde peccatum, non opus rectum. Est et haec in ista similitudine verbi nostri similitudo verbi dei quia potest esse verbum nostrum quod non sequatur opus; opus autem esse non potest nisi praecedat verbum sicut verbum dei potuit esse nulla exsistente creatura; creatura vero nulla esse posses nisi per ipsum per quod facta sunt omnia. Ideoque non deus pater, non spiritus sanctus, non ipsa trinitas, sed solus filius quod est verbum dei caro factum est quamvis trinitate faciente, ut sequente atque imitante verbo nostro eius exemplum recte viveremus, hoc est nullum habentes in verbi nostri vel contemplatione vel operatione mendacium. Verum haec huius imaginis est quandoque future perfectio. Ad hanc consequendam nos erudit magister bonus fide christiana pietatisque doctrine ut reuelata facie a legis velamine quod est umbra futurorum gloriam domini speculantes, per speculum scilicet intuentes, in eandem imaginem transformemur de gloria in gloriam tamquam a domini spiritu secundum superiorem de his verbis disputationem.	20. Accordingly, the word that sounds outwardly is the sign of the word that gives light inwardly; which latter has the greater claim to be called a word. For that which is uttered with the mouth of the flesh, is the articulate sound of a word; and is itself also called a word, on account of that to make which outwardly apparent it is itself assumed. For our word is so made in some way into an articulate sound of the body, by assuming that articulate sound by which it may be manifested to men's senses, as the Word of God was made flesh, by assuming that flesh in which itself also might be manifested to men's senses. And as our word becomes an articulate sound, yet is not changed into one; so the Word of God became flesh, but far be it from us to say He was changed into flesh. For both that word of ours became an articulate sound, and that other Word became flesh, by assuming it, not by consuming itself so as to be changed into it. And therefore whoever desires to arrive at any likeness, be it of what sort it may, of the Word of God, however in many respects unlike, must not regard the word of ours that sounds in the ears, either when it is uttered in an articulate sound or when it is silently thought. For the words of all tongues that are uttered in sound are also silently thought, and the mind runs over verses while the bodily mouth is silent. And not only the numbers of syllables, but the tunes also of songs, since they are corporeal, and pertain to that sense of the body which is called hearing, are at hand by certain incorporeal images appropriate to them, to those who think of them, and who silently revolve all these things. But we must pass by this, in order to arrive at that word of man, by the likeness of which, be it of what sort it may, the Word of God may be somehow seen as in an enigma. Not that word which was spoken to this or that prophet, and of which it is said, Now the word of God grew and multiplied; and again, Faith then comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ; and again, When ye received the word of God which you heard of us, you received it not as the word of men but, as it is in truth, the word of God (and there are countless other like sayings in the Scriptures respecting the word of God, which is disseminated in the sounds of many and diverse languages through the hearts and mouths of men; and which is therefore called the word of God, because the doctrine that is delivered is not human, but divine);— but we are now seeking to see, in whatsoever way we can, by means of this likeness, that Word of God of which it is said, The Word was God; of which it is said, All things were made by Him; of which it is said, The Word became flesh; of which it is said The Word of God on high is the fountain of wisdom. We must go on, then, to that word of man, to the word of the rational animal, to the word of that image of God, that is not born of God, but made by God; which is neither utterable in sound nor capable of being thought under the likeness of sound such as must needs be with the word of any tongue; but which precedes all the signs by which it is signified, and is begotten from the knowledge that continues in the mind, when that same knowledge is spoken inwardly according as it really is. For the sight of thinking is exceedingly like the sight of knowledge. For when it is uttered by sound, or by any bodily sign, it is not uttered according as it really is, but as it can be seen or heard by the body. When, therefore, that is in the word which is in the knowledge, then there is a true word, and truth, such as is looked for from man; such that what is in the knowledge is also in the word, and what is not in the knowledge is also not in the word. Here may be recognized, Yea, yea; nay, nay. And so this likeness of the image that is made, approaches as nearly as is possible to that likeness of the image that is born, by which God the Son is declared to be in all things like in substance to the Father. We must notice in this enigma also another likeness of the word of God; viz. that, as it is said of that Word, All things were made by Him, where God is declared to have made the universe by His only-begotten Son, so there are no works of man that are not first spoken in his heart: whence it is written, A word is the beginning of every work. But here also, it is when the word is true, that then it is the beginning of a good work. And a word is true when it is begotten from the knowledge of working good works, so that there too may be preserved the yea yea, nay nay; in order that whatever is in that knowledge by which we are to live, may be also in the word by which we are to work, and whatever is not in the one may not be in the other. Otherwise such a word will be a lie, not truth; and what comes thence will be a sin, and not a good work. There is yet this other likeness of the Word of God in this likeness of our word, that there can be a word of ours with no work following it, but there cannot be any work unless a word precedes; just as the Word of God could have existed though no creature existed, but no creature could exist unless by that Word by which all things are made. And therefore not God the Father, not the Holy Spirit, not the Trinity itself, but the Son only, which is the Word of God, was made flesh; although the Trinity was the maker: in order that we might live rightly through our word following and imitating His example, i.e. by having no lie in either the thought or the work of our word. But this perfection of this image is one to be at some time hereafter. In order to attain this it is that the good master teaches us by Christian faith, and by pious doctrine, that with face unveiled from the veil of the law, which is the shadow of things to come, beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, i.e. gazing at it through a glass, we may be transformed into the same image from glory to glory, as by the Spirit of the Lord; as we explained above.
[15.11.21] Cum ergo hac transformatione ad perfectum fuerit haec imago renouata similes deo erimus quoniam videbimus eum non per speculum sed sicuti est, quod dicit Paulus apostolus, facie ad faciem. Nunc vero in hoc speculo, in hoc aenigmate, in hac qualicumque similitudine quanta sit etiam dissimilitudo quis potest explicare? Attingam tamen aliqua ut valeo quibus id possit adverti.	21. When, therefore, this image shall have been renewed to perfection by this transformation, then we shall be like God, because we shall see Him, not through a glass, but as He is; which the Apostle Paul expresses by face to face. But now, who can explain how great is the unlikeness also, in this glass, in this enigma, in this likeness such as it is? Yet I will touch upon some points, as I can, by which to indicate it.
[15.12.21] Primo ipsa scientia de qua veraciter cogitatio nostra formatur quando quae scimus loquimur, qualis aut quanta potest homini provenire quamlibet peritissimo atque doctissimo? Exceptis enim quae in animum veniunt a sensibus corporis in quibus tam multa aliter sunt quam videntur ut eorum verisimilitudine nimium constipatus sanus sibi videatur esse qui insanit (unde academica philosophia sic inualuit ut de omnibus dubitans multo miserius insaniret), his ergo exceptis quae a corporis sensibus in animum veniunt, quantum rerum remanet quod ita sciamus sicut nos vivere scimus? In quo prorsus non metuimus ne aliqua verisimilitudine forte fallamur quoniam certum est etiam eum qui fallitur vivere, nec in eis visis habetur hoc quae obiciuntur extrinsecus ut in eo sic fallatur oculus quemadmodum fallitur cum in aqua remus videtur infractus et navigantibus turris moveri et alia sexcenta quae aliter sunt quam videntur, quia nec per oculum carnis hoc cernitur. Intima scientia est qua nos vivere scimus ubi ne illud quidem academicus dicere potest: 'Fortasse dormis et nescis et in somnis vides.'Visa quippe somniantium simillima esse visis vigilantium quis ignorat? Sed qui certus est de suae vitae scientia non in ea dicit: 'Scio me vigilare,' sed: 'Scio me vivere.' Sive ergo dormiat sive vigilet, vivit. Nec in ea scientia per somnia falli potest quia et dormire et in somnis videre viventis est. Nec illud potest academicus adversus istam scientiam dicere: 'Furis fortassis et nescis quia sanorum visis simillima sunt etiam visa furentium, sed qui furit vivit.' Nec contra academicos dicit: 'Scio me non furere,' sed: 'Scio me vivere.' Numquam ergo falli nec mentiri potest qui se vivere dixerit scire. Mille itaque fallacium visorum genera obiciantur ei qui dicit: 'Scio me vivere.' Nihil horum timebit quando et qui fallitur vivit. Sed si talia sola pertinent ad humanam scientiam, perpauca sunt nisi quia in unoquoque genere ita multiplicantur ut non solum pauca non sint, verum etiam reperiantur per infinitum numerum tendere. Qui enim dicit: 'Scio me vivere,' unum aliquid scire se dicit. Proinde si dicat: 'Scio me scire me vivere,' duo sunt. Iam hoc vero quod scit haec duo tertium scire est. Sic potest addere et quartum et quintum et innumerabilia si sufficiat. Sed quia innumerabilem numerum vel comprehendere singula addendo vel dicere innumerabiliter non potest, hoc ipsum certissime comprehendit ac dicit, et verum hoc esse et tam innumerabile ut verbi eius infinitum numerum non possit comprehendere ac dicere. Hoc et in voluntate certa similiter adverti potest. Quis est enim cui non impudenter respondeatur, 'forte falleris,' dicenti: 'Volo beatus esse'? Et si dicat: 'Scio me hoc velle et hoc me scire scio,' iam his duobus et tertium potest addere quod haec duo sciat; et quartum quod haec duo scire se sciat, et similiter in infinitum numerum pergere. Item si quispiam dicat: 'Errare nolo,' nonne sive erret sive non erret, errare tamen eum nolle verum erit? Quis est qui huic non impudentissime dicat: 'Forsitan falleris,' cum profecto ubicumque fallatur, falli se tamen nolle non fallitur. Et si hoc scire se dicat, addit quantum vult rerum numerum cognitarum et numerum esse perspicit infinitum. Qui enim dicit: 'Nolo me falli et hoc me nolle scio et hoc me scire scio,' iam etsi non commoda elocutione potest hinc infinitum numerum ostendere. Et alia reperiuntur quae adversus academicos valeant qui nihil ab homine sciri posse contendunt. Sed modus adhibendus est praesertim quia opere isto non hoc suscepimus. Sunt inde libri tres nostri primo nostrae conversionis tempore scripti, quos qui potuerit et voluerit legere lectosque intellexerit, nihil eum profecto quae ab eis contra perceptionem veritatis argumenta multa inventa sunt permovebunt. Cum enim duo sint genera rerum quae sciuntur, unum earum quae per sensum corporis percipit animus alterum earum quae per se ipsum, multa illi philosophi garrierunt contra corporis sensus; animi autem quasdam firmissimas per se ipsum perceptiones rerum verarum, quale illud est quod dixi: 'Scio me vivere,' nequaquam in dubium vocare potuerunt. Sed absit a nobis ut ea quae per sensus corporis didicimus vera esse dubitemus. Per eos quippe didicimus caelum et terram et ea quae in eis nota sunt nobis quantum ille qui et nos et ipsa condidit innotescere nobis voluit. Absit etiam ut scire nos negemus quae testimonio didicimus aliorum alioquin esse nescimus oceanum; nescimus esse terras atque urbes quas celeberrima fama commendat, nescimus fuisse homines et opera eorum quae historica lectione didicimus nescimus quae quotidie undecumque nuntiantur et indiciis consonis constantibusque firmantur; postremo nescimus in quibus locis vel ex quibus hominibus fuerimus exorti, quia haec omnia testimoniis credidimus aliorum. Quod si absurdissimum est dicere, non solum nostrorum verum etiam et alienorum corporum sensus plurimum addidisse nostrae scientiae confitendum est.	First, of what sort and how great is the very knowledge itself that a man can attain, be he ever so skillful and learned, by which our thought is formed with truth, when we speak what we know? For to pass by those things that come into the mind from the bodily senses, among which so many are otherwise than they seem to be, that he who is overmuch pressed down by their resemblance to truth, seems sane to himself, but really is not sane—whence it is that the Academic philosophy has so prevailed as to be still more wretchedly insane by doubting all things—passing by, then, those things that come into the mind by the bodily senses, how large a proportion is left of things which we know in such manner as we know that we live? In regard to this, indeed, we are absolutely without any fear lest perchance we are being deceived by some resemblance of the truth; since it is certain, that he who is deceived, yet lives. And this again is not reckoned among those objects of sight that are presented from without, so that the eye may be deceived in it; in such way as it is when an oar in the water looks bent, and towers seem to move as you sail past them, and a thousand other things that are otherwise than they seem to be: for this is not a thing that is discerned by the eye of the flesh. The knowledge by which we know that we live is the most inward of all knowledge, of which even the Academic cannot insinuate: Perhaps you are asleep, and do not know it, and you see things in your sleep. For who does not know that what people see in dreams is precisely like what they see when awake? But he who is certain of the knowledge of his own life, does not therein say, I know I am awake, but, I know I am alive; therefore, whether he be asleep or awake, he is alive. Nor can he be deceived in that knowledge by dreams; since it belongs to a living man both to sleep and to see in sleep. Nor can the Academic again say, in confutation of this knowledge: Perhaps you are mad, and do not know it: for what madmen see is precisely like what they also see who are sane; but he who is mad is alive. Nor does he answer the Academic by saying, I know I am not mad, but, I know I am alive. Therefore he who says he knows he is alive, can neither be deceived nor lie. Let a thousand kinds, then, of deceitful objects of sight be presented to him who says, I know I am alive; yet he will fear none of them, for he who is deceived yet is alive. But if such things alone pertain to human knowledge, they are very few indeed; unless that they can be so multiplied in each kind, as not only not to be few, but to reach in the result to infinity. For he who says, I know I am alive, says that he knows one single thing. Further, if he says, I know that I know I am alive, now there are two; but that he knows these two is a third thing to know. And so he can add a fourth and a fifth, and innumerable others, if he holds out. But since he cannot either comprehend an innumerable number by additions of units, or say a thing innumerable times, he comprehends this at least, and with perfect certainty, viz. that this is both true and so innumerable that he cannot truly comprehend and say its infinite number. This same thing may be noticed also in the case of a will that is certain. For it would be an impudent answer to make to any one who should say, I will to be happy, that perhaps you are deceived. And if he should say, I know that I will this, and I know that I know it, he can add yet a third to these two, viz. that he knows these two; and a fourth, that he knows that he knows these two; and so on ad infinitum. Likewise, if any one were to say, I will not to be mistaken; will it not be true, whether he is mistaken or whether he is not, that nevertheless he does will not to be mistaken? Would it not be most impudent to say to him, Perhaps you are deceived? When beyond doubt, whereinsoever he may be deceived, he is nevertheless not deceived in thinking that he wills not to be deceived. And if he says he knows this, he adds any number he chooses of things known, and perceives that number to be infinite. For he who says, I will not to be deceived, and I know that I will not to be so, and I know that I know it, is able now to set forth an infinite number here also, however awkward may be the expression of it. And other things too are to be found capable of refuting the Academics, who contend that man can know nothing. But we must restrict ourselves, especially as this is not the subject we have undertaken in the present work. There are three books of ours on that subject, written in the early time of our conversion, which he who can and will read, and who understands them, will doubtless not be much moved by any of the many arguments which they have found out against the discovery of truth. For whereas there are two kinds of knowable things—one, of those things which the mind perceives by the bodily senses; the other, of those which it perceives by itself—these philosophers have babbled much against the bodily senses, but have never been able to throw doubt upon those most certain perceptions of things true, which the mind knows by itself, such as is that which I have mentioned, I know that I am alive. But far be it from us to doubt the truth of what we have learned by the bodily senses; since by them we have learned to know the heaven and the earth, and those things in them which are known to us, so far as He who created both us and them has willed them to be within our knowledge. Far be it from us too to deny, that we know what we have learned by the testimony of others: otherwise we know not that there is an ocean; we know not that the lands and cities exist which most copious report commends to us; we know not that those men were, and their works, which we have learned by reading history; we know not the news that is daily brought us from this quarter or that, and confirmed by consistent and conspiring evidence; lastly, we know not at what place or from whom we have been born: since in all these things we have believed the testimony of others. And if it is most absurd to say this, then we must confess, that not only our own senses, but those of other persons also, have added very much indeed to our knowledge.
[15.12.22] Haec igitur omnia, et quae per se ipsum et quae per sensus sui corporis et quae testimoniis aliorum percepta scit animus humanus, thesauro memoriae condita tenet. Ex quibus gignitur verbum verum quando quod scimus loquimur sed verbum ante omnem sonum, ante omnem cogitationem soni. Tunc enim est verbum simillimum rei notae de qua gignitur et imago eius quoniam de visione scientiae visio cogitationis exoritur, quod est verbum linguae nullius, verbum verum de re vera, nihil de suo habens sed totum de illa scientia de qua nascitur. Nec interest quando id didicerit qui quod scit loquitur (aliquando enim statim ut discit hoc dicit), dum tamen verbum sit verum, id est de notis rebus exortum.	22. All these things, then, both those which the human mind knows by itself, and those which it knows by the bodily senses, and those which it has received and knows by the testimony of others, are laid up and retained in the storehouse of the memory; and from these is begotten a word that is true when we speak what we know, but a word that is before all sound, before all thought of a sound. For the word is then most like to the thing known, from which also its image is begotten, since the sight of thinking arises from the sight of knowledge; when it is a word belonging to no tongue, but is a true word concerning a true thing, having nothing of its own, but wholly derived from that knowledge from which it is born. Nor does it signify when he learned it, who speaks what he knows; for sometimes he says it immediately upon learning it; provided only that the word is true, i.e. sprung from things that are known.
