On the Trinity 1-1 part 1/12

Accordingly, Paul — learned in the Law and made wise by the divine Spirit — guarantees that those who believe in the Son escape the charge concerning the glory of created gods.

Moreover, he also calls those 'godless' who, before this, knew God as Father alone, apart from the Son — since he does not reckon that among true achievements — writing in one place: 'Remember that you were at one time Gentiles in the flesh, called the uncircumcision by those called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by human hands, that you were at that time without Christ, alienated from the hope of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.'

And elsewhere: 'But then, not knowing God, you were enslaved to those who by nature are not gods; but now that you have come to know God — or rather have come to be known by God — how is it that you turn back again to the weak and beggarly elemental things, to which you want to be enslaved all over again?' Indeed, he holds the saving proclamation concerning Christ and the Holy Spirit, and the order of the Church — ever new and never declining into old age — to be superior to the older Law, because of its perfection, and because it has nothing lawless to trouble it, nor anything better or greater that need be set forth in its place.

...in word or manner better... For concerning this matter he writes...: on the one hand, that 'I became, according to zeal, a persecutor of the church; according to the righteousness that is in the Law, I became blameless.'

But whatever things were gain to me, these I have counted as loss for the sake of Christ.

Indeed, I even count everything to be loss on account of the surpassing worth of the knowledge of Jesus Christ our Lord, for whose sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as refuse, that I may gain Christ.

For if the one who comes preaches another Jesus whom we did not preach, or you receive a different spirit which you did not receive...

Now, with what in view, and with what thoughts of pure knowledge of God, has he once more written these words of his own?

To the Corinthians, in the second letter, that if one is reconciled to the Son, he has been reconciled to God, and that in Christ is the world's reconciliation with God.

That is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and having entrusted to us the message of reconciliation.

So we are ambassadors on behalf of Christ, as though God were appealing through us.

And again, note how, setting aside all else, he proclaimed — boasting greatly — that even what seems to be a matter of reproach for Christ, because of his loving dispensation toward mankind, overflows with all glory and strength; and I think he does this deliberately, so that the one who fails to perceive, from the glorious Passion, the unbegotten, incorrupt, and unchangeable Godhead might be convicted on a charge of arrogance.

For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and him crucified.

But the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, is for all who believe.

Through faith in the Son, he says, each person is justified by God.

Knowing that a man is not justified by works of the Law but through faith in Jesus Christ, we too have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the Law, because by works of the Law no flesh will be justified.

And he also explains elsewhere that neither circumcision avails anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new faith working through love.

But since this discourse deepens the understanding, it must be unfolded.

He wishes, then, to teach that the manifestation of Christ discovered a certain new and unique faith for all mankind.

According to which he has left no place either for Judaism or for Hellenism.

And this could also be understood according to the saying:

Behold, the old things have passed away; all things have become new.

And, to put it concisely, the one who knows God according to the Law ceases from that observance, since, as he says, circumcision is not perfect.

...the Son, the true and liberating light, [shone forth] unto salvation and instruction for all.

And he sets this forth as a thing mystically unknown to some of them, because of the memory of the polytheism from Egypt still lingering within them.

The venerable Son of God, then, bearing witness by his own nature to the freedom that is his from above, and that creation is not, as it were, his kin — for everything that is brought forth is a slave both to its begetter as regards its origin, and every created thing is a slave to its Creator — says to Peter:

'The kings of the earth — from whom do they collect tolls or tribute? From their sons, or from strangers?' When he answered:

'From strangers,' Jesus said to him:

Then the sons are free.

But so that we may not give them offense, go to the sea, cast a hook, and take the first fish that comes up, and when you open its mouth you will find a coin.

Take that and give it to them for me and for you. So much, then, concerning these matters.

Concerning those who fabricate myths that the Father made the Son for the service of creation.

Blasphemously setting themselves in opposition and fabricating myths, they say that the Father made the Son as most useful for serving him with respect to the rest of creation — no longer perceiving how this depends on this conjectural reasoning of theirs:

Envy, and reluctance, and other material passions.