[15.13.22] Sed numquid deus pater de quo natum est verbum de deo deus, numquid ergo deus pater in ea sapientia quod est ipse sibi alia didicit per sensum corporis sui, alia per se ipsum? Quis hoc dicat qui non animal rationale sed supra animam rationalem deum cogitat quantum ab eis cogitari potest qui eum omnibus animalibus et omnibus animis praeferunt, quamvis per speculum et in aenigmate coniciendo videant, nondum facie ad faciem sicuti est? Numquid deus pater ea ipsa quae non per corpus quod ei nullum est sed per se ipsum scit aliunde ab aliquo didicit aut nuntiis vel testibus ut ea sciret indiguit? Non utique. Ad omnia quippe scienda quae scit sufficit sibi illa perfectio. Habet quidem nuntios, id est angelos, non tamen qui ei quae nescit annuntient (non enim sunt ulla quae nesciat), sed bonum eorum est de operibus suis eius consulere veritatem, et hoc est quod ei dicuntur nonnulla nuntiare, non ut ipse ab eis discat sed ut ab illo ipsi per verbum eius sine corporali sono. Nuntiant etiam quod voluerit ab eo missi ad quos voluerit totum ab illo per illud verbum eius audientes, id est in eius veritate invenientes quid sibi faciendum, quid, quibus, quando nuntiandum sit. Nam et nos oramus eum, nec tamen necessitates nostras docemus eum. Novit enim, ait verbum eius, pater uester quid vobis necessarium sit priusquam petatis ab eo. Nec ista ex aliquo tempore cognovit ut nosset, sed futura omnia temporalia atque in eis etiam quid et quando ab illo petituri fueramus et quos et de quibus rebus vel exauditurus vel non exauditurus esset sine initio ante praescivit. Universas autem creaturas suas et spiritales et corporales non quia sunt ideo novit, sed ideo sunt quia novit. Non enim nescivit quae fuerat creaturus. Quia ergo scivit creavit, non quia creavit scivit. Nec aliter ea scivit creata quam creanda; non enim eius sapientiae aliquid accessit ex eis, sed illis exsistentibus sicut oportebat et quando oportebat illa mansit ut erat. Ita et scriptum est in libro ecclesiastico: Antequam crearentur omnia nota sunt illi, sic et postquam consummata sunt. Sic, inquit, non aliter; et antequam crearentur et postquam consummata sunt sic ei nota sunt. Longe est igitur huic scientiae scientia nostra dissimilis. Quae autem scientia dei est ipsa et sapientia, et quae sapientia ipsa essentia sive substantia quia in illius naturae simplicitate mirabili non est aliud sapere, aliud esse, sed quod est sapere hoc est et esse sicut et in superioribus libris saepe iam diximus. Nostra vero scientia in rebus plurimis propterea et amissibilis est et receptibilis quia non hoc est nobis esse quod scire vel sapere, quoniam esse possumus etiam si nesciamus neque sapiamus ea quae aliunde didicimus. Propter hoc sicut nostra scientia illi scientiae dei, sic et nostrum verbum quod nascitur de nostra scientia dissimile est illi verbo dei quod natum est de patris essentia. (Tale est autem ac si dicerem, 'de patris scientia, de patris sapientia'; vel quod est expressius, 'de patre scientia, de patre sapientia.')	But is it so, that God the Father, from whom is born the Word that is God of God—is it so, then, that God the Father, in respect to that wisdom which He is to Himself, has learned some things by His bodily senses, and others by Himself? Who could say this, who thinks of God, not as a rational animal, but as One above the rational soul? So far at least as He can be thought of, by those who place Him above all animals and all souls, although they see Him by conjecture through a glass and in an enigma, not yet face to face as He is. Is it that God the Father has learned those very things which He knows, not by the body, for He has none, but by Himself, from elsewhere from some one? Or has stood in need of messengers or witnesses that He might know them? Certainly not; since His own perfection enables Him to know all things that He knows. No doubt He has messengers, viz. the angels; but not to announce to Him things that He knows not, for there is nothing He does not know. But their good lies in consulting the truth about their own works. And this it is which is meant by saying that they bring Him word of some things, not that He may learn of them, but they of Him by His word without bodily sound. They bring Him word, too, of that which He wills, being sent by Him to whomever He wills, and hearing all from Him by that word of His, i.e. finding in His truth what themselves are to do: what, to whom, and when, they are to bring word. For we too pray to Him, yet do not inform Him what our necessities are. For your Father knows, says His Word, what things you have need of, before you ask Him. Nor did He become acquainted with them, so as to know them, at any definite time; but He knew beforehand, without any beginning, all things to come in time, and among them also both what we should ask of Him, and when; and to whom He would either listen or not listen, and on what subjects. And with respect to all His creatures, both spiritual and corporeal, He does not know them because they are, but they are because He knows them. For He was not ignorant of what He was about to create; therefore He created because He knew; He did not know because He created. Nor did He know them when created in any other way than He knew them when still to be created, for nothing accrued to His wisdom from them; but that wisdom remained as it was, while they came into existence as it was fitting and when it was fitting. So, too, it is written in the book of Ecclesiasticus: All things are known to Him ere ever they were created: so also after they were perfected. So, he says, not otherwise; so were they known to Him, both ere ever they were created, and after they were perfected. This knowledge, therefore, is far unlike our knowledge. And the knowledge of God is itself also His wisdom, and His wisdom is itself His essence or substance. Because in the marvellous simplicity of that nature, it is not one thing to be wise and another to be, but to be wise is to be; as we have often said already also in the earlier books. But our knowledge is in most things capable both of being lost and of being recovered, because to us to be is not the same as to know or to be wise; since it is possible for us to be, even although we know not, neither are wise in that which we have learned from elsewhere. Therefore, as our knowledge is unlike that knowledge of God, so is our word also, which is born from our knowledge, unlike that Word of God which is born from the essence of the Father. And this is as if I should say, born from the Father's knowledge, from the Father's wisdom; or still more exactly, from the Father who is knowledge, from the Father who is wisdom.
[15.14.23] Verbum ergo dei patris unigenitus filius per omnia patri similis et aequalis, deus de deo, lumen de lumine, sapientia de sapientia, essentia de essentia, est hoc omnino quod pater, non tamen peter quia iste filius, ille pater. Ac per hoc novit omnia quae novit peter, sed ei nosse de patre est sicut esse. Nosse enim et esse ibi unum est. Et ideo patri sicut esse non est a filio ita nec nosse. Proinde tamquam se ipsum dicens pater genuit verbum sibi aequale per omnia. Non enim se ipsum integre perfecteque dixisset si aliquid minus aut amplius esset in eius verbo quam in ipso. Ibi summe illud agnoscitur Est, est, non, non. Et ideo verbum hoc vere veritas est quondam quidquid est in ea scientia de qua est genitum et in ipso est; quod autem in ea non est nec in ipso est. Et falsum habere aliquid hoc verbum numquam potest quia immutabiliter sic se habet ut se habet de quo est. Non enim potest filius a se facere quidquam nisi quod viderit patrem facientem. Potenter hoc non potest, nec est infirmitas ista sed firmitas quia false esse non potest veritas. Novit itaque omnia deus pater in se ipso, novit in filio, sed in se ipso tamquam se ipsum, in filio tamquam verbum suum quod est de his omnibus quae sunt in se ipso. Omnia similiter novit et filius, in se scilicet tamquam ea quae nata sunt de his quae pater novit in se ipso, in patre autem tamquam ea de quibus nata sunt quae ipse filius novit in se ipso. Sciunt ergo invicem pater et filius, sed ille gignendo, ille nascendo. Et omnia quae sunt in eorum scientia, in eorum sapientia, in eorum essentia unusquisque eorum simul videt, non particulatim aut singillatim velut alternante conspectu hinc illuc et inde huc et rursus inde vel inde in aliud atque aliud ut aliqua videre non possit nisi non videns alia, sed ut dixi simul omnia videt quorum nullum est quod non semper videt.	23. The Word of God, then, the only-begotten Son of the Father, in all things like and equal to the Father, God of God, Light of Light, Wisdom of Wisdom, Essence of Essence, is altogether that which the Father is, yet is not the Father, because the one is Son, the other is Father. And hence He knows all that the Father knows; but to Him to know, as to be, is from the Father, for to know and to be is there one. And therefore, as to be is not to the Father from the Son, so neither is to know. Accordingly, as though uttering Himself, the Father begot the Word equal to Himself in all things; for He would not have uttered Himself wholly and perfectly, if there were in His Word anything more or less than in Himself. And here that is recognized in the highest sense, Yea, yea; nay, nay. And therefore this Word is truly truth, since whatever is in that knowledge from which it is born is also in itself and whatever is not in that knowledge is not in the Word. And this Word can never have anything false, because it is unchangeable, as He is from whom it is. For the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do. Through power He cannot do this; nor is it infirmity, but strength, by which truth cannot be false. Therefore God the Father knows all things in Himself, knows all things in the Son; but in Himself as though Himself, in the Son as though His own Word which Word is spoken concerning all those things that are in Himself. Similarly the Son knows all things, viz. in Himself, as things which are born of those which the Father knows in Himself, and in the Father, as those of which they are born, which the Son Himself knows in Himself. The Father then, and the Son know mutually; but the one by begetting, the other by being born. And each of them sees simultaneously all things that are in their knowledge, in their wisdom, in their essence: not by parts or singly, as though by alternately looking from this side to that, and from that side to this, and again from this or that object to this or that object, so as not to be able to see some things without at the same time not seeing others; but, as I said, sees all things simultaneously, whereof there is not one that He does not always see.
[15.14.24] Verbum autem nostrum, illud quod non habet sonum neque cogitationem soni, sed eius rei quam videndo intus dicimus, et ideo nullius linguae est atque inde utcumque simile est in hoc aenigmate illi verbo dei quod etiam deus est quondam sic et hoc de nostra nascitur quemadmodum et illud de scientia patris natum est. Nostrum ergo tale verbum quod invenimus esse utcumque illi simile, quantum sit etiam dissimile sicut a nobis dici potuerit non pigeat intueri.	24. And that word, then, of ours which has neither sound nor thought of sound, but is of that thing in seeing which we speak inwardly, and which therefore belongs to no tongue; and hence is in some sort like, in this enigma, to that Word of God which is also God; since this too is born of our knowledge, in such manner as that also is born of the knowledge of the Father: such a word, I say, of ours, which we find to be in some way like that Word, let us not be slow to consider how unlike also it is, as it may be in our power to utter it.
[15.15.24] Numquid verbum nostrum de sola scientia nostra nascitur? Nonne multa dicimus etiam quae nescimus? Nec dubitantes ea dicimus sed vera esse arbitrantes. Quae si forte vera sunt, in ipsis rebus de quibus loquimur non in verbo nostro vera sunt quia verbum verum non est nisi quod de re quae scitur gignitur. Falsum est ergo isto modo verbum nostrum non cum mentimur sed cum fallimur. Cum autem dubitamus nondum est verbum de re de qua dubitamus, sed de ipsa dubitatione verbum est. Quamvis enim non noverimus an verum sit unde dubitamus, tamen dubitare nos novimus ac per hoc cum hoc dicimus verum verbum est quondam quod novimus dicimus. Quid quod etiam mentiri possumus? Quod cum facimus utique volentes et scientes falsum verbum habemus ubi verum verbum est mentiri nos; hoc enim scimus. Et cum mentitos nos esse confitemur verum dicimus; quod scimus enim dicimus. Scimus namque nos esse mentitos. Verbum autem illud quod est deus et potentius est nobis hoc non potest. Non enim potest facere quidquam nisi quod viderit patrem facientem. Et non a se ipso loquitur sed a patre illi est omne quod loquitur cum ipsum pater unice loquitur. Et magna illius verbi potentia est non posse mentiri quia non potest esse illic est et non sed est, est, non, non. 'At enim nec verbum dicendum est quod verum non est.' Sic ita libens assentior. Quid cum verum est verbum nostrum et ideo recte verbum vocatur, numquid sicut dici potest vel visio de visione vel scientia de scientia, ita dici potest essentia de essentia sicut illud dei verbum maxime dicitur maximeque dicendum est? Quid ita? Quia non hoc est nobis esse quod nosse. Multa quippe novimus quae per memoriam quodam modo vivunt, ita et oblivione quodam modo moriuntur, atque ideo cum illa iam non sint in notitia nostra, nos tamen sumus, et cum scientia nostra animo lapsa perierit a nobis, nos tamen vivimus.	Is our word, then, born of our knowledge only? Do we not say many things also that we do not know? And say them not with doubt, but thinking them to be true; while if perchance they are true in respect to the things themselves of which we speak, they are yet not true in respect to our word, because a word is not true unless it is born of a thing that is known. In this sense, then, our word is false, not when we lie, but when we are deceived. And when we doubt, our word is not yet of the thing of which we doubt, but it is a word concerning the doubt itself. For although we do not know whether that is true of which we doubt, yet we do know that we doubt; and hence, when we say we doubt, we say a word that is true, for we say what we know. And what, too, of its being possible for us to lie? And when we do, certainly we both willingly and knowingly have a word that is false, wherein there is a word that is true, viz. that we lie, for this we know. And when we confess that we have lied, we speak that which is true; for we say what we know, for we know that we lied. But that Word which is God, and can do more than we, cannot do this. For it can do nothing except what it sees the Father do; and it speaks not of itself, but it has from the Father all that it speaks, since the Father speaks it in a special way; and the great might of that Word is that it cannot lie, because there cannot be there yea and nay, but yea yea, nay nay. Well, but that is not even to be called a word, which is not true. I willingly assent, if so it be. What, then, if our word is true and therefore is rightly called a word? Is it the case that, as we can speak of sight of sight, and knowledge of knowledge, so we can speak of essence of essence, as that Word of God is especially spoken of, and is especially to be spoken of? Why so? Because to us, to be is not the same as to know; since we know many things which in some sense live by memory, and so in some sense die by being forgotten: and so, when those things are no longer in our knowledge, yet we still are: and while our knowledge has slipped away and perished out of our mind, we are still alive.
[15.15.25] Illa etiam quae ita sciuntur ut numquam excidere possint quoniam praesentia sunt et ad ipsius animi naturam pertinent ut est illud quod nos vivere scimus; manet enim hoc quamdiu animus manet, et quia semper manet animus et hoc semper manet; id ergo et si qua reperiuntur similia in quibus imago dei potius intuenda est, etiamsi semper sciuntur, tamen quia non semper etiam cogitantur, quomodo de his dicatur verbum sempiternum, cum verbum nostrum nostra cogitatione dicatur, invenire difficile est. Sempiternum est enim animo vivere, sempiternum est scire quod vivit, nec tamen sempiternum est cogitare vitam suam vel cogitare scientiam vitae suae quoniam cum aliud atque aliud coeperit, hoc desinet cogitare quamvis non desinat scire. Ex quo fit ut si potest esse in animo aliqua scientia sempiterna, et sempiterna esse non potest eiusdem scientiae cogitatio, et verbum verum nostrum intimum nisi nostra cogitatione non dicitur solus deus intellegatur habere verbum sempiternum sibique coaeternum. Nisi forte dicendum est ipsam possibilitatem cogitationis, quoniam id quod scitur etiam quando non cogitatur potest tamen veraciter cogitari, verbum esse tam perpetuum quam scientia ipsa perpetua est. Sed quomodo est verbum quod nondum in cogitationis visione formatum est? Quomodo erit simile scientiae de qua nascitur si eius non habet formam et ideo iam vocatur verbum quia potest habere? Tale est enim ac si dicatur ideo iam vocandum esse verbum quia potest esse verbum. Sed quid est quod potest esse verbum et ideo iam dignum est verbi nomine? Quid est, inquam, hoc formabile nondumque formatum nisi quiddam mentis nostrae quod hac atque hac volubili quadam motione iactamus cum a nobis nunc hoc nunc illud sicut inventum fuerit vel occurrerit cogitatur? Et tunc fit verum verbum quando illud quod nos dixi volubili motione iactare ad id quod scimus pervenit atque inde formatur eius omnimodam similitudinem capiens ut quomodo res quaeque scitur sic etiam cogitetur, id est sine voce, sine cogitatione vocis quae profecto alicuius linguae est sic in corde dicatur. Ac per hoc etiam si concedamus, ne de controversia vocabuli laborare videamur, iam vocandum esse verbum quiddam illud mentis nostrae quod de nostra scientia formari potest etiam priusquam formatum sit quia iam ut ita dicam formabile est, quis non videat quanta hic sit dissimilitudo ab illo dei verbo quod in forma dei sic est ut non ante fuerit formabile postque formatum, nec aliquando esse possit informe, sed sit forma simplex et simpliciter aequalis ei de quo est et cui mirabiliter coaeterna est?	25. In respect to those things also which are so known that they can never escape the memory, because they are present, and belong to the nature of the mind itself—as, e.g., the knowing that we are alive (for this continues so long as the mind continues; and because the mind continues always, this also continues always)—I say, in respect to this and to any other like instances, in which we are the rather to contemplate the image of God, it is difficult to make out in what way, although they are always known, yet because they are not always also thought of, an eternal word can be spoken respecting them, when our word is spoken in our thought. For it is eternal to the soul to live; it is eternal to know that it lives. Yet it is not eternal to it to be thinking of its own life, or to be thinking of its own knowledge of its own life; since, in entering upon this or that occupation, it will cease to think of this, although it does not cease from knowing it. And hence it comes to pass, that if there can be in the mind any knowledge that is eternal, while the thought of that knowledge cannot be eternal, and any inner and true word of ours is only said by our thought, then God alone can be understood to have a Word that is eternal, and co-eternal with Himself. Unless, perhaps, we are to say that the very possibility of thought— since that which is known is capable of being truly thought, even at the time when it is not being thought— constitutes a word as perpetual as the knowledge itself is perpetual. But how is that a word which is not yet formed in the vision of the thought? How will it be like the knowledge of which it is born, if it has not the form of that knowledge, and is only now called a word because it can have it? For it is much as if one were to say that a word is to be so called because it can be a word. But what is this that can be a word, and is therefore already held worthy of the name of a word? What, I say, is this thing that is formable, but not yet formed, except a something in our mind, which we toss to and fro by revolving it this way or that, while we think of first one thing and then another, according as they are found by or occur to us? And the true word then comes into being, when, as I said, that which we toss to and fro by revolving it arrives at that which we know, and is formed by that, in taking its entire likeness; so that in what manner each thing is known, in that manner also it is thought, i.e. is said in this manner in the heart, without articulate sound, without thought of articulate sound, such as no doubt belongs to some particular tongue. And hence if we even admit, in order not to dispute laboriously about a name, that this something of our mind, which can be formed from our knowledge, is to be already called a word, even before it is so formed, because it is, so to say, already formable, who would not see how great would be the unlikeness between it and that Word of God, which is so in the form of God, as not to have been formable before it was formed, or to have been capable at any time of being formless, but is a simple form, and simply equal to Him from whom it is, and with whom it is wonderfully co-eternal?
[15.16.25] Quapropter ita dicitur illud dei verbum ut dei cogitatio non dicatur ne aliquid esse quasi volubile credatur in deo, quod nunc accipiat, nunc recipiat formam ut verbum sit eamque possit amittere atque informiter quodam modo volutari. Bene quippe noverat verba et vim cogitationis inspexerat locutor egregius qui dixit in carmine: secumque volutat Euentus belli varios; id est, cogitat. Non ergo ille dei filius cogitatio dei sed verbum dei dicitur. Cogitatio quippe nostra perveniens ad id quod scimus atque inde formata verbum nostrum verum est. Et ideo verbum dei sine cogitatione dei debet intellegi ut forma ipsa simplex intellegatur, non aliquid habens formabile quod esse etiam possit inIorme. Dicuntur quidem etiam in scripturis sanctis cogitationes dei sed eo locutionis modo quo ibi et oblivio dei dicitur, quae utique ad proprietatem in deo nulla est.	Wherefore that Word of God is in such wise so called, as not to be called a thought of God, lest we believe that there is anything in God which can be revolved, so that it at one time receives and at another recovers a form, so as to be a word, and again can lose that form and be revolved in some sense formlessly. Certainly that excellent master of speech knew well the force of words, and had looked into the nature of thought, who said in his poem, And revolves with himself the varying issues of war, i.e. thinks of them. That Son of God, then, is not called the Thought of God, but the Word of God. For our own thought, attaining to what we know, and formed thereby, is our true word. And so the Word of God ought to be understood without any thought on the part of God, so that it be understood as the simple form itself, but containing nothing formable that can be also unformed. There are, indeed, passages of Holy Scripture that speak of God's thoughts; but this is after the same mode of speech by which the forgetfulness of God is also there spoken of, whereas in strict propriety of language there is in Him certainly no forgetfulness.
[15.16.26] Quamobrem cum tanta sit nunc in isto aenigmate dissimilitudo dei et verbi dei in qua tamen nonnulla similitudo comperta est, illud quoque fatendum est quod etiam cum similes ei erimus quando eum videbimus sicuti est (quod utique qui dixit hanc procul dubio quae nunc est dissimilitudinem attendit), nec tunc natura illi erimus aequales. Semper enim natura minor est faciente quae facta est. Et tunc quidem verbum nostrum non erit falsum quia neque mentiemur neque fallemur. Fortassis etiam non erunt volubiles nostrae cogitationes ab aliis in alia euntes atque redeuntes, sed omnem scientiam nostram uno simul conspectu videbimus. Tamen cum et hoc fuerit, si et hoc fuerit, formata erit creatura quae formabilis fuit ut nihil iam desit eius formae ad quam pervenire deberet; sed tamen coaequanda non erit illi simplicitati ubi non formabile aliquid formatum vel reformatum est sed forma. Neque informis neque formata ipsa ibi aeterna est immutabilisque substantia. Satis de patre et filio quantum per hoc speculum atque in hoc aenigmate videre potuimus locuti sumus.	26. Wherefore, since we have found now in this enigma so great an unlikeness to God and the Word of God, wherein yet there was found before some likeness, this, too, must be admitted, that even when we shall be like Him, when we shall see Him as He is (and certainly he who said this was aware beyond doubt of our present unlikeness), not even then shall we be equal to Him in nature. For that nature which is made is ever less than that which makes. And at that time our word will not indeed be false, because we shall neither lie nor be deceived. Perhaps, too, our thoughts will no longer revolve by passing and repassing from one thing to another, but we shall see all our knowledge at once, and at one glance. Still, when even this shall have come to pass, if indeed it shall come to pass, the creature which was formable will indeed have been formed, so that nothing will be wanting of that form to which it ought to attain; yet nevertheless it will not be to be equalled to that simplicity wherein there is not anything formable, which has been formed or reformed, but only form; and which being neither formless nor formed, itself is eternal and unchangeable substance.
[15.17.27] Nunc de spiritu sancto quantum deo donante videre conceditur disserendum est. Qui spiritus sanctus secundum scripturas sanctas nec patris est solius nec filii solius sed amborum et ideo communem qua invicem se diligunt pater et filius nobis insinuat caritatem. Ut autem nos exerceret sermo divinus non res in promptu sitas sed in abdito scrutandas et ex abdito eruendas maiore studio fecit inquiri. Non itaque dixit scriptura: 'Spiritus sanctus caritas est,' quod si dixisset non paruam partem quaestionis istius abstulisset, sed dixit: Deus caritas est ut incertum sit et ideo requirendum utrum deus pater sit caritas, an deus filius, an deus spiritus sanctus, an deus ipsa trinitas. Neque enim dicturi sumus non propterea deum dictam esse caritatem quod ipsa caritas sit ulla substantia quae dei digna sit nomine, sed quod donum sit dei sicut dictum est deo: Quoniam tu es patientia mea. Non utique propterea dictum est quia dei substantia est nostra patientia, sed quod ab ipso nobis est sicut alibi legitur: Quoniam ab ipso est patientia mea. Hunc quippe sensum facile refellit scripturarum ipsa locutio. Tale est enim tu es patientia mea quale est domine, spes mea et deus meus misericordia mea et multa similia. Non est autem dictum 'domine, caritas mea' aut 'tu es caritas mea' aut 'deus, caritas mea,' sed ita dictum est: Deus caritas est sicut dictum est: Deus spiritus est. Hoc qui non discernit intellectum a domino, non expositionem quaerat a nobis; non enim apertius quidquam possumus dicere.	27. We have sufficiently spoken of the Father and of the Son, so far as was possible for us to see through this glass and in this enigma. We must now treat of the Holy Spirit, so far as by God's gift it is permitted to see Him. And the Holy Spirit, according to the Holy Scriptures, is neither of the Father alone, nor of the Son alone, but of both; and so intimates to us a mutual love, wherewith the Father and the Son reciprocally love one another. But the language of the Word of God, in order to exercise us, has caused those things to be sought into with the greater zeal, which do not lie on the surface, but are to be scrutinized in hidden depths, and to be drawn out from thence. The Scriptures, accordingly, have not said, The Holy Spirit is Love. If they had said so, they would have done away with no small part of this inquiry. But they have said, God is love; so that it is uncertain and remains to be inquired whether God the Father is love, or God the Son, or God the Holy Ghost, or the Trinity itself which is God. For we are not going to say that God is called Love because love itself is a substance worthy of the name of God, but because it is a gift of God, as it is said to God, You are my patience. For this is not said because our patience is God's substance, but in that He Himself gives it to us; as it is elsewhere read, Since from Him is my patience. For the usage of words itself in Scripture sufficiently refutes this interpretation; for You are my patience is of the same kind as You, Lord, art my hope, and The Lord my God is my mercy, and many like texts. And it is not said, O Lord my love, or, You are my love, or, God my love; but it is said thus, God is love, as it is said, God is a Spirit. And he who does not discern this, must ask understanding from the Lord, not an explanation from us; for we cannot say anything more clearly.
[15.17.28] Deus ergo caritas est. Utrum autem pater an filius an spiritus sanctus an ipsa trinitas quia et ipsa non tres dii sed deus est unus, hoc quaeritur. Sed iam in hoc libro superius disputavi non sic accipiendam esse trinitatem quae deus est , ex illis tribus quae in trinitate nostrae mentis ostendimus ut tamquam memoria sit omnium trium pater et intellegentia omnium trium filius et caritas omnium trium spiritus sanctus, quasi pater non intellegat sibi nec diligat, sed ei filius intellegat et spiritus sanctus ei diligat, ipse autem et sibi et illis tantum meminerit; et filius nec meminerit nec diligat sibi, sed meminerit ei pater et diligat ei spiritus sanctus, ipse autem et sibi et illis tantummodo intellegat; itemgue spiritus sanctus nec meminerit nec intellegat sibi, sed meminerit ei pater et intellegat ei filius, ipse autem et sibi et illis non nisi diligat; sed sic potius ut omnia tria et omnes et singuli habeant in sue quisque natura. Nec dissent in eis ista, sicut in nobis aliud est memoria, aliud intellegentia, aliud dilectio sive caritas; sed unum aliquid sit quod omnia valeat sicut ipsa sapientia, et sic habetur in uniuscuiusque natura ut qui habet hoc sit quod habet sicut immutabilis simplexque substantia. Si ergo haec intellecta sunt et quantum nobis in rebus tantis videre vel coniectare concessum est vera esse claruerunt, nescio cur non sicut sapientia et pater dicitur et filius et spiritus sanctus, et simul omnes non tres sed una sapientia, ita et caritas et pater dicatur et filius et spiritus sanctus, et simul omnes una caritas. Sic enim et pater deus et filius deus et spiritus sanctus deus, et simul omnes unus deus.	28. God, then, is love; but the question is, whether the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit, or the Trinity itself: because the Trinity is not three Gods, but one God. But I have already argued above in this book, that the Trinity, which is God, is not so to be understood from those three things which have been set forth in the trinity of our mind, as that the Father should be the memory of all three, and the Son the understanding of all three, and the Holy Spirit the love of all three; as though the Father should neither understand nor love for Himself, but the Son should understand for Him, and the Holy Spirit love for Him, but He Himself should remember only both for Himself and for them; nor the Son remember nor love for Himself, but the Father should remember for Him, and the Holy Spirit love for Him, but He Himself understand only both for Himself and them; nor likewise that the Holy Spirit should neither remember nor understand for Himself, but the Father should remember for Him, and the Son understand for Him, while He Himself should love only both for Himself and for them; but rather in this way, that both all and each have all three each in His own nature. Nor that these things should differ in them, as in us memory is one thing, understanding another, love or charity another, but should be some one thing that is equivalent to all, as wisdom itself; and should be so contained in the nature of each, as that He who has it is that which He has, as being an unchangeable and simple substance. If all this, then, has been understood, and so far as is granted to us to see or conjecture in things so great, has been made patently true, I know not why both the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit should not be called Love, and all together one love, just as both the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit is called Wisdom, and all together not three, but one wisdom. For so also both the Father is God, and the Son God, and the Holy Ghost God, and all three together one God.
[15.17.29] Et tamen non frustra in hac trinitate non dicitur verbum dei nisi filius, nec donum dei nisi spiritus sanctus, nec de quo genitum est verbum et de quo procedit principaliter spiritus sanctus nisi deus pater. Ideo autem addidi, principaliter, quia et de filio spiritus sanctus procedere reperitur. Sed hoc quoque illi pater dedit (non iam exsistenti et nondum habenti), sed quidquid unigenito verbo dedit gignendo dedit. Sic ergo eum genuit ut etiam de illo donum commune procederet et spiritus sanctus spiritus esset amborum. Non est igitur accipienda transeunter sed diligenter intuenda inseparabilis trinitatis ista distinctio. Hinc enim factum est ut proprie dei verbum etiam dei sapientia diceretur, cum sit sapientia et pater et spiritus sanctus. Si ergo proprie aliquid horum trium caritas nuncupanda est, quid aptius quam ut hoc sit spiritus sanctus? Ut scilicet in illa simplici summaque natura non sit aliud substantia et aliud caritas, sed substantia ipsa sit caritas et caritas ipsa substantia sive in patre sive in filio sive in spiritu sancto, et tamen proprie spiritus sanctus caritas nuncupetur.	29. And yet it is not to no purpose that in this Trinity the Son and none other is called the Word of God, and the Holy Spirit and none other the Gift of God, and God the Father alone is He from whom the Word is born, and from whom the Holy Spirit principally proceeds. And therefore I have added the word principally, because we find that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son also. But the Father gave Him this too, not as to one already existing, and not yet having it; but whatever He gave to the only-begotten Word, He gave by begetting Him. Therefore He so begot Him as that the common Gift should proceed from Him also, and the Holy Spirit should be the Spirit of both. This distinction, then, of the inseparable Trinity is not to be merely accepted in passing, but to be carefully considered; for hence it was that the Word of God was specially called also the Wisdom of God, although both Father and Holy Spirit are wisdom. If, then, any one of the three is to be specially called Love, what more fitting than that it should be the Holy Spirit?— namely, that in that simple and highest nature, substance should not be one thing and love another, but that substance itself should be love, and love itself should be substance, whether in the Father, or in the Son, or in the Holy Spirit; and yet that the Holy Spirit should be specially called Love.
[15.17.30] Sicut legis nomine aliquando simul omnia ueteris instrumenti sanctarum scripturarum significantur eloquia. Nam ex propheta Esaia testimonium ponens apostolus ubi ait: In aliis linguis et in aliis labiis loquar populo huic praemisit tamen: In lege scriptum est. Et ipse dominus: In lege, inquit, eorum scriptum est quia oderunt me gratis cum hoc legatur in psalmo. Aliquando autem proprie vocatur lex quae data est per Moysen, secundum quod dictum est: Lex et prophetae usque ad Iohannem et: In his duobus praeceptis tota lex pendet et prophetae. Hic utique proprie lex appellata est de monte Sina. Prophetarum autem nomine etiam psalmi significati sunt, et tamen alio loco ipse saluator: Oportebat, inquit, impleri omnia quae scripta sunt in lege et in prophetis et in psalmis de me. Hic rursus prophetarum nomen exceptis psalmis intellegi voluit. Dicitur ergo lex universaliter cum prophetis et psalmis, dicitur et proprie quae per Moysen data est. Item dicuntur communiter prophetae simul cum psalmis, dicuntur et proprie praeter psalmos. Et multis aliis exemplis doceri potest multa rerum vocabula et universaliter poni et proprie quibusdam rebus adhiberi nisi in re aperta vitanda sit longitudo sermonis. Hoc ideo dixi ne quisquam propterea nos inconvenienter existimet caritatem appellare spiritum sanctum quia et deus pater et deus filius potest caritas nuncupari.	30. Just as sometimes all the utterances of the Old Testament together in the Holy Scriptures are signified by the name of the Law. For the apostle, in citing a text from the prophet Isaiah, where he says, With various tongues and with various lips will I speak to this people, yet prefaced it by, It is written in the Law. And the Lord Himself says, It is written in their Law, They hated me without a cause, whereas this is read in the Psalm. And sometimes that which was given by Moses is specially called the Law: as it is said, The Law and the Prophets were until John; and, On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets. Here, certainly, that is specially called the Law which was from Mount Sinai. And the Psalms, too, are signified under the name of the Prophets; and yet in another place the Saviour Himself says, All things must needs be fulfilled, which are written in the Law, and the Prophets, and the Psalms concerning me. Here, on the other side, He meant the name of Prophets to be taken as not including the Psalms. Therefore the Law with the Prophets and the Psalms taken together is called the Law universally, and the Law is also specially so called which was given by Moses. Likewise the Prophets are so called in common together with the Psalms, and they are also specially so called exclusive of the Psalms. And many other instances might be adduced to teach us, that many names of things are both put universally, and also specially applied to particular things, were it not that a long discourse is to be avoided in a plain case. I have said so much, lest any one should think that it was therefore unsuitable for us to call the Holy Spirit Love, because both God the Father and God the Son can be called Love.