For surely one must also look at these things.

For if to create is good — as indeed it is good, and the sole property and sole distinguishing excellence of the divine, ungrudging nature, so that it might possess this good and be glorified by someone — then for what reason did he not create all things through himself, but somehow, as it were, held back? And if it is a great thing for created beings to be brought into existence by the greater one — granting, as they hold, that the Father is greater than his own Son the Word — was he then begrudging those who would glorify him the experience of being made directly by himself? And if making what is produced through an intermediary is not altogether free from both arrogance and impotence, then the one who brings a thing into being through himself, rather than the one who does so through another, shows forth the greater glory.

For that which does not yet exist obeys the commands of him who eternally exists, and, though not yet brought to completion, it receives fitting measures and lacks nothing in any respect — not merely would he be judged proud, but it would already be shown that he possesses authority over all things whatsoever... But if Jesus says to Lazarus, now dead:

'Your sins are forgiven you'; and to another:

'Come out of him.' Now the fact that God does these things through another — according to their reasoning — shows that God the Father, whose thoughts... as Paul, learned in the Law and made wise by the divine Spirit, guarantees that those who believe in the Son escape the charge concerning the glory of created gods.

Moreover, he also calls those 'godless' who, before this, knew God as Father alone, apart from the Son — since he does not reckon that among true achievements — writing in one place: 'Remember that you were at one time Gentiles in the flesh, called the uncircumcision by those called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by human hands, that you were at that time without Christ, alienated from the hope of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.'

And elsewhere: 'But then, not knowing God, you were enslaved to those who by nature are not gods; but now that you have come to know God — or rather have come to be known by God — how is it that you turn back again to the weak and beggarly elemental things, to which you want to be enslaved all over again?' Indeed, he holds the saving proclamation concerning Christ and the Holy Spirit, and the order of the Church — ever new and never declining into old age — to be superior to the older Law, because of its perfection, and because it has nothing lawless to trouble it, nor anything better or greater that need be set forth in its place.

...in word or manner better... For concerning this matter he writes...: on the one hand, that 'I became, according to zeal, a persecutor of the church; according to the righteousness that is in the Law, I became blameless.'

But whatever things were gain to me, these I have counted as loss for the sake of Christ.

...I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as refuse, that I may gain Christ.

For if the one who comes preaches another Jesus whom we did not preach, or you receive a different spirit which you did not receive...

Now, with what in view, and with what thoughts of pure knowledge of God, has he once more written these words of his own?

To the Corinthians, in the second letter, that if one is reconciled to the Son, he has been reconciled to God, and that in Christ is the world's reconciliation with God.

That is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and having entrusted to us the message of reconciliation.

So we are ambassadors on behalf of Christ, as though God were appealing through us.

And again, note how, setting aside all else, he proclaimed — boasting greatly — that even what seems to be a matter of reproach for Christ, because of his loving dispensation toward mankind, overflows with all glory and strength; and I think he does this deliberately, so that the one who fails to perceive, from the glorious Passion, the unbegotten, incorrupt, and unchangeable Godhead might be convicted on a charge of arrogance.

For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and him crucified.

But the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, is for all who believe.

Through faith in the Son, he says, each person is justified by God.

Knowing that a man is not justified by works of the Law but through faith in Jesus Christ, we too have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the Law, because by works of the Law no flesh will be justified.

And he also explains elsewhere that neither circumcision avails anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new faith working through love.

But since this discourse deepens the understanding, it must be unfolded.

He wishes, then, to teach that the manifestation of Christ discovered a certain new and unique faith for all mankind.

According to which he has left no place either for Judaism or for Hellenism.

And this could also be understood according to the saying:

Behold, the old things have passed away; all things have become new.

And, to put it concisely, the one who knows God according to the Law ceases from that observance, since, as he says, circumcision is not perfect.

And the Son, the true and liberating light, shone forth for the salvation and instruction of all.