[15.17.31] Sicut ergo unicum dei verbum proprie vocamus nomine sapientiae, cum sit universaliter et spiritus sanctus et pater ipse sapientia, ita spiritus proprie nuncupatur vocabulo caritatis, cum sit et pater et filius universaliter caritas. Sed dei verbum, id est unigenitus dei filius, aperte dictus est dei sapientia ore apostolico ubi ait: Christum dei virtutem et dei sapientiam. Spiritus autem sanctus ubi sit dictus caritas invenimus si diligenter Iohannis apostoli scrutemur eloquium, qui cum dixisset: Dilectissimi, diligamus invicem quia dilectio ex deo est secutus adiunxit: Et omnis qui diligit ex deo natus est. Qui non diligit non cognovit deum quia deus dilectio est. Hic manifestavit eam se dixisse dilectionem deum quam dixit ex deo. Deus ergo ex deo est dilectio. Sed quia et filius ex deo patre natus est et spiritus sanctus ex deo patre procedit, quem potius eorum hic debeamus accipere dictum esse dilectionem deum merito quaeritur. Pater enim solus ita deus est ut non sit ex deo, ac per hoc dilectio quae ita deus est ut ex deo sit aut filius est aut spiritus sanctus. Sed in consequentibus cum dei dilectionem commemorasset, non qua nos eum sed qua nos ipse dilexit et misit filium suum litatorem pro peccatis nostris et hinc exhortatus esset ut et nos invicem diligamus atque ita deus in nobis maneat quia utique dilectionem deum dixerat, statim volens de hac re apertius aliquid eloqui: In hoc, inquit, cognoscimus quia in ipso manemus et ipse in nobis quia de spiritu suo dedit nobis. Sanctus itaque spiritus de quo dedit nobis facit nos in deo manere et ipsum in nobis. Hoc autem facit dilectio. Ipse est igitur deus dilectio. Denique paulo post cum hoc ipsum repetisset atque dixisset: Deus dilectio est continuo subiecit: Et qui manet in dilectione in deo manet, et deus in eo manet unde supra dixerat: In hoc cognoscimus quia in ipso manemus et ipse in nobis quia de spiritu suo dedit nobis. Ipse ergo significatur ubi legitur: Deus dilectio est. Deus igitur spiritus sanctus qui procedit ex deo cum datus fuerit homini accendit eum in dilectionem dei et proximi, et ipse dilectio est. Non enim habet homo unde deum diligat nisi ex deo. Propter quod paulo post dicit: Nos diligamus quia ipse prior dilexit nos. Apostolus quoque Paulus: Dilectio, inquit, dei diffusa est in cordibus nostris per spiritum sanctum qui datus est nobis.	31. As, then, we call the only Word of God specially by the name of Wisdom, although universally both the Holy Spirit and the Father Himself is wisdom; so the Holy Spirit is specially called by the name of Love, although universally both the Father and the Son are love. But the Word of God, i.e. the only-begotten Son of God, is expressly called the Wisdom of God by the mouth of the apostle, where he says, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. But where the Holy Spirit is called Love, is to be found by careful scrutiny of the language of John the apostle, who, after saying, Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God, has gone on to say, And every one that loves is born of God, and knows God. He that loves not, knows not God; for God is love. Here, manifestly, he has called that love God, which he said was of God; therefore God of God is love. But because both the Son is born of God the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from God the Father, it is rightly asked which of them we ought here to think is the rather called the love that is God. For the Father only is so God as not to be of God; and hence the love that is so God as to be of God, is either the Son or the Holy Spirit. But when, in what follows, the apostle had mentioned the love of God, not that by which we love Him, but that by which He loved us, and sent His Son to be a propitiator for our sins, and thereupon had exhorted us also to love one another, and that so God would abide in us—because, namely, he had called God Love; immediately, in his wish to speak yet more expressly on the subject, Hereby, he says, know we that we dwell in Him, and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit. Therefore the Holy Spirit, of whom He has given us, makes us to abide in God, and Him in us; and this it is that love does. Therefore He is the God that is love. Lastly, a little after, when he had repeated the same thing, and had said God is love, he immediately subjoined, And he who abides in love, abides in God, and God abides in him; whence he had said above, Hereby we know that we abide in Him, and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit. He therefore is signified, where we read that God is love. Therefore God the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father, when He has been given to man, inflames him to the love of God and of his neighbor, and is Himself love. For man has not whence to love God, unless from God; and therefore he says a little after, Let us love Him, because He first loved us. The Apostle Paul, too, says, The love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost, which is given unto us.
[15.18.32] Nullum est isto dei dono excellentius. Solum est quod dividit inter filios regni aeterni et filios perditionis aeternae. Dantur et alia per spiritum munera, sed sine caritate nihil prosunt. Nisi ergo tantum impertiatur cuique spiritus sanctus ut eum dei et proximi faciat amatorem, a sinistra non transfertur ad dextram. Nec spiritus proprie dicitur donum nisi propter dilectionem quam qui non habuerit si linguis hominum loquatur et angelorum, sonans aeramentum est et cymbalum tinniens; et si habuerit prophetiam et scierit omnia sacramenta et omnem scientiam et habuerit omnem fidem ita ut montes transferat, nihil est; et si distribuerit omnem substantiam suam et si tradiderit corpus suum ut ardeat, nihil ei prodest. Quantum ergo bonum est sine quo ad aeternam vitam neminem bona tanta perducunt? Ipsa vero dilectio sive caritas (nam unius rei est nomen utrumque), si habeat eam qui non loquitur linguis nec habet prophetiam nec omnia scit sacramenta omnemque scientiam nec distribuit omnia sua pauperibus vel non habendo quod distribuat vel aliqua necessitate prohibitus, nec tradit corpus suum ut ardeat si talis passionis nulla temptatio est, perducit ad regnum ita ut ipsam fidem non faciat utilem nisi caritas. Sine caritate quippe fides potest quidem esse sed non et prodesse. Propter quod et apostolus Paulus: In Christo, inquit, Iesu neque circumcisio ali quid valet ne que praeputium, sed fides quae per dilectionem operatur sic eam discernens ab ea fide qua et daemones credunt et contremescunt. Dilectio igitur quae ex deo est et deus est proprie spiritus sanctus est per quem diffunditur in cordibus nostris dei caritas per quam nos tota inhabitet trinitas. Quocirca rectissime spiritus sanctus, cum sit deus, vocatur etiam donum dei. Quod donum proprie quid nisi caritas intellegenda est quae perducit ad deum et sine qua quodlibet aliud dei donum non perducit ad deum?	32. There is no gift of God more excellent than this. It alone distinguishes the sons of the eternal kingdom and the sons of eternal perdition. Other gifts, too, are given by the Holy Spirit; but without love they profit nothing. Unless, therefore, the Holy Spirit is so far imparted to each, as to make him one who loves God and his neighbor, he is not removed from the left hand to the right. Nor is the Spirit specially called the Gift, unless on account of love. And he who has not this love, though he speak with the tongues of men and angels, is sounding brass and a tinkling cymbal; and though he have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge, and though he have all faith, so that he can remove mountains, he is nothing; and though he bestow all his goods to feed the poor, and though he give his body to be burned, it profits him nothing. How great a good, then, is that without which goods so great bring no one to eternal life! But love or charity itself—for they are two names for one thing—if he have it that does not speak with tongues, nor has the gift of prophecy, nor knows all mysteries and all knowledge, nor gives all his goods to the poor, either because he has none to give or because some necessity hinders, nor delivers his body to be burned, if no trial of such a suffering overtakes him, brings that man to the kingdom, so that faith itself is only rendered profitable by love, since faith without love can indeed exist, but cannot profit. And therefore also the Apostle Paul says, In Christ Jesus neither circumcision avails anything, nor uncircumcision, but faith that works by love: so distinguishing it from that faith by which even the devils believe and tremble. Love, therefore, which is of God and is God, is specially the Holy Spirit, by whom the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts, by which love the whole Trinity dwells in us. And therefore most rightly is the Holy Spirit, although He is God, called also the gift of God. And by that gift what else can properly be understood except love, which brings to God, and without which any other gift of God whatsoever does not bring to God?
[15.19.33] An et hoc probandum est donum dei dictum esse in sacris litteris spiritum sanctum? Si et hoc exspectatur, habemus in euangelio secundum Iohannem domini Christi verba dicentis: Si quis sitit, veniat ad me et bibat. Qui credit in me sicut dicit scriptura femina de ventre eius fluent aquae vivae. Porro euangelista secutus adiunxit: Hoc autem dixit de spiritu quem accepturi erant credentes in eum. Unde dicit etiam Paulus apostolus: Et omnes unum spiritum potavimus. Utrum autem donum dei sit appellata aqua ista quod est spiritus sanctus hoc quaeritur. Sed sicut hic invenimus hanc aquam spiritum sanctum esse, ita invenimus alibi in ipso euangelio hanc aquam dei donum appellatam. Nam dominus idem quando cum samaritana muliere ad puteum loquebatur cui dixerat: Da mihi bibere cum illa respondisset quod iudaei non couterentur samaritanis, respondit Iesus et dixit ei: Si scires donum dei et quis est qui dicit tibi . Da mihi bibere, tu forsitan petisses ab eo et dedisset tibi aquam vivam. Dicit ei mulier: Domine, neque in quo haurias habes et puteus altus est. Unde ergo habes aquam vivam? etc. Respondit Iesus et dixit ei: Omnis qui biberit ex aqua hac sitiet iterum, qui autem biberit ex aqua quam ego dabo ei non sitiet in aeternum, sed aqua quam dabo ei fiet in eo fons aquae salientis in vitam aeternam. Quia ergo haec aqua viva sicut euangelista exposuit spiritus sanctus est, procul dubio spiritus donum dei est de quo hic dominus ait: Si scires donum dei et quis est qui dicit tibi: Da mihi bibere, tu forsitan petisses ab eo et dedisset tibi aquam vitam. Nam quod ibi ait: Flumina de ventre eius fluent aquae vitae hoc in isto loco: Fiet, inquit, in eo fons aquae salientis in vitam aeternam.	33. Is this too to be proved, that the Holy Spirit is called in the sacred books the gift of God? If people look for this too, we have in the Gospel according to John the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, who says, If any one thirst, let him come to me and drink: he that believes in me, as the Scripture says, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. And the evangelist has gone on further to add, And this He spoke of the Spirit, which they should receive who believe in Him. And hence Paul the apostle also says, And we have all been made to drink into one Spirit. The question then is, whether that water is called the gift of God which is the Holy Spirit. But as we find here that this water is the Holy Spirit, so we find elsewhere in the Gospel itself that this water is called the gift of God. For when the same Lord was talking with the woman of Samaria at the well, to whom He had said, Give me to drink, and she had answered that the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans, Jesus answered and said unto her, If you had known the gift of God, and who it is that says to you, Give me to drink, you would have asked of Him, and He would have given you living water. The woman says unto Him, Sir, you have nothing to draw with, and the well is deep: whence then have you this living water, etc.? Jesus answered and said unto her, Every one that drinks of this water shall thirst again; but whose shall drink of the water that I shall give him, shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him, shall be in him a fountain of water springing up unto eternal life. Because this living water, then, as the evangelist has explained to us, is the Holy Spirit, without doubt the Spirit is the gift of God, of which the Lord says here, If you had known the gift of God, and who it is that says unto you, Give me to drink, you would have asked of Him, and He would have given you living water. For that which is in the one passage, Out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water, is in the other, shall be in him a fountain of water springing up unto eternal life.
[15.19.34] Paulus quoque apostolus: Unicuique, inquit, nostrum datur gratia secundum mensuram donationis Christi atque ut donationem Christi sanctum spiritum ostenderet secutus adiunxit: Propter quod dicit: Ascendit in altum, captivavit captivitatem, dedit dona hominibus. Notissimum est autem dominum Iesum cum post resurrectionem a mortuis ascendisset in caelum dedisse spiritum sanctum quo impleti qui crediderant linguis omnium gentium loquebantur. Nec moveat quod ait dona, non donum; id enim testimonium de psalmo posuit. Hoc autem in psalmo ita legitur: Ascendisti in altum captivasti captivitatem, accepisti dona in hominibus. Sic enim plures codices habent et maxime graeci, et ex hebraeo sic interpretatum habemus. Dona itaque dixit apostolus quemadmodum propheta, non donum; sed cum propheta dixerit accepisti in hoininibus, apostolus maluit dicere, dedit hoininibus, ut ex utroque scilicet verbo, uno prophetico, apostolico altero, quia in utroque est divini sermonis auctoritas, sensus plenissimus redderetur. Utrumque enim verum est, et quia dedit hominibus et quia accepit in hominibus. Dedit hominibus tamquam caput membris suis; accepit in hominibus idem ipse utique in membris suis, propter quae membra sua clamavit de caelo: Saule, Saule, quid me persequeris? et de quibus membris suis ait: Quando uni ex minimis meis fecistis, mihi fecistis. Ipse ergo Christus et dedit de caelo et accepit in terra. Porro autem dona ob hoc ambo dixerunt et propheta et apostolus quia per donum quod est spiritus sanctus in commune omnibus membris Christi multa dona quae sint quibusque propria dividuntur. Non enim singuli quique habent omnia, sed hi illa, alii alia, quamvis ipsum donum a quo cuique propria dividuntur omnes habeant, id est spiritum sanctum. Nam et alibi cum multa dona commemorasset: Omnia, inquit, haec operatur unus atque idem spiritus dividens propria unicuique prout vult. Quod verbum et in epistula quae ad hebraeos est invenitur ubi scriptum est: Attestante deo signis et ostentis et variis virtutibus et spiritus sancti divisionibus. Et hic cum dixisset, ascendit in altum, captivavit captivitatem, dedit dona hominibus: Quod autem ascendit, ait, quid est nisi quia et descendit in inferiores partes terrae? Qui descendit ipse est et qui ascendit super omnes caelos ut adimpleret omnia. Et ipse dedit quosdam quidein apostolos, quosdam autem prophetas, quosdam vero euangelistas, quosdam autem pastores et doctores. Ecce quare dicta sunt dona. Quia sicut alibi dicit: Numquid omnes apostoli, numquid omnes prophetae? etc. hic autem adiunxit: Ad consummationem sanctorum in opus ministerii, in aedificationem corporis Christi. Haec est domus quae sicut psalmus canit aedificatur post captivitatem quoniam qui sunt a diabolo eruti a quo captivi tenebantur, de his aedificatur corpus Christi, quae domus appellatur ecclesia. Hanc autem captivitatem ipse captivavit qui diabolum vicit. Et ne illa quae futura erant sancti capitis membra in aeternum supplicium secum traheret, eum iustitiae prius deinde potentiae vinculis alligavit. Ipse itaque diabolus est appellata captivitas quam captivavit qui ascendit in altum? et dedit dona hominibus vel accepit in hominibus.	34. Paul the apostle also says, To each of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ; and then, that he might show that by the gift of Christ he meant the Holy Spirit, he has gone on to add, Wherefore He says, He has ascended up on high, He has led captivity captive, and has given gifts to men. And every one knows that the Lord Jesus, when He had ascended into heaven after the resurrection from the dead, gave the Holy Spirit, with whom they who believed were filled, and spoke with the tongues of all nations. And let no one object that he says gifts, not gift: for he quoted the text from the Psalm. And in the Psalm it is read thus, You have ascended up on high, You have led captivity captive, You have received gifts in men. For so it stands in many mss ., especially in the Greek mss ., and so we have it translated from the Hebrew. The apostle therefore said gifts, as the prophet did, not gift. But whereas the prophet said, You have received gifts in men, the apostle has preferred saying, He gave gifts to men: and this in order that the fullest sense may be gathered from both expressions, the one prophetic, the other apostolic; because both possess the authority of a divine utterance. For both are true, as well that He gave to men, as that He received in men. He gave to men, as the head to His own members: He Himself that gave, received in men, no doubt as in His own members; on account of which, namely, His own members, He cried from heaven, Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? And of which, namely, His own members, He says, Since you have done it to one of the least of these that are mine, you have done it unto me. Christ Himself, therefore, both gave from heaven and received on earth. And further, both prophet and apostle have said gifts for this reason, because many gifts, which are proper to each, are divided in common to all the members of Christ, by the Gift, which is the Holy Spirit. For each severally has not all, but some have these and some have those; although all have the Gift itself by which that which is proper to each is divided to Him, i.e. the Holy Spirit. For elsewhere also, when he had mentioned many gifts, All these, he says, works that one and the self-same Spirit, dividing to each severally as He will. And this word is found also in the Epistle to the Hebrews, where it is written, God also bearing witness both with signs and wonders, and with various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost. And so here, when he had said, He ascended up on high, He led captivity captive, He gave gifts to men, he says further, But that He ascended, what is it but that He also first descended into the lower parts of the earth? He who descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that He might fill all things. And He gave some apostles, some prophets, and some evangelists, and some pastors and doctors. (This we see is the reason why gifts are spoken of; because, as he says elsewhere, Are all apostles? Are all prophets? etc.) And here he has added, For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the building up of the body of Christ. This is the house which, as the Psalm sings, is built up after the captivity; since the house of Christ, which house is called His Church, is built up of those who have been rescued from the devil, by whom they were held captive. But He Himself led this captivity captive, who conquered the devil. And that he might not draw with him into eternal punishment those who were to become the members of the Holy Head, He bound him first by the bonds of righteousness, and then by those of might. The devil himself, therefore, is called captivity, which He led captive who ascended up on high, and gave gifts to men, or received gifts in men.
[15.19.35] Petrus autem apostolus sicut in eo libro canonico legitur ubi scripti sunt actus apostolorum, loquens de Christo commotis corde iudaeis et dicentibus: Quid ergo faciemus, fratres? Monstrate nobis, dixit ad eos: Agite poenitentiarn et baptizetur unusquisque uestrum in nomine Iesu Christi in remissionem peccatorum, et accipietis donum spiritus sancti. Itemque in eodem libro legitur Simonem magum apostolis dare voluisse pecuniam ut ab eis acciperet potestatem qua per impositionem manus eius daretur spiritus sanctus. Cui Petrus idem: Pecunia, inquit, tua tecum sit in perditionem quia donum dei aestimasti te per pecuniam possidere. Et alio eiusdem libri loco cum Petrus Cornelio et eis qui cum illo fuerant loqueretur annuntians et praedicans Christum ait scriptura: Adhuc loquente Petro verba haec cecidit spiritus sanctus super omnes qui audiebant verbum, et obstupuerunt qui ex circuincisione fideles simul cum Petro venerant quia et in nationes donum spiritus sancti effusum est. Audiebant enim illos loquentes linguis et magnificantes deum. De quo facto suo quod incircumcisos baptizaverat quia priusquam baptizarentur ut nodum quaestionis huius auferret in eos venerat spiritus sanctus, cum Petrus postea redderet rationem fratribus qui erant Hierosolymis et hac re audita movebantur ait post caetera: Cum coepissem autem loqui ad illos, cecidit spiritus sanctus in illos sicut et in nos in initio, memoratusque surn verbi domini sicut dicebat: Quia Iohannes quidem baptizavit aqua, vos vero baptizabimini spiritu sancto. Si igitur aequale donum dedit illis sicut et nobis qui credidimus in dominum Iesum Christum, ego quis eram qui possem prohibere deum non dare illis spiritum sanctum? Et multa alia sunt testimonia scripturarum quae concorditer attestantur donum dei esse spiritum sanctum in quantum datur eis qui per eum diligunt deum. Sed nimis longum est cuncta colligere. Et quid eis satis est quibus haec quae diximus satis non sunt?	35. And Peter the apostle, as we read in that canonical book, wherein the Acts of the Apostles are recorded—when the hearts of the Jews were troubled as he spoke of Christ, and they said, Brethren, what shall we do? Tell us,— said to them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins: and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. And we read likewise in the same book, that Simon Magus desired to give money to the apostles, that he might receive power from them, whereby the Holy Spirit might be given by the laying on of his hands. And the same Peter said to him, Your money perish with you: because you have thought to purchase for money the gift of God. And in another place of the same book, when Peter was speaking to Cornelius, and to those who were with him, and was announcing and preaching Christ, the Scripture says, While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all them that heard the word; and they of the circumcision that believed, as many as came with Peter, were astonished, because that upon the Gentiles also the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. And when Peter afterwards was giving an account to the brethren that were at Jerusalem of this act of his, that he had baptized those who were not circumcised, because the Holy Spirit, to cut the knot of the question, had come upon them before they were baptized, and the brethren at Jerusalem were moved when they heard it, he says, after the rest of his words, And when I began to speak to them, the Holy Spirit fell upon them, as upon us in the beginning. And I remembered the word of the Lord, how He said, that John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit. If, therefore, He gave a like gift to them, as also to us who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I, that I could hinder God from giving to them the Holy Spirit? And there are many other testimonies of the Scriptures, which unanimously attest that the Holy Spirit is the gift of God, in so far as He is given to those who by Him love God. But it is too long a task to collect them all. And what is enough to satisfy those who are not satisfied with those we have alleged?
[15.19.36] Sane admonendi sunt quandoquidem donum dei iam vident dictum spiritum sanctum ut cum audiunt donum spiritus sancti, illud genus locutionis agnoscant quod dictum est in exspoliatione corporis carnis. Sicut enim corpus carnis nihil aliud est quam caro, sic donum spiritus sancti nihil aliud est quam spiritus sanctus. In tantum ergo donum dei est in quantum datur eis quibus datur. Apud se autem deus est etsi nemini detur quia deus erat patri et filio coaeternus antequam cuiquam daretur. Nec quia illi dant, ipse datur, ideo minor est illis. Ita enim datur sicut dei donum ut etiam se ipsum det sicut deus. Non enim dici potest non esse suae potestatis de quo dictum est: Spiritus ubi vult spirat et apud apostolum quod iam supra commemoravi: Omnia autem haec operatur unus atque idem spiritus dividens propria unicuique prout vult. Non est illic conditio dati et dominatio dantium sed concordia dati et dantium.	36. Certainly they must be warned, since they now see that the Holy Spirit is called the gift of God, that when they hear of the gift of the Holy Spirit, they should recognize therein that mode of speech which is found in the words, In the spoiling of the body of the flesh. For as the body of the flesh is nothing else but the flesh, so the gift of the Holy Spirit is nothing else but the Holy Spirit. He is then the gift of God, so far as He is given to those to whom He is given. But in Himself He is God, although He were given to no one, because He was God co-eternal with the Father and the Son before He was given to any one. Nor is He less than they, because they give, and He is given. For He is given as a gift of God in such way that He Himself also gives Himself as being God. For He cannot be said not to be in His own power, of whom it is said, The Spirit blows where it lists; and the apostle says, as I have already mentioned above, All these things works that selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as He will. We have not here the creating of Him that is given, and the rule of them that give, but the concord of the given and the givers.
[15.19.37] Quapropter sicut sancta scriptura proclamat: Deus caritas est illaque ex deo est et in nobis id agit ut in deo maneamus et ipse in nobis, et hoc inde cognoscimus quia de spiritu suo dedit nobis, ipse spiritus eius est deus caritas. Deinde si in donis dei nihil maius est caritate et nullum est maius donum dei quam spiritus sanctus, quid consequentius quam ut ipse sit caritas quae dicitur et deus et ex deo? Et si caritas qua pater diligit filium et patrem diligit filius ineffabiliter commumonem demonstrat amborum, quid convenientius quam ut ille proprie dicatur caritas qui spiritus est communis ambobus? Hoc enim sanius creditur vel intellegitur ut non solus spiritus sanctus caritas sit in illa trinitate, sed non frustra proprie caritas nuncupetur propter illa quae dicta sunt. Sicut non solus est in illa trinitate vel spiritus vel sanctus quia et pater spiritus et filius spiritus, et pater sanctus et filius sanctus, quod non ambigit pietas; et tamen ipse non frustra proprie dicitur spiritus sanctus. Quia enim est communis ambobus, id vocatur ipse proprie quod ambo communiter. Alioquin si in illa trinitate solus spiritus sanctus est caritas, profecto et filius non solius patris verum etiam spiritus sancti filius invenitur. Ita enim locis innumerabilibus dicitur et legitur filius unigenitus dei patris ut tamen et illud verum sit quod apostolus ait de deo patre: Qui eruit nos de potestate tenebrarum et transtulit in regnum filii caritatis suae. Non dixit, 'filii sui,' quod si diceret, verissime diceret quemadmodum quia saepe dixit verissime dixit; sed ait, filii caritatis suae. Filius ergo est etiam spiritus sancti si non est in illa trinitate caritas dei nisi spiritus sanctus. Quod si absurdissimum est, restat ut non solus ibi sit caritas spiritus sanctus, sed propter illa de quibus satis disserui proprie sic vocetur. Quod autem dictum est, filii caritatis suae, nihil aliud intellegatur quam filii sui dilecti, quam filii postremo substantiae suae. Caritas quippe patris quae in natura eius est ineffabiliter simplici nihil est aliud quam eius ipsa natura atque substantia ut saepe iam diximus et saepe iterare non piget. Ac per hoc filius caritatis eius nullus est alius quam qui de substantia eius est genitus.	37. Wherefore, if Holy Scripture proclaims that God is love, and that love is of God, and works this in us that we abide in God and He in us, and that hereby we know this, because He has given us of His Spirit, then the Spirit Himself is God, who is love. Next, if there be among the gifts of God none greater than love, and there is no greater gift of God than the Holy Spirit, what follows more naturally than that He is Himself love, who is called both God and of God? And if the love by which the Father loves the Son, and the Son loves the Father, ineffably demonstrates the communion of both, what is more suitable than that He should be specially called love, who is the Spirit common to both? For this is the sounder thing both to believe and to understand, that the Holy Spirit is not alone love in that Trinity, yet is not specially called love to no purpose, for the reasons we have alleged; just as He is not alone in that Trinity either a Spirit or holy, since both the Father is a Spirit, and the Son is a Spirit; and both the Father is holy, and the Son is holy—as piety doubts not. And yet it is not to no purpose that He is specially called the Holy Spirit; for because He is common to both, He is specially called that which both are in common. Otherwise, if in that Trinity the Holy Spirit alone is love, then doubtless the Son too turns out to be the Son, not of the Father only, but also of the Holy Spirit. For He is both said and read in countless places to be so—the only-begotten Son of God the Father; as that what the apostle says of God the Father is true too: Who has delivered us from the power of darkness and has translated us into the kingdom of the Son of His own love. He did not say, of His own Son. If He had so said, He would have said it most truly, just as He did say it most truly, because He has often said it; but He says, the Son of His own love. Therefore He is the Son also of the Holy Spirit, if there is in that Trinity no love in God except the Holy Spirit. And if this is most absurd, it remains that the Holy Spirit is not alone therein love, but is specially so called for the reasons I have sufficiently set forth; and that the words, Son of His own love, mean nothing else than His own beloved Son—the Son, in short, of His own substance. For the love in the Father, which is in His ineffably simple nature, is nothing else than His very nature and substance itself—as we have already often said, and are not ashamed of often repeating. And hence the Son of His love, is none other than He who is born of His substance.
[15.20.38] Quocirca ridenda est dialectica Eunomii a quo eunomiani haeretici exorti sunt. Qui cum non potuisset intellegere nec credere voluisset unigenitum dei verbum per quod facta sunt omnia filium dei esse natura, hoc est de substantia patris genitum, non naturae vel substantiae sive essentiae dixit esse filium sed filium voluntatis dei, accidentem scilicet deo, volens asserere voluntatem qua gigneret filium; videlicet ideo quia nos aliquid aliquando volumus quod antea non volebamus, quasi non propter ista mutabilis intellegatur nostra natura, quod absit ut in deo esse credamus. Neque enim ob aliud scriptum est: Multae cogitationes in corde viri; consilium autem domini manet in aeternum nisi ut intellegamus sive credamus sicut aeternum deum, ita aeternum eius esse consilium, ac per hoc immutabile sicut ipse est. Quod autem de cogitationibus, hoc etiam de voluntatibus verissime dici potest: 'Multae voluntates in corde viri; voluntas autem domini manet in aeternum.' Quidam ne filium consilii vel voluntatis dei dicerent unigenitum verbum, ipsum consilium seu voluntatem patris idem verbum esse dixerunt. Sed melius quantum existimo dicitur consilium de consilio et voluntas de voluntate sicut substantia de substantia, sapientia de sapientia, ne absurditate illa quam iam refellimus filius patrem dicatur facere sapientem vel volentem si non habet pater in substantia sua consilium vel voluntatem. Acute sane quidam respondit haeretico versutissime interroganti utrum deus filium volens an nolens genuerit, ut si diceretur, 'nolens,' absurdissima dei miseria sequeretur; si autem, 'uolens,' continuo quod intendebat velut inuicta ratione concluderet non naturae esse filium sed voluntatis. At ille vigilantissime vicissim quaesivit ab eo utrum deus pater volens an nolens sit deus, ut si responderet, 'nolens,' sequeretur illa miseria quam de deo credere magna insania est; si autem diceret, 'uolens,' responderetur ei: 'Ergo et ipse voluntate sua deus est non natura.' Quid ergo restabat nisi ut obmutesceret et sua interrogatione obligatum insolubili vinculo se videret? Sed voluntas dei si et proprie dicenda est aliqua in trinitate persona, magis hoc nomen spiritui sancto competit sicut caritas. Nam quid est aliud caritas quam voluntas?	38. Wherefore the logic of Eunomius, from whom the Eunomian heretics sprang, is ridiculous. For when he could not understand, and would not believe, that the only-begotten Word of God, by which all things were made is the Son of God by nature,— i.e. born of the substance of the Father—he alleged that He was not the Son of His own nature or substance or essence, but the Son of the will of God; so as to mean to assert that the will by which he begot the Son was something accidental [and optional] to God—to wit, in that way that we ourselves sometimes will something which before we did not will, as though it was not for these very things that our nature is perceived to be changeable—a thing which far be it from us to believe of God. For it is written, Many are the thoughts in the heart of man, but the counsel of the Lord abides for ever, for no other reason except that we may understand or believe that as God is eternal, so is His counsel for eternity, and therefore unchangeable, as He himself is. And what is said of thoughts can most truly be said also of the will: there are many wills in the heart of man, but the will of the Lord abides for ever. Some, again, to escape saying that the only-begotten Word is the Son of the counsel or will of God, have affirmed the same Word to be the counsel or will itself of the Father. But it is better in my judgment to say counsel of counsel, and will of will, as substance of substance, wisdom of wisdom, that we may not be led into that absurdity, which we have refuted already, and say that the Son makes the Father wise or willing, if the Father has not in His own substance either counsel or will. It was certainly a sharp answer that somebody gave to the heretic, who most subtly asked him whether God begot the Son willingly or unwillingly, in order that if he said unwillingly, it would follow most absurdly that God was miserable; but if willingly, he would immediately infer, as though by an invincible reason, that at which he was aiming, viz. that He was the Son, not of His nature, but of His will. But that other, with great wakefulness, demanded of him in turn, whether God the Father was God willingly or unwillingly; in order that if he answered unwillingly, that misery would follow, which to believe of God is sheer madness; and if he said willingly, it would be replied to him, Then He is God too by His own will, not by His nature. What remained, then, except that he should hold his peace, and discern that he was himself bound by his own question in an insoluble bond? But if any person in the Trinity is also to be specially called the will of God, this name, like love, is better suited to the Holy Spirit; for what else is love, except will?
[15.20.39] Video me de spiritu sancto in isto libro secundum scripturas sanctas hoc disputasse quod fidelibus sufficit iam scientibus deum esse spiritum sanctum nec alterius substantiae nec minorem quam est pater et filius, quod in superioribus libris secundum easdem scripturas verum esse docuimus. De creatura etiam quam fecit deus quantum valuimus admonuimus eos qui rationem de rebus talibus poscunt ut inuisibilia eius per ea quae facta sunt sicut possent intellecta conspicerent, et maxime per rationalem vel intellectualem creaturam quae facta est ad imaginem dei, per quod velut speculum quantum possent, si possent, cernerent trinitatem deum in nostra memoria, intellegentia, voluntate. Quae tria in sua mente naturaliter divinitus instituta quisquis vivaciter perspicit et quam magnum sit in ea unde potest etiam sempiterna immutabilisque natura recoli, conspici, concupisci (reminiscitur per memoriam, intuetur per intellegentiam, amplectitur per dilectionem), profecto reperit illius summae trinitatis imaginem. Ad quam summam trinitatem reminiscendam, videndam, diligendam ut eam recordetur, eam contempletur, ea delectetur totum debet referre quod vivit. Verum ne hanc imaginem ab eadem trinitate factam, et suo vitio in deterius commutatam ita eidem comparet trinitati ut omni modo existimet similem, sed potius in qualicumque ista similitudine magnam quoque dissimilitudinem cernat quantum satis esse videbatur admonui.	39. I see that my argument in this book respecting the Holy Spirit, according to the Holy Scripture, is quite enough for faithful men who know already that the Holy Spirit is God, and not of another substance, nor less than the Father and the Son—as we have shown to be true in the former books, according to the same Scriptures. We have reasoned also from the creature which God made, and, as far as we could, have warned those who demand a reason on such subjects to behold and understand His invisible things, so far as they could, by those things which are made and especially by the rational or intellectual creature which is made after the image of God; through which glass, so to say, they might discern as far as they could, if they could, the Trinity which is God, in our own memory, understanding, will. Which three things, if any one intelligently regards as by nature divinely appointed in his own mind, and remembers by memory, contemplates by understanding, embraces by love, how great a thing that is in the mind, whereby even the eternal and unchangeable nature can be recollected, beheld, desired, doubtless that man finds an image of that highest Trinity. And he ought to refer the whole of his life to the remembering, seeing, loving that highest Trinity, in order that he may recollect, contemplate, be delighted by it. But I have warned him, so far as seemed sufficient, that he must not so compare this image thus wrought by that Trinity, and by his own fault changed for the worse, to that same Trinity as to think it in all points like to it, but rather that he should discern in that likeness, of whatever sort it be, a great unlikeness also.
[15.21.40] Sane deum patrem et deum filium, id est deum genitorem qui omnia quae substantialiter habet in coaeterno sibi verbo suo dixit quodam modo, et ipsum verbum eius deum qui nec plus nec minus aliquid habet etiam ipse substantialiter quam quod est in illo qui verbum non mendaciter sed veraciter genuit, quemadmodum potui, non ut illud iam facie ad faciem, sed per hanc similitudinem in aenigmate quantulumcumque coniciendo videretur in memoria et intellegentia mentis nostrae significare curavi, memoriae tribuens omne quod scimus etiamsi non inde cogitemus, intellegentiae vero proprio modo quandam cogitationis informationem. Cogitando enim quod verum invenerimus, hoc maxime intellegere dicimur et hoc quidem in memoria rursus relinquimus. Sed illa est abstrusior profunditas nostrae memoriae ubi hoc etiam primum cum cogitaremus invenimus et gignitur intimum verbum quod nullius linguae sit tamquam scientia de scientia et visio de visione et intellegentia quae apparel in cogitatione de intellegentia quae in memoria iam fuerat sed latebat, quamquam et ipsa cogitatio quandam suam memoriam nisi haberet, non reuerteretur ad ea quae in memoria reliquerat cum alla cogitaret.	40. I have undoubtedly taken pains so far as I could, not indeed so that the thing might be seen face to face, but that it might be seen by this likeness in an enigma, in how small a degree soever, by conjecture, in our memory and understanding, to intimate God the Father and God the Son: i.e. God the begetter, who has in some way spoken by His own co-eternal Word all things that He has in His substance; and God His Word Himself, who Himself has nothing either more or less in substance than is in Him, who, not lyingly but truly, has begotten the Word; and I have assigned to memory everything that we know, even if we were not thinking of it, but to understanding the formation after a certain special mode of the thought. For we are usually said to understand what, by thinking of it, we have found to be true; and this it is again that we leave in the memory. But that is a still more hidden depth of our memory, wherein we found this also first when we thought of it, and wherein an inner word is begotten such as belongs to no tongue—as it were, knowledge of knowledge, vision of vision, and understanding which appears in [reflective] thought; of understanding which had indeed existed before in the memory, but was latent there, although, unless the thought itself had also some sort of memory of its own, it would not return to those things which it had left in the memory while it turned to think of other things.