And he sets this forth as a thing mystically unknown to some of them, because of the memory of the polytheism from Egypt still lingering within them.

The venerable Son of God, then, bearing witness by his own nature to the freedom that is his from above, and that creation is not, as it were, his kin — for everything that is brought forth is a slave both to its begetter as regards its origin, and every created thing is a slave to its Creator — says to Peter:

'The kings of the earth — from whom do they collect tolls or tribute? From their sons, or from strangers?' When he answered:

'From strangers,' Jesus said to him:

Then the sons are free.

But so that we may not give them offense, go to the sea, cast a hook, and take the first fish that comes up, and when you open its mouth you will find a coin.

Take that and give it to them for me and for you. So much, then, concerning these matters.

Concerning those who fabricate myths that the Father made the Son for the service of creation.

Blasphemously setting themselves in opposition and spinning fables, they say that the Father made the Son as one most useful for serving him with regard to the rest of creation, no longer understanding that this depends on this conjectural reasoning of theirs:

envy and reluctance and other material [passions].

For surely one must also consider these things.

and to make what is produced through an intermediary is not at all free from arrogance and weakness together; for the one who brings something into being through himself—rather than the one who does so through another—displays the greater glory.

For what does not yet exist obeys the nods of him who always is, and inasmuch as it is not yet brought to completion, it receives fitting measures and lacks nothing in any respect—not only is the arrogant one [shown to be] arrogant, but it might already be… shown that whatever authority it has… and… But if Jesus says to Lazarus, now dead:

'Your sins are forgiven you,' and to another:

'Come out of him'—yet that God does these things through another, according to their reasoning, shows that God the Father, whose thoughts are acts, is unable to accomplish all things through himself apart from the help of that one through whom or in whom he works:

while the Son [is regarded] as some kind of inanimate instrument.

how will one not spit greatly upon such savage blasphemies and, holding up open palms against them, withdraw, fearing lest he become liable to the divine tribunal even for an unwilling hearing? Concerning what the heretics say:

'When was the Son begotten, and the Spirit proceeded?' and so forth.

Since, then, there are so many and such clear proofs, and Scripture exhorts us not to be carried away by strange and varied teachings but to flee empty talk, the heterodox, being at a loss to establish the tenets of their religion from the Scriptures, and…

as if drunk, tossing their reasoning this way and that on every point, they put forward various sophistries devised by them with evil craft and much-rehearsed practice, among which are these:

'Are not all things, then,' he says, 'from God?' To which one must answer:

But [created things are] not from God in the manner of begetting, nor in the manner of procession as the Spirit of God is, nor are they of such operations, or found worthy of such distinguished constitutions [as the Son and the Spirit].

'When, then, was the Son begotten and the Spirit proceeded?' Then, when the Father was not begotten.

For even though [they are] from him, yet not after him.

And just as it is unlawful to seek [this] in terms of place—since neither the one who begot nor the one who was begotten is circumscribed [by place]—so too it is not to be sought in terms of time.

For the Son, being God and Word, is this eternally so, and not a matter of being made.

'But how,' he says, 'was he begotten?' To this—even though it was written concerning the Son:

'From the womb, before the morning star, I begot you'—and concerning the Holy Spirit:

'The Spirit proceeds from me'—and though David sings [in the Psalm]:

'By the word of the Lord the heavens were established, and by the breath of his mouth all their host'—and though Job says:

'The divine Spirit made me, and the breath of the Almighty teaches me'—and though the Lord teaches: 'the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father'—and though Paul writes that it is the Spirit of God, just as to men [belongs] their own [spirit]—nevertheless, all this so surpasses every mind that the same apostle writes to the Corinthians:

'Now thanks be to God, who always leads us in triumph in Christ and through us makes manifest the fragrance of the knowledge of him,' as though we partake not of the whole of that knowledge—because it cannot be contained by us—but as it were of some image or breath of it.

and we see the things concerning him as through a mirror, in a riddle.