[15.21.41] De spiritu autem sancto nihil in hoc aenigmate quod ei simile videretur ostendi nisi voluntatem nostram, vel amorem seu dilectionem quae valentior est voluntas, quondam voluntas nostra quae nobis naturaliter inest sicut ei res adiacuerint vel occurrerint quibus allicimur aut offendimur ita varias affectiones habet. Quid ergo est? Numquid dicturi sumus voluntatem nostram quando recta est nescire quid appetat, quid devitet? Porro si scit profecto inest ei sue quaedam scientia, quae sine memoria et intellegentia esse non possit. An vero audiendus est quispiam dicens caritatem nescire quid agat quae non agit perperam? Sicut ergo inest intellegentia, inest dilectio illi memoriae principali in qua invenimus paratum et reconditum ad quod cogitando possumus pervenire quia et duo ista invenimus ibi quando nos cogitando invenimus et intellegere aliquid et amare quae ibi erant et quando inde non cogitabamus. Et sicut inest memoria, inest dilectio huic intellegentiae quae cogitatione formatur, quod verbum verum sine ullius gentis lingua intus dicimus quando quod novimus dicimus. Nam nisi reminiscendo non redit ad aliquid, et nisi amando redire non curat nostrae cogitationis intuitus. Ita dilectio quae visionem in memoria constitutam et visionem cogitationis inde formatam quasi parentem prolemque coniungit, nisi haberet appetendi scientiam quae sine memoria et intellegentia non potest esse, quid recte diligeret ignoraret.	41. But I have shown nothing in this enigma respecting the Holy Spirit such as might appear to be like Him, except our own will, or love, or affection, which is a stronger will, since our will which we have naturally is variously affected, according as various objects are adjacent or occur to it, by which we are attracted or offended. What, then, is this? Are we to say that our will, when it is right, knows not what to desire, what to avoid? Further, if it knows, doubtless then it has a kind of knowledge of its own, such as cannot be without memory and understanding. Or are we to listen to any one who should say that love knows not what it does, which does not do wrongly? As, then, there are both understanding and love in that primary memory wherein we find provided and stored up that to which we can come in thought, because we find also those two things there, when we find by thinking that we both understand and love anything; which things were there too when we were not thinking of them: and as there are memory and love in that understanding, which is formed by thought, which true word we say inwardly without the tongue of any nation when we say what we know; for the gaze of our thought does not return to anything except by remembering it, and does not care to return unless by loving it: so love, which combines the vision brought about in the memory, and the vision of the thought formed thereby, as if parent and offspring, would not know what to love rightly unless it had a knowledge of what it desired, which it cannot have without memory and understanding.
[15.22.42] Verum haec quando in una sunt persona sicut est homo potest nobis quispiam dicere: 'Tria ista, memoria intellectus et amor mea sunt, non sua, nec sibi sed mihi agunt quod agunt, immo ego per illa. Ego enim memini per memoriam, intellego per intellegentiam, amo per amorem. Et quando ad memoriam meam aciem cogitationis adverto ac sic in corde meo dico quod scio verbumque verum de scientia mea gignitur, utrumque meum est et scientia utique et verbum. Ego enim scio, ego dico in meo corde quod scio. Et quando in memoria mea cogitando invenio iam me intellegere, iam me amare aliquid, qui intellectus et amor ibi erant et antequam inde cogitarem, intellectum meum et amorem meum invenio in memoria mea quo ego intellego, ego amo, non ipsa. Item quando cogitatio mea memor est et vult redire ad ea quae in memoria reliquerat eaque intellecta conspicere atque intus d~cere, mea memoria memor est et mea vult voluntate, non sua. Ipse quoque amor meus cum meminit atque intellegit quid appetere debeat, quid vitare, per meam, non per suam memoriam meminit. Et per intellegentiam meam, non suam quidquid intellegenter amat intellegit.' Quod breviter dici potest: 'Ego per omnia illa tria memini ego intellego, ego diligo, qui nec memoria sum nec intellegentia nec dilectio, sed haec habeo.' Ista ergo dici possum ab una persona quae habet haec tria, non ipsa est haec tria. In illius vero summae simplicitate naturae quae deus est, quamvis unus sit deus, tres tamen personae sunt, pater et filius et spiritus sanctus.	42. But since these are in one person, as man is, some one may say to us, These three things, memory, understanding, and love, are mine, not their own; neither do they do that which they do for themselves, but for me, or rather I do it by them. For it is I who remember by memory, and understand by understanding, and love by love: and when I direct the mind's eye to my memory, and so say in my heart the thing I know, and a true word is begotten of my knowledge, both are mine, both the knowledge certainly and the word. For it is I who know, and it is I who say in my heart the thing I know. And when I come to find in my memory by thinking that I understand and love anything, which understanding and love were there also before I thought thereon, it is my own understanding and my own love that I find in my own memory, whereby it is I that understand, and I that love, not those things themselves. Likewise, when my thought is mindful, and wills to return to those things which it had left in the memory, and to understand and behold them, and say them inwardly, it is my own memory that is mindful, and it is my own, not its will, wherewith it wills. When my very love itself, too, remembers and understands what it ought to desire and what to avoid, it remembers by my, not by its own memory; and understands that which it intelligently loves by my, not by its own, understanding. In brief, by all these three things, it is I that remember, I that understand, I that love, who am neither memory, nor understanding, nor love, but who have them. These things, then, can be said by a single person, which has these three, but is not these three. But in the simplicity of that Highest Nature, which is God, although there is one God, there are three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
[15.22.43] Aliud est itaque trinitas res ipsa, aliud imago trinitatis in re alia. Propter quam imaginem simul et illud in quo sunt haec tria imago dicitur, sicut imago dicitur simul et tabula et quod in ea pictum est, sed propter picturam quae in ea est simul et tabula nomine imaginis appellatur.	43. A thing itself, then, which is a trinity is different from the image of a trinity in some other thing; by reason of which image, at the same time that also in which these three things are is called an image; just as both the panel, and the picture painted on it, are at the same time called an image; but by reason of the picture painted on it, the panel also is called by the name of image.
[15.23.43] Verum in illa summa trinitate quae incomparabiliter rebus omnibus antecellit tanta est inseparabilitas ut cum trinitas hominum non possit dici unus homo, illa unus deus et dicatur et sit, nec in uno deo sit illa trinitas, sed unus deus. Nec rursus quemadmodum ista imago quod est homo habens illa tria una persona est ita est illa trinitas, sed tres personae sunt, pater filii et filius patris et spiritus patris et filii. Quamvis enim memoria hominis et maxime illa quam pecora non habent, id est qua res intellegibiles ita continentur ut non in eam per sensus corporis venerint, habeat pro modulo suo in hac imagine trinitatis incomparabiliter quidem imparem sed tamen qualemcumque similitudinem patris, itemque intellegentia hominis quae per intentionem cogitationis inde formatur quando quod scitur dicitur et nullius linguae cordis verbum est habeat in sua magna disparilitate nonnullam similitudinem filii, et amor hominis de scientia procedens et memoriam intellegentiamque coniungens tamquam parenti prolique communis, unde nec parens intellegitur esse nec proles, habeat in hac imagine aliquam licet valde imparem similitudinem spiritus sancti; non tamen sicut in ista imagine trinitatis non haec tria unus homo sed unius hominis sunt, ita in ipsa summa trinitate cuius haec imago est unius dei sunt illa tria, sed unus deus est et tres sunt illae, non una persona. Quod sane mirabiliter ineffabile est vel ineffabiliter mirabile, cum sit una persona haec imago trinitatis, ipsa vero summa trinitas tres personae sint, inseparabilior est illa trinitas personarum trium quam haec unius. Illa quippe in natura divinitatis, sive id melius dicitur deitatis, quod est hoc est, atque incommutabiliter inter se ac semper aequalis est, nec aliquando non fuit aut aliter fuit, nec aliquando non erit aut aliter erit. Ista vero tria quae sunt in impari imagine, etsi non locis quoniam non sunt corpora, tamen inter se nunc in ista vita magnitudinibus separantur. Neque enim quia moles nullae ibi sunt ideo non videmus in alio maiorem esse memoriam quam intellegentiam, in alio contra; in alio duo haec amoris magnitudine superari sive sint ipsa duo inter se aequalia sive non sint. Atque ita a singulis bina et a binis singula et a singulis singula maioribus minora vincuntur. Et quando inter se aequalia fuerint ab omni languore sanata, nec tunc aequabitur rei natura immutabili ea res quae per gratiam non mutatur quia non aequatur creatura creatori, et quando ab omni languore sanabitur mutabitur.	But in that Highest Trinity, which is incomparably above all things, there is so great an indivisibility, that whereas a trinity of men cannot be called one man, in that, there both is said to be and is one God, nor is that Trinity in one God, but it is one God. Nor, again, as that image in the case of man has these three things but is one person, so is it with the Trinity; but therein are three persons, the Father of the Son, and the Son of the Father, and the Spirit of both Father and Son. For although the memory in the case of man, and especially that memory which beasts have not— viz. the memory by which things intelligible are so contained as that they have not entered that memory through the bodily senses — has in this image of the Trinity, in proportion to its own small measure, a likeness of the Father, incomparably unequal, yet of some sort, whatever it be: and likewise the understanding in the case of man, which by the purpose of the thought is formed thereby, when that which is known is said, and there is a word of the heart belonging to no tongue, has in its own great disparity some likeness of the Son; and love in the case of man proceeding from knowledge, and combining memory and understanding, as though common to parent and offspring, whereby it is understood to be neither parent nor offspring, has in that image, some, however exceedingly unequal, likeness of the Holy Spirit: it is nevertheless not the case, that, as in that image of the Trinity, these three are not one man, but belong to one man, so in the Highest Trinity itself, of which this is an image, these three belong to one God, but they are one God, and these are three persons, not one. A thing certainly wonderfully ineffable, or ineffably wonderful, that while this image of the Trinity is one person, but the Highest Trinity itself is three persons, yet that Trinity of three persons is more indivisible than this of one. For that [Trinity], in the nature of the Divinity, or perhaps better Deity, is that which it is, and is mutually and always unchangeably equal: and there was no time when it was not, or when it was otherwise; and there will be no time when it will not be, or when it will be otherwise. But these three that are in the inadequate image, although they are not separate in place, for they are not bodies, yet are now in this life mutually separate in magnitude. For that there are therein no several bulks, does not hinder our seeing that memory is greater than understanding in one man, but the contrary in another; and that in yet another these two are overpassed by the greatness of love; and this whether the two themselves are or are not equal to one another. And so each two by each one, and each one by each two, and each one by each one: the less are surpassed by the greater. And when they have been healed of all infirmity, and are mutually equal, not even then will that thing which by grace will not be changed, be made equal to that which by nature cannot change, because the creature cannot be equalled to the Creator, and when it shall be healed from all infirmity, will be changed.
[15.23.44] Sed hanc non solum incorporalem verum etiam summe inseparabilem vereque immutabilem trinitatem cum venerit visio quae facie ad faciem nobis promittitur, multo clarius certiusque videbimus quam nunc eius imaginem quod nos sumus. Per quod tamen speculum et in quo aenigmate qui vident sicut in hac vita videre concessum est non illi sunt qui ea quae digessimus et commendavimus in sue mente conspiciunt, sed illi qui eam tamquam imaginem vident ut possint ad eum cuius imago est quomodocumque referre quod vident et per imaginem quam conspiciendo vident etiam illud videre coniciendo quondam nondum possum facie ad faciem. Non enim ait apostolus: 'Videmus nunc speculum,' sed: 'Videmus per speculum.'	44. But when the sight shall have come which is promised anew to us face to face, we shall see this not only incorporeal but also absolutely indivisible and truly unchangeable Trinity far more clearly and certainly than we now see its image which we ourselves are: and yet they who see through this glass and in this enigma, as it is permitted in this life to see, are not those who behold in their own mind the things which we have set in order and pressed upon them; but those who see this as if an image, so as to be able to refer what they see, in some way be it what it may, to Him whose image it is, and to see that also by conjecturing, which they see through the image by beholding, since they cannot yet see face to face. For the apostle does not say, We see now a glass, but, We see now through a glass.
[15.24.44] Qui ergo vident suam mentem quomodo videri potest et in ea trinitatem istam de qua multis modis ut potui disputavi, nec tamen eam credunt vel intellegunt esse imaginem dei. Speculum quidem vident, sed usque adeo non vident per speculum qui est per speculum nunc videndus ut nec ipsum speculum quod vident sciant esse speculum, id est imaginem. Quod si scirent, fortassis et eum cuius est hoc speculum per hoc quaerendum et per hoc utcumque interim videndum esse sentirent fide non ficta corda mundante ut facie ad faciem possit videri qui per speculum nunc videtur. Qua fide cordium mundatrice contempta quid agunt intellegendo quae de natura mentis humanae subtilissime disputantur nisi ut ipsa quoque intellegentia sue teste damnentur? In qua utique non laborarent et vix ad certum aliquid pervenirent nisi pocnalibus tenebris inuoluti et onerati corpore corruptibili quod aggrauat animam. Quo tandem merito inflicto malo isto nisi peccati? Unde tanti mall magnitudine admoniti sequi deberent agnum qui tollit peccatum mundi.	They, then, who see their own mind, in whatever way that is possible, and in it that Trinity of which I have treated as I could in many ways, and yet do not believe or understand it to be an image of God, see indeed a glass, but do not so far see through the glass Him who is now to be seen through the glass, that they do not even know the glass itself which they see to be a glass, i.e. an image. And if they knew this, perhaps they would feel that He too whose glass this is, should by it be sought, and somehow provisionally be seen, an unfeigned faith purging their hearts, that He who is now seen through a glass may be able to be seen face to face. And if they despise this faith that purifies the heart, what do they accomplish by understanding the most subtle disputes concerning the nature of the human mind, unless that they be condemned also by the witness of their own understanding? And they would certainly not so fail in understanding, and hardly arrive at anything certain, were they not involved in penal darkness, and burdened with the corruptible body that presses down the soul. And for what demerit save that of sin is this evil inflicted on them? Wherefore, being warned by the magnitude of so great an evil, they ought to follow the Lamb that takes away the sins of the world.
[15.25.44] Ad eum namque pertinentes etiam longe is tis ingenio tardiores quando fine vitae huius resoluuntur a corpore ius in eis retinendis non habent inuidae potestates. Quas ille agnus sine ullo ab eis peccati debito occisus non potentia potestatis priusquam iustitia sanguinis vicit. Proinde liberi a diaboli potestate suscipiuntur ab angelis sanctis a malis omnibus liberati per mediatorem dei et hominum hominem Christum Iesum, quondam consonantibus divinis scripturis et ueteribus et novis et per quas praenuntiatus et per quas annuntiatus est Christus, non est aliud nomen sub caelo in quo oportet homines saluos fieri. Constituuntur autem purgati ab omni contagione corruptionis in placidis sedibus donec recipient corpora sua, sed iam incorruptibilia quae ornent non onerent. Hoc enim placuit optimo et sapientissimo creatori ut spiritus hominis deo pie subditus habeas feliciter subditum corpus et sine fine permaneat ipsa felicitas.	For if any belong to Him, although far duller in intellect than those, yet when they are freed from the body at the end of this life, the envious powers have no right to hold them. For that Lamb that was slain by them without any debt of sin has conquered them; but not by the might of power before He had done so by the righteousness of blood. And free accordingly from the power of the devil, they are borne up by holy angels, being set free from all evils by the mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus. Since by the harmonious testimony of the Divine Scriptures, both Old and New, both those by which Christ was foretold, and those by which He was announced, there is no other name under heaven whereby men must be saved. And when purged from all contagion of corruption, they are placed in peaceful abodes until they take their bodies again, their own, but now incorruptible, to adorn, not to burden them. For this is the will of the best and most wise Creator, that the spirit of a man, when piously subject to God, should have a body happily subject, and that this happiness should last for ever.
[15.25.45] Ibi veritatem sine ulla difficultate videbimus eaque clarissima et certissima perfruemur. Nec aliquid quaeremus mente ratiocinante, sed contemplante cernemus quare non sit filius spiritus sanctus, cum de patre procedat. In illa luce nulla erit quaestio. Hic vero ipsa experientia tam mihi apparuit esse difficilis, quod et illis qui haec diligenter atque intellegenter regent procul dubio similiter apparebit, ut cum me in secundo huius operis libro alio loco inde dicturum esse promiserim, quotienscumque in ea creature quae nos sumus aliquid illi rei simile ostendere volui, qualemcumque intellectum meum sufficiens elocutio mea secuta non fuerit, quamvis et in ipso intellectu conatum me senserim magis habuisse quam effectum, et in una quidem persona quod est homo invenisse imaginem summae illius trinitatis, et in re mutabili tria illa ut facilius intellegi possint etiam per temporalia interualla maxime in libro nono monstrare voluisse. Sed tria unius personae non sicut humane poscit intentio tribus illis personis convenire potuerunt sicut in hoc libro quinto decimo demonstravimus.	45. There we shall see the truth without any difficulty, and shall enjoy it to the full, most clear and most certain. Nor shall we be inquiring into anything by a mind that reasons, but shall discern by a mind that contemplates, why the Holy Spirit is not a Son, although He proceeds from the Father. In that light there will be no place for inquiry: but here, by experience itself it has appeared to me so difficult—as beyond doubt it will likewise appear to them also who shall carefully and intelligently read what I have written—that although in the second book I promised that I would speak thereof in another place, yet as often as I have desired to illustrate it by the creaturely image of it which we ourselves are, so often, let my meaning be of what sort it might, did adequate utterance entirely fail me; nay, even in my very meaning I felt that I had attained to endeavor rather than accomplishment. I had indeed found in one person, such as is a man, an image of that Highest Trinity, and had desired, especially in the ninth book, to illustrate and render more intelligible the relation of the Three Persons by that which is subject to time and change. But three things belonging to one person cannot suit those Three Persons, as man's purpose demands; and this we have demonstrated in this fifteenth book.
[15.26.45] Deinde in illa summa trinitate quae deus est interualla temporum nulla sunt per quae possit ostendi aut saltem requiri utrum prius de patre natus sit filius et postea de ambobus processerit spiritus sanctus quondam scriptura sancta spiritum eum dicit amborum. Ipse est enim de quo dicit apostolus: Quoniam autem estis filii, misit deus spiritum filii sui in corda rostra et ipse est de quo dicit idem filius: Non enim vos estis qui loquimini, sed spiritus patris uestri qui loquitur in vobis. Et multis aliis divinorum eloquiorum testimoniis comprobatur patris et filii esse spiritum qui proprie dicitur in trinitate spiritus sanctus, de quo item dicit ipse filius: Quem ego mitto vobis a patre et alio loco: Quem mittet pater in nomine meo. De utroque autem procedere sic docetur quia ipse filius ait: De patre procedit et cum resurrexisset a mortuis et apparuisset discipulis suis, insufflavit et ait: Accipite spiritum sanctum ut eum etiam de se procedere ostenderet, et ipsa est virtus quae de illo exibat sicut legitur in euangelio, et sanabat omnes.	Further, in that Highest Trinity which is God, there are no intervals of time, by which it could be shown, or at least inquired, whether the Son was born of the Father first and then afterwards the Holy Spirit proceeded from both; since Holy Scripture calls Him the Spirit of both. For it is He of whom the apostle says, But because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts: and it is He of whom the same Son says, For it is not ye who speak, but the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you. And it is proved by many other testimonies of the Divine Word, that the Spirit, who is specially called in the Trinity the Holy Spirit, is of the Father and of the Son: of whom likewise the Son Himself says, Whom I will send unto you from the Father; and in another place, Whom the Father will send in my name. And we are so taught that He proceeds from both, because the Son Himself says, He proceeds from the Father. And when He had risen from the dead, and had appeared to His disciples, He breathed upon them, and said, Receive the Holy Ghost, so as to show that He proceeded also from Himself. And Itself is that very power that went out from Him, as we read in the Gospel, and healed them all.
[15.26.46] Quid vero fuerit causae ut post resurrectionem suam et in terra prius daret et de caelo postea mitteret spiritum sanctum, hoc ego existimo quia per ipsum donum diffunditur caritas in cordibus nostris qua diligamus deum et proximum secundum duo illa praecepta in quibus tota lex pendet et prophetae. Hoc significans dominus Iesus bis dedit spiritum sanctum, semel in terra propter dilectionem proximi et iterum de caelo propter dilectionem dei. Et si forte alla ratio reddatur de bis dato spiritu sancto, eundem tamen spiritum datum cum insufflasset Iesus de quo mox ait: Ite, baptizate gentes in nomine patris et filii et spiritus sancti ubi maxime commendatur haec trinitas, ambigere non debemus. Ipse est igitur qui etiam de caelo datus est die pentecostes, id est post dies decem quam dominus ascendit in caelum. Quomodo ergo deus non est qui dat spiritum sanctum? Immo quantus deus est qui dat deum? Neque enim aliquis discipulorum eius dedit spiritum sanctum. Orabant quippe ut veniret in eos quibus manum imponebant, non ipsi eum dabant. Quem morem in suis praepositis etiam nunc servat ecclesia. Denique et Simon magus offerens apostolis pecuniam, non ait: Date et mihi hanc potestatem ut 'dem spiritum sanctum,' sed: cuicumque, inquit, imposuero manus accipiat spiritum sanctum, quia neque scriptura superius dixerat: 'Videns autem Simon quod apostoli darent spiritum sanctum,' sed dixerat: Videns autem Simon quod per impositionem manuum apostolorum datur spiritus sanctus. Propter hoc et dominus ipse Iesus spiritum sanctum non solum dedit ut deus sed etiam accepit ut homo, propterea dictus est plenus gratia. Et manifestius de illo scriptum est in actibus apostolorum: Quoniam unxit eum deus spiritu sancto non utique oleo visibili sed dono gratiae quod visibili significatur unguento quo baptizatos ungit ecclesia. Nec sane tunc unctus est Christus spiritu sancto quando super eum baptizatum velut columba descendit; tunc enim corpus suum, id est ecclesiam suam, praefigurare dignatus est in qua praecipue baptizati accipiunt spiritum sanctum. Sed ista mystica et inuisibili unctione tunc intellegendus est unctus quando verbum dei caro factum est, id est quando humana natura sine ullis praecedentibus bonorum operum meritis deo verbo est in utero virginis copulata ita ut cum illo fieret una persona. Ob hoc eum confitemur natum de spiritu sancto et virgine Maria. Absurdissimum est enim ut credamus eum cum iam triginta esset annorum (eius enim aetatis a Iohanne baptizatus est) accepisse spiritum sanctum, sed venisse ad illud baptisma sicut sine ullo omnino peccato ita non sine spiritu sancto. Si enim de famulo eius et praecursore ipso Iohanne scriptum est: Spiritu sancto replebitur iam inde ab utero matris suae quoniam quamvis seminatus a patre, tamen spiritum sanctum in utero formatus accepit, quid de homine Christo intellegendum est vel credendum cuius carnis ipsa conceptio non carnalis sed spiritalis fuit? In eo etiam quod de illo scriptum est, quod acceperit a patre promissionem spiritus sancti et effuderit utraque natura monstrata est, et humana scilicet et divina. Accepit quippe ut homo, effudit ut deus. Nos autem accipere quidem hoc donum possumus pro modulo nostro; effundere autem super alios non utique possumus, sed ut hoc fiat deum super eos a quo id efficitur inuocamus.	46. But the reason why, after His resurrection, He both gave the Holy Spirit, first on earth, and afterwards sent Him from heaven, is in my judgment this: that love is shed abroad in our hearts, by that Gift itself, whereby we love God and our neighbors, according to those two commandments, on which hang all the law and the prophets. And Jesus Christ, in order to signify this, gave to them the Holy Spirit, once upon earth, on account of the love of our neighbor, and a second time from heaven, on account of the love of God. And if some other reason may perhaps be given for this double gift of the Holy Spirit, at any rate we ought not to doubt that the same Holy Spirit was given when Jesus breathed upon them, of whom He by and by says, Go, baptize all nations in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, where this Trinity is especially commended to us. It is therefore He who was also given from heaven on the day of Pentecost, i.e. ten days after the Lord ascended into heaven. How, therefore, is He not God, who gives the Holy Spirit? Nay, how great a God is He who gives God! For no one of His disciples gave the Holy Spirit, since they prayed that He might come upon those upon whom they laid their hands: they did not give Him themselves. And the Church preserves this custom even now in the case of her rulers. Lastly, Simon Magus also, when he offered the apostles money, does not say, Give me also this power, that I may give the Holy Spirit; but, that on whomsoever I may lay my hands, he may receive the Holy Spirit. Because neither had the Scriptures said before, And Simon, seeing that the apostles gave the Holy Spirit; but it had said, And Simon, seeing that the Holy Spirit was given by the laying on of the apostles' hands. Therefore also the Lord Jesus Christ Himself not only gave the Holy Spirit as God, but also received it as man, and therefore He is said to be full of grace, and of the Holy Spirit. And in the Acts of the Apostles it is more plainly written of Him, Because God anointed Him with the Holy Spirit. Certainly not with visible oil but with the gift of grace which is signified by the visible ointment wherewith the Church anoints the baptized. And Christ was certainly not then anointed with the Holy Spirit, when He, as a dove, descended upon Him at His baptism. For at that time He deigned to prefigure His body, i.e. His Church, in which especially the baptized receive the Holy Spirit. But He is to be understood to have been then anointed with that mystical and invisible unction, when the Word of God was made flesh, i.e. when human nature, without any precedent merits of good works, was joined to God the Word in the womb of the Virgin, so that with it it became one person. Therefore it is that we confess Him to have been born of the Holy Spirit and of the Virgin Mary. For it is most absurd to believe Him to have received the Holy Spirit when He was near thirty years old: for at that age He was baptized by John; but that He came to baptism as without any sin at all, so not without the Holy Spirit. For if it was written of His servant and forerunner John himself, He shall be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb, because, although generated by his father, yet he received the Holy Spirit when formed in the womb; what must be understood and believed of the man Christ, of whose flesh the very conception was not carnal, but spiritual? Both natures, too, as well the human as the divine, are shown in that also that is written of Him, that He received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, and shed forth the Holy Spirit: seeing that He received as man, and shed forth as God. And we indeed can receive that gift according to our small measure, but assuredly we cannot shed it forth upon others; but, that this may be done, we invoke over them God, by whom this is accomplished.
[15.26.47] Numquid ergo possumus quaerere utrum iam processerat de patre spiritus sanctus quando natus est filius, an non dum process erat et illo nato de utroque processit ubi nulla sunt tempora sicut potuimus quaerere ubi invenimus tempora voluntatem prius de humana mente procedere ut quaeratur quod inventum proles vocetur, quia iam parta seu genita voluntas illa perficitur eo fine requiescens ut qui fuerat appetitus quaerentis sit amor fruentis qui iam de utroque, id est de gignente mente et de genita notione, tamquam de parente ac prole procedat? Non possunt prorsus ista ibi quaeri ubi nihil ex tempore inchoatur ut consequenti perficiatur in tempore. Quapropter qui potest intellegere sine tempore generationem filii de patre intellegat sine tempore processionem spiritus santi de utroque. Et qui potest intellegere in eo quod ait filius: Sicut habet pater vitam in semetipso sic dedit filio vitam habere in semetipso non sine vita exsistenti iam filio vitam patrem dedisse sed ita eum sine tempore genuisse ut vita quam pater filio gignendo dedit coaeterna sit vitae patris qui dedit, intellegat sicut habet pater in semetipso ut et de illo procedat spiritus sanctus sic dedisse filio ut de illo procedat idem spiritus sanctus et utrumque sine tempore, atque ita dictum spiritum sanctum de patre procedere ut intellegatur quod etiam procedit de filio, de patre esse filio. Si enim quidquid habet de patre habet filius, de patre habet utique ut et de illo procedat spiritus sanctus. Sed nulla ibi tempora cogitentur quae habent prius et posterius quia ibi omnino nulla sunt. Quomodo ergo non absurdissime filius diceretur amborum cum sicut filio praestat essentiam sine initio temporis, sine ulla mutabilitate naturae de patre generatio, ita spiritui sancto praestet essentiam sine ullo initio temporis, sine ulla mutabilitate naturae de utroque processio? Ideo enim cum spiritum sanctum genitum non dicamus, dicere tamen non audemus ingenitum ne in hoc vocabulo vel duos patres in illa trinitate vel duos qui non sunt de alio quispiam suspicetur. Pater enim solus non est de alto, ideo solus appellatur ingenitus, non quidem in scripturis sed in consuetudine disputantium et de re tanta sermonem qualem valuerint proferentium. Filius autem de patre natus est, et spiritus sanctus de patre principaliter, et ipso sine ullo interuallo temporis dante, communiter de utroque procedit. Diceretur autem filius patris et filii si, quod abhorret ab omnium sanorum sensibus, eum ambo genuissent. Non igitur ab utroque est genitus sed procedit ab utroque amborum spiritus.	47. Are we therefore able to ask whether the Holy Spirit had already proceeded from the Father when the Son was born, or had not yet proceeded; and when He was born, proceeded from both, wherein there is no such thing as distinct times: just as we have been able to ask, in a case where we do find times, that the will proceeds from the human mind first, in order that that may be sought which, when found, may be called offspring; which offspring being already brought forth or born, that will is made perfect, resting in this end, so that what had been its desire when seeking, is its love when enjoying; which love now proceeds from both, i.e. from the mind that begets, and from the notion that is begotten, as if from parent and offspring? These things it is absolutely impossible to ask in this case, where nothing is begun in time, so as to be perfected in a time following. Wherefore let him who can understand the generation of the Son from the Father without time, understand also the procession of the Holy Spirit from both without time. And let him who can understand, in that which the Son says, As the Father has life in Himself, so has He given to the Son to have life in Himself, not that the Father gave life to the Son already existing without life, but that He so begot Him apart from time, that the life which the Father gave to the Son by begetting Him is co-eternal with the life of the Father who gave it: let him, I say, understand, that as the Father has in Himself that the Holy Spirit should proceed from Him, so has He given to the Son that the same Holy Spirit should proceed from Him, and be both apart from time: and that the Holy Spirit is so said to proceed from the Father as that it be understood that His proceeding also from the Son, is a property derived by the Son from the Father. For if the Son has of the Father whatever He has, then certainly He has of the Father, that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from Him. But let no one think of any times therein which imply a sooner and a later; because these things are not there at all. How, then, would it not be most absurd to call Him the Son of both: when, just as generation from the Father, without any changeableness of nature, gives to the Son essence, without beginning of time; so procession from both, without any changeableness of nature, gives to the Holy Spirit essence without beginning of time? For while we do not say that the Holy Spirit is begotten, yet we do not therefore dare to say that He is unbegotten, lest any one suspect in this word either two Fathers in that Trinity, or two who are not from another. For the Father alone is not from another, and therefore He alone is called unbegotten, not indeed in the Scriptures, but in the usage of disputants, who employ such language as they can on so great a subject. And the Son is born of the Father; and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father principally, the Father giving the procession without any interval of time, yet in common from both [Father and Son]. But He would be called the Son of the Father and of the Son, if— a thing abhorrent to the feeling of all sound minds— both had begotten Him. Therefore the Spirit of both is not begotten of both, but proceeds from both.
[15.27.48] Verum quia in illa coaeterna et aequali et incorporali et ineffabiliter immutabili atque inseparabili trinitate difficillimum est generationem a processione distinguere sufficiat interim eis qui extendi non valent amplius id quod de hac re in sermone quodam proferendo ad aures populi christiani diximus dictumque conscripsimus. Inter caetera enim cum per scripturarum sanctarum testimonia docuissem de utroque procedere spiritum sanctum: Si ergo, inquam, et de patre et de fiiio procedit spiritus sanctus, cur filius dixit: De patre procedit? Cur, putas, nisi quemadmodum soles ad eum referre et quod ipsius est de quo et ipse est? Unde illud est quod ait: Mea doctrina non est mea sed eius qui me misit. Si igitur hic intellegitur eius doctrina quam tamen dixit non suam sed patris, quanto magis illic intellegendus est et de ipso procedere spiritus sanctus ubi sic ait: De patre procedit, ut non diceret: 'De me non procedit'? A quo autem habet filius ut sit deus (est enim de deo deus), ab illo habet utique ut etiam de illo procedat spiritus sanctus, ac per hoc spiritus sanctus ut etiain de filio procedat sicut procedit de patre ab ipso habet patre. Hic utcumque etiam illud intellegitur quantum a talibus quales nos sumus intellegi potest cur non dicatur natus esse sed potius procedere spiritus sanctus quoniam si et ipse filius diceretur, amborum utique filius diceretur, quod absurdissimum est. Filius quippe nullus est duorum nisi patris et matris. Absit autem ut inter deunt patrem et deum filium tale aliquid suspicemur quia nec filius hominum simul et ex patre et ex matre procedit, sed cum in matrem procedit ex patre non tunc procedit ex matre, et cum in hanc lucem procedit ex matre non tunc procedit ex patre. Spiritus autem sanctus non de patre procedit in filium et de filio procedit ad sanctificandam creaturam, sed simul de utroque procedit, quamvis hoc filio pater dederit ut quemadmodum de se ita de illo quoque procedat. Neque enim possumus dicere quod non sit quta spiritus sanctus cum quia pater, vita sit filius. Ac per hoc sicut pater cum habeat vitam in semetipso dedit et filio habere vitam in semetipso, sic ei dedit vitam procedere de illo sicut procedit et de ipso. Haec de illo sermone in hunc librum transtuli sed fidelibus non infidelibus loquens.	48. But because it is most difficult to distinguish generation from procession in that co-eternal, and equal, and incorporeal, and ineffably unchangeable and indivisible Trinity, let it suffice meanwhile to put before those who are not able to be drawn on further, what we said upon this subject in a sermon to be delivered in the ears of Christian people, and after saying wrote it down. For when, among other things, I had taught them by testimonies of the Holy Scriptures that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both, I continue: If, then, the Holy Spirit proceeds both from the Father and from the Son, why did the Son say, 'He proceeds from the Father.' Why, think you, except as He is wont to refer to Him, that also which is His own, from whom also He Himself is? Whence also is that which He says, 'My doctrine is not my own, but His that sent me?' If, therefore, it is His doctrine that is here understood, which yet He said was not His own, but His that sent Him, how much more is it there to be understood that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from Himself, where He so says, He proceeds from the Father, as not to say, He proceeds not from me? From Him, certainly, from whom the Son had his Divine nature, for He is God of God, He has also, that from Him too proceeds the Holy Spirit; and hence the Holy Spirit has from the Father Himself, that He should proceed from the Son also, as He proceeds from the Father. Here, too, in some way may this also be understood, so far as it can be understood by such as we are, why the Holy Spirit is not said to be born, but rather to proceed; since if He, too, was called a Son, He would certainly be called the Son of both, which is most absurd, since no one is son of two, save of father and mother. But far be it from us to surmise any such thing as this between God the Father and God the Son. Because not even the son of men proceeds at the same time from both father and mother; but when he proceeds from the father into the mother, he does not at that time proceed from the mother; and when he proceeds from the mother into this present light, he does not at that time proceed from the father. But the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Father into the Son, and from the Son proceed to sanctify the creature, but proceeds at once from both; although the Father has given this to the Son, that He should proceed, as from Himself, so also from Him. For we cannot say that the Holy Spirit is not life, while the Father is life, and the Son is life: and hence as the Father, while He has life in Himself, has given also to the Son to have life in Himself; so has He given also to Him that life should proceed from Him, as it also proceeds from Himself. I have transferred this from that sermon into this book, but I was speaking to believers, not to unbelievers.