For 'the glory of the Lord conceals a matter,' according to the divine saying, lying beyond, by an ineffable and infinite word, all created perception.

not only because it is unbearable,

but because that which is before the ages and before all creation, had it not been made manifest by the Scriptures, would have remained unknown to creation:

and again, to the same [Corinthians], in the second letter, most excellently on this point:

'But we will not boast beyond measure, but according to the measure of the rule which God apportioned to us as a measure, to reach even as far as you.'

And in the first epistle he also says:

'If anyone thinks he knows something, he does not yet know as he ought to know.'

this is fitting either to hear or to say; for to assign causes for what lies beyond all causation and comprehension is a rash thing;

but to marvel at the divine, and to regard the very thought concerning it as an awesome fear, is safe.

'Did God, then,' he says, 'beget willingly, or unwillingly?' But we must first state their purpose, and then answer accordingly.

Their purpose, then, is that against the simple-hearted they may construct their opposition from either expression.

For if they seize upon 'he begot unwillingly'—though no one answers them thus—they say:

'Then God endures having begotten the Son as something he does not will, the necessity of nature compelling him to this against his will.'

But if 'he begot willingly' is granted them, they add:

'Then the begetting of the Son depends on the Father's will, which bestows existence upon him in the manner of a craftsman.'

But this answer happens to be utterly senseless.

For both God the Father who begets, and the radiance of his glory, the Son, are prior to willing and non-willing and every conception whatsoever:

and nothing can be conceived as intervening between this one and that from which he is.

And likewise also [is] the image of God.

Again, the Son is not a first existence that begins or ceases, dependent on willing or not willing.

He begot, therefore, within a nature that transcends deliberation and thought.

But this proposition of theirs, too, is full of absurdity.

For, on their view, willing is preceded by the passion of desire, while not willing yet doing is preceded by the compulsion arising from necessity—together with the will being conceived beforehand, and, prior to that, the thought of the Father's hypostasis, which in every way and altogether has the radiance co-subsisting with it.

Besides this, if they believe that all things came into being from the will of the Father through the Son, then the will does not pre-exist [the Son].

For it is impracticable and impossible that the Maker should not yet subsist, and only afterward should it be decided to create through him.

But this too is full of folly.

'I am, and I have not changed'—how then could the unchangeable nature undergo change with respect to the hypostases, not standing firm in the identity of the persons, but moving and shifting? Yet also this:

if it is true—as indeed it is true—that 'whatever the Father does, these the Son likewise does,' then the Son too will beget another son, so that he may do all things in the same manner as the Father.

But if he has not done so, nor does so, then he is not a creature, nor does a paternal will take precedence over him.

'the will of him who sent me, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in him may have eternal life'—it is not the Son who is [the object] of the will, but the one who beholds him.

For here too the will is found [to be mentioned] after the Son.

One could, moreover, quickly reject this argument of theirs altogether, not from what has already been said alone, but also from what we shall now bring forward:

that is, if one should ask them something similar in return:

'Does the Father exist by willing, or not?' For the very same things they have devised will meet them in reply:

for [if they say] 'not by willing,' it would follow that his subsisting happened to him against his purpose, the necessity of nature turning him to this against his will;

and to the second [alternative], that before the willing he did not exist:

for his existence will be traced back to his own will;

that will driving him, in the manner of a maker, into subsistence—according to their vain babblings.

Likewise also another [question], differing from the previous one only in wording:

'Is God immortal and good by willing, or without willing?' For the same [absurdities] will follow.

One will do better to answer them concisely, that nothing accrues to the wholly perfect God, nor does anything fall short in him;

and just as no will precedes the Father's existence, immortality, and goodness, so too none precedes his begetting [of the Son].

and that all such [notions] are discordant with right thinking concerning God:

but concerning created things, David sings in Psalm 113:

'Our God is in heaven…'

'and on the earth: all things whatsoever he willed he made'; and, 'you made all things in wisdom' — that is, in the Son, and not in will. And in Psalm 72:

'...you guided me with your counsel, and with glory you received me.' And in Psalm 29:

'For wrath is in his anger, and life is in his will.' And in:

'Lord, by your will grant strength to my beauty.' And in Psalm 17:

'He will deliver me, because he willed me [took delight in me].'