[15.27.49] Verum si ad hanc imaginem contuendam et ad videnda ista quam vera sint quae in eorum mente sunt nec tria sic sunt ut tres personae sint sed omnia tria hominis sunt quae una persona est minus idonei sunt, cur non de illa summa trinitate quae deus est credunt potius quod in sacris litteris invenitur quam poscunt liquidissimam reddi sibi rationem quae ab humana mente tarda scilicet infirmaque non capitur? Et certe cum inconcusse crediderint scripturis sanctis tamquam veracissimis testibus, agant orando et quaerendo et bene vivendo ut intellegant, id est ut quantum videri potest videatur mente quod tenetur fide. Quis hoc prohibeat? Immo vero ad hoc quis non hortetur? Si autem propterea negandum putant ista esse quia ea non valent caecis mentibus cernere debent et illi qui ex nativitate sua caeci sunt esse solem negare. Lux ergo lucet in tenebris, quod si eam tenebrae non comprehendunt, inluminentur dei dono prius ut sint fideles et incipiant esse lux in comparatione infidelium, atque hoc praemisso fundamento aedificentur ad videnda quae credunt ut aliquando possint videre. Sunt enim quae ita creduntur ut videri iam omnino non possint. Non enim Christus iterum in cruce videndus est, sed nisi hoc credatur quod ita factum atque visum est ut futurum ac videndum iam non speretur, non pervenitur ad Christum qualis sine fine videndus est. Quantum vero attinet ad illam summam, ineffabilem, incorporalem immutabilemque naturam per intellegentiam utcumque cernendam, nusquam se melius regente dumtaxat fidei regula acies humanae mentis exerceat quam in eo quod ipse homo in sua natura melius caeteris animalibus, melius etiam caeteris animae suae partibus habet, quod est ipsa mens cui quidam rerum inuisibilium tributus est visus, et cui tamquam in loco superiore atque interiore honorabiliter praesidenti iudicanda omnia nuntiant etiam corporis sensus, et qua non est superior cui subdita regenda est nisi deus.	49. But if they are not competent to gaze upon this image, and to see how true these things are which are in their mind, and yet which are not so three as to be three persons, but all three belong to a man who is one person; why do they not believe what they find in the sacred books respecting that highest Trinity which is God, rather than insist on the clearest reason being rendered them, which cannot be comprehended by the human mind, dull and infirm as it is? And to be sure, when they have steadfastly believed the Holy Scriptures as most true witnesses, let them strive, by praying and seeking and living well, that they may understand, i.e. that so far as it can be seen, that may be seen by the mind which is held fast by faith. Who would forbid this? Nay, who would not rather exhort them to it? But if they think they ought to deny that these things are, because they, with their blind minds, cannot discern them, they, too, who are blind from their birth, ought to deny that there is a sun. The light then shines in darkness; but if the darkness comprehend it not, let them first be illuminated by the gift of God, that they may be believers, and let them begin to be light in comparison with the unbelievers; and when this foundation is first laid, let them be built up to see what they believe, that at some time they may be able to see. For some things are so believed, that they cannot be seen at all. For Christ is not to be seen a second time on the cross; but unless this be believed which has been so done and seen, that it is not now to be hoped for as about to be and to be seen, there is no coming to Christ, such as without end He is to be seen. But as far as relates to the discerning in some way by the understanding that highest, ineffable, incorporeal, and unchangeable nature the sight of the human mind can nowhere better exercise itself, so only that the rule of faith govern it, than in that which man himself has in his own nature better than the other animals, better also than the other parts of his own soul, which is the mind itself, to which has been assigned a certain sight of things invisible, and to which, as though honorably presiding in a higher and inner place, the bodily senses also bring word of all things, that they may be judged, and than which there is no higher, to which it is to be subject, and by which it is to be governed, except God.
[15.27.50] Verum inter haec quae multa iam dixi et nihil illius summae trinitatis ineffabilitate dignum me dixisse audeo profiteri, sed confiteri potius mirificatam scientiam eius ex me inualuisse nec potuisse me ad illam. O tu, anima mea, ubi te esse sentis, ubi iaces aut ubi stas donec ab eo ovi propitius factus est omnibus iniquitatibus tuis sanentur omnes languores tui? Agnoscis te certe in illo esse stabulo quo samaritanus ille perduxit eum quem reperit multis a latronibus inflictis uulneribus semivivum. Et tamen multa vera vidisti, non his oculis quibus videntur corpora colorata, sed eis pro quibus orabat qui dicebat: Oculi mei videant aequitatem. Nempe ergo multa vera vidisti eaque discrevisti ab illa luce qua tibi lucente vidisti. Attolle oculos in ipsam lucem et eos in ea fige si potes. Sic enim videbis quid distet nativitas verbi dei a processione doni dei propter quod filius unigenitus non de patre genitum, alioquin frater eius esset, sed procedere dixit spiritum sanctum. Unde cum sit communio quaedam consubstantialis patris et filii amborum spiritus, non amborum, quod absit, dictus est filius. Sed ad hoc dilucide perspicueque cernendum non potes ibi aciem figere. Scio, non potes. Verum dico, mihi dico, quid non possim scio. Ipsa tibi tamen ostendit in te tria illa in quibus te summae ipsius quam fixis oculis contemplari nondum vales imaginem trinitatis agnosceres. Ipsa ostendit tibi verbum verum esse in te quando de scientia tua gignitur, id est quando quod scimus dicimus, etsi nullius gentis lingua significantem vocem vel proferamus vel cogitemus; sed ex illo quod novimus cogitatio nostra formetur, sitque in acie cogitantis imago simillima cognitionis eius quam memoria continebat, ista duo scilicet velut parentem ac prolem tertia voluntate sive dilectione iungente. Quam quidem voluntatem de cognitione procedere (nemo enim vult quod omnino quid vel quale sit nescit), non tamen esse cognitionis imaginem, et ideo quandam in hac re intellegibili nativitatis et processionis insinuari distantiam quoniam non hoc est cogitatione conspicere quod appetere vel etiam perfrui voluntate, cernit discernitque qui potest. Potuisti et tu quamvis non potueris neque possis explicare sufficienti eloquio quod inter nubila similitudinum corporalium quae cogitationibus humanis occursare non desinunt vix vidisti. Sed illa lux quae non est quod tu et hoc tibi ostendit aliud esse illas incorporeas similitudines corporum et aliud esse verum quod eis reprobatis intellegentia contuemur. Haec et alia similiter certa oculis tuis interioribus lux illa monstravit. Quae igitur causa est cur acie fixa ipsam videre non possis nisi utique infirmitas, et quis eam tibi fecit nisi utique iniquitas? Quis ergo sanat omnes languores tuos nisi qui propitius fit omnibus iniquitatibus tuis? Librum itaque istum iam tandem aliquando precatione melius quam disputatione concludam.	50. But among these many things which I have now said, and of which there is nothing that I dare to profess myself to have said worthy of the ineffableness of that highest Trinity, but rather to confess that the wonderful knowledge of Him is too great for me, and that I cannot attain to it: O you, my soul, where do you feel yourself to be? Where do you lie? Where do you stand? Until all your infirmities be healed by Him who has forgiven all your iniquities. You perceive yourself assuredly to be in that inn whither that Samaritan brought him whom he found with many wounds inflicted by thieves, half-dead. And yet you have seen many things that are true, not by those eyes by which colored objects are seen, but by those for which he prayed who said, Let my eyes behold the things that are equal. Certainly, then, you have seen many things that are true, and hast distinguished them from that light by the light of which you have seen them. Lift up your eyes to the light itself, and fix them upon it if you can. For so you will see how the birth of the Word of God differs from the procession of the Gift of God, on account of which the only-begotten Son did not say that the Holy Spirit is begotten of the Father, otherwise He would be His brother, but that He proceeds from Him. Whence, since the Spirit of both is a kind of consubstantial communion of Father and Son, He is not called, far be it from us to say so, the Son of both. But you can not fix your sight there, so as to discern this lucidly and clearly; I know you can not. I say the truth, I say to myself, I know what I cannot do; yet that light itself shows to you these three things in yourself, wherein you may recognize an image of the highest Trinity itself, which you can not yet contemplate with steady eye. Itself shows to you that there is in you a true word, when it is born of your knowledge, i.e. when we say what we know: although we neither utter nor think of any articulate word that is significant in any tongue of any nation, but our thought is formed by that which we know; and there is in the mind's eye of the thinker an image resembling that thought which the memory contained, will or love as a third combining these two as parent and offspring. And he who can, sees and discerns that this will proceeds indeed from thought (for no one wills that of which he is absolutely ignorant what or of what sort it is), yet is not an image of the thought: and so that there is insinuated in this intelligible thing a sort of difference between birth and procession, since to behold by thought is not the same as to desire, or even to enjoy will. You, too, hast been able [to discern this], although you have not been, neither art, able to unfold with adequate speech what, amidst the clouds of bodily likenesses, which cease not to flit up and down before human thoughts, you have scarcely seen. But that light which is not yourself shows you this too, that these incorporeal likenesses of bodies are different from the truth, which, by rejecting them, we contemplate with the understanding. These, and other things similarly certain, that light has shown to your inner eyes. What reason, then, is there why you can not see that light itself with steady eye, except certainly infirmity? And what has produced this in you, except iniquity? Who, then, is it that heals all your infirmities, unless it be He that forgives all your iniquities? And therefore I will now at length finish this book by a prayer better than by an argument.
[15.28.51] Domine deus noster, credimus in te patrem et filium et spiritum sanctum. Neque enim diceret veritas: Ite, baptizate gentes in nomine patris et filii et spiritus sancti nisi trinitas esses. Nec baptizari nos iuberes, domine deus, in eius nomine qui non est dominus deus. Nec diceretur voce divina: Audi, Israhel: Dominus deus tuus deus unus est nisi trinitas ita esses ut unus dominus deus esses. Et si tu deus pater ipse esses et filius verbum tuum Iesus Christus ipse esses et donum uestrum spiritus sanctus, non legeremus in litteris veritatis: Misit deus filium suum nec tu, unigenite, diceres de spiritu sancto: Quem mittet pater in nomine meo et: Quem ego mittant vobis a patre. Ad hanc regulam fidei dirigens intentionem meam quantum potui, quantum me posse fecisti, quaesivi te et desideravi intellectu videre quod credidi et multum disputavi et laboravi. Domine deus meus, una spes mea, exaudi me ne fatigatus nolim te quaerere, sed quaeram faciem tuam semper ardenter. Tu da quaerendi vires, qui inveniri te fecisti et magis magisque inveniendi te spem dedisti. Coram te est firmitas et infirmitas mea; illam serva, istam sane. Coram te est scientia et ignorantia mea; ubi mihi aperuisti suscipe intrantem; ubi clausisti aperi pulsanti. Meminerim tui; intellegam te; diligam te. Auge in me ista donec me reformes ad integrum. Scio scriptum esse: In multiloquio non effugies peccatum. Sed utinam praedicando verbum tuum et laudando te tantummodo loquerer. Non solum fugerem peccatum sed meritum bonum adquirerem quamlibet multum sic loquerer. Neque enim homo de te beatus peccatum praeciperet germano in fide filio suo cui scripsit dicens: Praedica verbum, insta opportune, importune. Numquid dicendum est istum non multum locutum qui non solum opportune verum etiam importune verbum tuum, domine, non tacebat? Sed ideo non erat multum quia tantum erat necessarium. Libera me, deus meus, a multiloquio quod patior intus in anima mea misera in conspectu tuo et confugiente ad misericordiam tuam. Non enim cogitationibus taceo etiam tacens vocibus. Et si quidem non cogitarem nisi quod placeret tibi, non utique rogarem ut me ab hoc multiloquio liberares. Sed multae sunt cogitationes meae tales quales nosti cogitationes hominum quoniam uanae sunt. Dona mihi non eis consentire, et si quando me delectant, eas nihilominus improbare nec in eis velut dormitando immorari. Nec in tantum valeant apud me ut aliquid in opera mea procedat ex illis, sed ab eis mea saltem sit tuta sententia, tuta conscientia te tuente. Sapiens quidam cum de te loqueretur in libro suo qui ecclesiasticus proprio nomine iam vocatur: Multa, inquit, dicimus et non pervenintus, et consummatio sermonum universa est ipse. Cum ergo peruenerimus ad te, cessabunt multa ista quae dicimus et non pervenimus, et manebis unus omnia in omnibus, et sine fine dicemus unum laudantes te in unum et in te facti etiam nos unum. Domine deus une, deus trinitas, quaecumque dixi in his libris de tuo agnoscant et tui; si qua de meo, et tu ignosce et tui. Amen.	51. O Lord our God, we believe in You, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. For the Truth would not say, Go, baptize all nations in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, unless You were a Trinity. Nor would you, O Lord God, bid us to be baptized in the name of Him who is not the Lord God. Nor would the divine voice have said, Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God is one God, unless You were so a Trinity as to be one Lord God. And if You, O God, were Yourself the Father, and were Yourself the Son, Your Word Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit your gift, we should not read in the book of truth, God sent His Son; nor would You, O Only-begotten, say of the Holy Spirit, Whom the Father will send in my name; and, Whom I will send to you from the Father. Directing my purpose by this rule of faith, so far as I have been able, so far as You have made me to be able, I have sought You, and have desired to see with my understanding what I believed; and I have argued and labored much. O Lord my God, my one hope, hearken to me, lest through weariness I be unwilling to seek You, but that I may always ardently seek Your face. Do Thou give strength to seek, who has made me find You, and has given the hope of finding You more and more. My strength and my infirmity are in Your sight: preserve the one, and heal the other. My knowledge and my ignorance are in Your sight; where You have opened to me, receive me as I enter; where You have closed, open to me as I knock. May I remember You, understand You, love You. Increase these things in me, until You renew me wholly. I know it is written, In the multitude of speech, you shall not escape sin. But O that I might speak only in preaching Your word, and in praising You! Not only should I so flee from sin, but I should earn good desert, however much I so spoke. For a man blessed of You would not enjoin a sin upon his own true son in the faith, to whom he wrote, Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season. Are we to say that he has not spoken much, who was not silent about Your word, O Lord, not only in season, but out of season? But therefore it was not much, because it was only what was necessary. Set me free, O God, from that multitude of speech which I suffer inwardly in my soul, wretched as it is in Your sight, and flying for refuge to Your mercy; for I am not silent in thoughts, even when silent in words. And if, indeed, I thought of nothing save what pleased You, certainly I would not ask You to set me free from such multitude of speech. But many are my thoughts, such as You know, thoughts of man, since they are vain. Grant to me not to consent to them; and if ever they delight me, nevertheless to condemn them, and not to dwell in them, as though I slumbered. Nor let them so prevail in me, as that anything in my acts should proceed from them; but at least let my opinions, let my conscience, be safe from them, under Your protection. When the wise man spoke of You in his book, which is now called by the special name of Ecclesiasticus, We speak, he said, much, and yet come short; and in sum of words, He is all. When, therefore, we shall have come to You, these very many things that we speak, and yet come short, will cease; and You, as One, wilt remain all in all. And we shall say one thing without end, in praising You in One, ourselves also made one in You. O Lord the one God, God the Trinity, whatever I have said in these books that is of Yours, may they acknowledge who are Yours; if anything of my own, may it be pardoned both by You and by those who are Yours. Amen.
[15.28.51] DOMINO BEATISSIMO ET SINCERISSIMA CARITATE VENERANDO SANCTO FRATRI ET CONSACERDOTI PAPAE AURELIO AUGUSTINUS IN DOMINO SALUTEM.		}