For just as the Father, being immortal and good, wills to be these things and, in willing, is these things — not having his will, if I may put it so, as the cause [of his being immortal and good], nor yet existing without willing —

so too the will is not the cause of his begetting.

But with regard to us, we have some things from God's activity, and some from the will that lies within our own power;

for it is not by our own will, but by God's will, that we come to possess our composition of soul and body, and our being rational;

for we, who did not yet exist, how could we have willed or not willed [our own existence]? But by our own free choice we have our being good or evil, and being knowledgeable through diligence or unlearned through negligence.

They have arrived at this chief point without receiving it with an accurate understanding — 'This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased' — since otherwise they would immediately have had from it a firm anchor of the orthodox faith.

But as it stands, they claim that the phrase 'in whom I am well pleased' shows the Son to be a creature.

And yet the whole sense of it bears entirely upon his becoming man.

'I am the Son of God,' [he declared, and] they retorted —

'you blaspheme' — [but] the Father ratified concerning him that this one alone is my genuine Son.

For the word 'this,' and 'beloved,' and the fact that 'Son' was named with the [definite] article, show this:

'In him,' he says, 'I was well pleased that salvation should be procured for you through his becoming man.'

But even if one should understand 'I am well pleased' as referring to [his] divinity, their sophistry is nonetheless nullified;

since not every expression spoken by God, and especially concerning God the Word, yields a meaning according to worldly custom.

Moreover, if he was speaking of the Son who already existed when he said:

'in whom I am well pleased,' then this good pleasure is not found to be the cause of his existence.

But so that what is signified by such an expression may become clearer, let us call as witness the psalmist singing in Psalm 149:

'For the Lord takes pleasure in his people.'

Now this good pleasure did not come about before the people [existed], but after them.

For at that time he took pleasure in them and sent peace and grace, when they served him rightly;

but when they did not serve him rightly, the opposite [happened], as he now also prophesies:

'When he killed them, then they sought him out;'

'their own arm did not save them, but your right hand and your arm and the light of your countenance, because you were well pleased with them' — calling the Son the right hand and arm of God, and the light of his countenance;

'Remember us, O Lord, in the good pleasure [you have] toward your people.'

[The argument runs:] 'If the unbegotten God is wholly generative, then he did not beget in accordance with substance'; and, 'If his substance was changed into offspring, then God's substance is not unchangeable.'

This too is their rash and faulty [contention], put forward in words such as these:

'If the unbegotten God is wholly generative, then the one begotten was not begotten in accordance with substance, since his whole substance has [the property of] begetting, but not of being begotten.' But let them hear this: if light is wholly generative, then by their reasoning its radiance is not generated in accordance with substance, but is received from outside — since [on their logic] its whole substance has [the property] of generating, but not of being generated.

But if light does not receive its radiance from outside, but generates it from the whole of its substance without any interval, then neither did God acquire the Son from outside, but begot him from the whole of his hypostasis without interval, inasmuch as he is incorporeal.

Again they bring forward [an argument], everywhere pursuing an order contrary to Scripture:

'If the substance of God, having been transformed, is called offspring, then his substance is not unchangeable, since the change effected the peculiar existence of the Son.' But no one grants them the right to say this either,

[...] as it resists a most grievous heretical affliction.

for [on their logic] if light, having been transformed, becomes radiance, then light is not unchangeable, since the change effects the peculiar existence of the radiance.

But if light, without being changed, has begotten radiance — itself remaining light, and its radiance being connaturally perfect from it — then God too remains unchangeably God, being the Father of his own radiance, no longer having received it from outside, but having begotten it perfect from his own substance.

[Chapter] Concerning those who prattle that, because of the name 'Father,' the substance of the Son himself is other [than the Father's].

Revolving the same things about the same matters, and utterly counterfeiting the beauty of truth, they also assert this, in a manner devoid of love for God:

'Those whose names are different must of necessity also have different substances.'

'The word "Father" does not signify what "Son" [signifies], nor again does the name "Son" indicate the hypostasis of the Father.'

But let them hear, first, that if the divine hypostases had not been made manifest by an appropriate designation, by using what sign could one, without uttering the appellation 'Father,' have signified the Father himself and [the fact] that he has a Son? Or, without naming the appellation 'Son' and 'Spirit,' have addressed the Son himself or the Spirit, and [signified] that the Son has a Father, while the Spirit is the Spirit of God? Second, that in the case of the Holy Trinity — apart from the fact that he who truly is this [Father] is called 'Father,' and he who is naturally begotten is called 'Only-begotten,' and that which is precisely called 'Spirit of God,' this belonging to the Father — all the other names remain the same [for all three], such as 'God,' 'Lord,' 'Holy,' 'Righteous,' 'Good,' 'Light,' 'Life.'

Therefore, on the contrary, in the case of the blessed Trinity alone, those whose names are the same also have one and the same substance;

so that it follows that like is characterized by like.

For to the true and eternal Light [corresponds] the true and eternal Light, and to him who truly [is, corresponds he who truly is] —

'I am God, and there is no other besides me.'

'A righteous God and a Savior; there is none besides me.'

'Turn to me and be saved, you who are from the ends of the earth.'

'I am God, and there is no other.'

'Surely righteousness shall go forth from my mouth, and my words shall not be turned back, that to me every knee shall bow, and every tongue shall swear by God' — that is, shall acknowledge God, or confess to God.

God the Father, therefore, is not prior to the Son — neither in beginninglessness, nor in substance, nor in glory — but they are on an equal footing, except perhaps in respect of the notion of fatherhood.

For that these words belong to the Only-begotten Son, the divinely-inspired Paul, writing to the Romans, made clear, speaking thus:

'For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ, as it is written:'

'As I live, says the Lord, to me every knee shall bow, and every tongue shall confess to God.'

Likewise John the theologian also said in his Gospel:

'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.'

'He was in the beginning with God.'

'All things came to be through him, and without him not one thing came to be that has come to be.'

'In him was life, and the life was the light of men.'

'And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it.'

'The One who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Lord our God, the Almighty.'

The [phrase] 'the One who is' signifies the ever-existing [nature] of the divine hypostasis, just as we have also said elsewhere.

For the expression is unbounded, and it is for this reason that God spoke 'the One who is' as his own name.

The [phrase] 'was in the beginning' makes evident, and indeed thoroughly manifest, the absurdity — to be shunned — of [the notion] 'there was [a time] when he was not.'

For the word 'was' is [used] in an unlimited sense.

In Latin, this unlimited [tense] is composed of two words:

'plus quam perfectum' [more-than-perfect, i.e., the pluperfect], and it is interpreted as follows:

so that it now demands to be understood as beyond time, or without beginning.

For as for [the phrase] 'not existing in the beginning' — should anyone say this, [let him know that] there never was, at any time, a beginning without a cause.

That—from when the self-existent Father was, if it is lawful to say so—the Son who is from him coexists with him.

The phrase 'was with God' could be understood in its full force to mean that, in keeping with God, he was without beginning, uncreated, uncontainable, good, immortal, and king over all.

For if this were not so in the case of this wisdom that has welled forth, neither will it be so in the case of the fount that welled forth this wisdom.

For manifest, firm, unelaborate, and looking only to the divine is the purpose and God-delivered word of John.

The phrase 'the Word was God' establishes that the Word exists substantially, and is God such as is that God whose Word he is;

The phrase 'all things came to be through him, and without him not one thing came to be' declares him, as has already been said, to be virtually the Creator, but also that he himself was not created.

For if not even one created thing received its existence apart from him, it is surely clear to everyone that he himself did not come into being, but was begotten in a divine manner.

For indeed it is impossible that he who has given existence to all things, and to rational beings their being and immortality, should himself have come from non-being into being.