When men seek God and strain their mind toward an understanding of the Trinity, according to the measure of human weakness, having experienced laborious difficulties—whether in the very keenness of the mind striving to gaze upon the inaccessible light, or in the manifold and multiform speech of the sacred letters, where it seems to me that nothing else is done but that Adam is worn away, so that the grace of Christ, being glorified, may shine forth—when, after every ambiguity has been discussed, they have arrived at something certain, they ought most readily to forgive those who err in the investigation of so great a secret. But there are two things which in the error of men are most difficult to tolerate: presumption before the truth is made plain, and, when it has already been made plain, the defense of a presumed falsehood.
From these two vices, most hostile to the finding of truth and to the handling of the divine and holy books, if—as I pray and hope—God shall defend and fortify me with the shield of His good will and by the grace of His mercy, I shall not be slothful in inquiring into the substance of God, whether through His Scripture or through His creation. Both of these are set before us to be contemplated, that He Himself may be sought, He Himself loved, who both inspired the one and created the other. Nor shall I be fearful in bringing forth my own opinion, in which I shall rather love to be examined by the upright than fear to be bitten by the perverse. For most beautiful and modest charity gladly receives the dove's eye;
but the dog's tooth either most cautious humility avoids, or most solid truth blunts. And I shall rather choose to be reproved by anyone than to be praised either by one who errs or one who flatters. For no reprover is to be dreaded by a lover of truth. For either an enemy is to reprove or a friend. If then an enemy insults, he is to be borne; but if a friend errs, he is to be taught; if he teaches, he is to be heard. But a praiser who errs confirms error, and one who flatters entices into error. 'The righteous shall correct me in mercy and shall reprove me; but the oil of the sinner shall not fatten my head.'
[I 2] Wherefore, although we hold most firmly concerning our Lord Jesus Christ—both disseminated through the Scriptures and demonstrated by the learned catholic expositors of those same Scriptures, as a canonical rule—how the Son of God is to be understood as both equal to the Father according to the form of God in which He is, and less than the Father according to the form of a servant which He took; in which form He was found less not only than the Father but even than the Holy Spirit, and not only this but even than Himself—not than Himself who was, but than Himself who is, because the form of a servant which He took did not cause Him to lose the form of God, as the testimonies of the Scriptures which we mentioned in the earlier book have taught;
yet there are certain things in the divine utterances so placed that it is ambiguous to which rule they should rather be referred—whether to that by which we understand the Son to be less in the creature He assumed, or to that by which we understand the Son to be indeed not less but equal to the Father, yet from Him this one is God of God, light of light. For we call the Son God of God; but the Father God only, not 'of God.' Whence it is manifest that the Son has another from whom He is and to whom He is Son; but the Father has not a Son from whom He is, but only one to whom He is Father. For every son is from a father, that which he is, and is a son to the father; but no father is from a son, that which he is, but is a father to the son.
Certain things, then, are so set down in the Scriptures concerning the Father and the Son as to indicate the unity and equality of substance, such as: 'I and the Father are one,' and: 'When He was in the form of God, He did not consider it robbery to be equal to God,' and whatever such things there are. But certain others are so set down as to show the Son less on account of the form of a servant, that is, on account of the assumed creature of a mutable and human substance, such as this which He says: 'For the Father is greater than I,' and: 'The Father judges no man, but has committed all judgment to the Son.' For a little afterward He consequently says: 'And He has given Him power to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of Man.'
Certain other things, moreover, are so set down that He is shown neither less nor equal, but only that He is from the Father is intimated, such as this: 'As the Father has life in Himself, so has He given to the Son to have life in Himself,' and this: 'For the Son cannot do anything of Himself, but what He sees the Father doing.' But if we take this to be said because in the form assumed from the creature the Son is less, it will follow that the Father first walked upon the waters, or opened with spittle and clay the eyes of some other man born blind, and the rest of the things which the Son, appearing in the flesh among men, did—so that He who said that the Son could do nothing of Himself but what He saw the Father doing might be able to do them. But who, even if deranged, would think so?
It remains, therefore, that these things were said for this reason: because the life of the Son, like that of the Father, is immutable, and yet is from the Father; and the operation of the Father and the Son is inseparable, but yet for the Son so to operate is from Him from whom He Himself is, that is, from the Father; and the Son so sees the Father that by the very fact that He sees Him He is thereby the Son. For to Him, to be from the Father—that is, to be born of the Father—is nothing other than to see the Father; nor is it another thing to see Him operating than to operate together with Him; but therefore not of Himself, because He is not of Himself, and therefore what He sees the Father doing, because He is of the Father. For neither does He do other things in a like manner, as a painter paints other panels in the way he has seen others painted by another; nor the same things in an unlike manner, as the body forms the same letters which the mind has thought; but:
'Whatsoever things,' He says, 'the Father does, these same things the Son also does likewise.' And He said 'these same things' and 'likewise,' and hence the operation of the Father and the Son is inseparable and equal, but it is from the Father to the Son. Therefore the Son cannot do anything of Himself but what He sees the Father doing. From this rule, then, by which the Scriptures so speak as to wish to show not one less than another but only who is from whom, some have conceived a notion as if the Son were said to be less. But certain of our own people, rather unlearned and least instructed in these matters, while they try to take these things according to the form of a servant and a right understanding does not follow them, are thrown into confusion.
Lest this happen, this rule too must be held, by which not that the Son is less but that He is from the Father is intimated—by which words not His inequality but His nativity is shown. [II 4] There are, then, certain things in the holy books, as I had begun to say, so placed that it is ambiguous to which they are to be referred: whether to that whereby the Son is less on account of the assumed creature, or to that whereby, although equal, He is nevertheless indicated as being from the Father. And to me indeed it seems that if it is ambiguous in such a way that it cannot be explained and distinguished, it can be understood without peril by either rule, such as this which He says: 'My doctrine is not mine, but His who sent me.'
For it can be taken both from the form of a servant, as we have already treated in the earlier book, and from the form of God, in which He is equal to the Father in such a way that He is nevertheless from the Father. For in the form of God, just as the Son is not one thing and His life another, but that very life is the Son, so the Son is not one thing and His doctrine another, but that very doctrine is the Son. And hence, just as what was said, 'He gave life to the Son,' is understood as nothing other than 'He begot the Son who is life,' so also when it is said, 'He gave doctrine to the Son,' it is rightly understood: 'He begot the Son who is doctrine'; so that what was said, 'My doctrine is not mine, but His who sent me,' may be understood as if it were said:
'I am not from myself, but from Him who sent me.' [III 5] For also concerning the Holy Spirit, of whom it was not said, 'He emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant,' the Lord Himself nevertheless says: 'But when that Spirit of truth shall come, He will teach you all truth. For He will not speak of Himself, but whatsoever He shall hear, that will He speak, and the things that are to come He will announce to you. He shall glorify me, because He shall receive of mine and shall announce it to you.' Unless after these words He had immediately followed by saying: 'All things whatsoever the Father has are mine; therefore I said, that He shall receive of mine and shall announce it to you,' it might perhaps be believed that the Holy Spirit was so born of Christ as He of the Father. For of Himself He had said:
'My doctrine is not mine, but His who sent me'; but concerning the Holy Spirit: 'For He will not speak of Himself, but whatsoever He shall hear, that will He speak,' and: 'For He shall receive of mine and shall announce it to you.' But because He rendered the reason why He said 'He shall receive of mine'—for He says, 'All things whatsoever the Father has are mine; therefore I said, that He shall receive of mine'—it remains that the Holy Spirit too is understood to have of the Father's, just as the Son also does. In what way, except according to that which we said above: 'But when the Paraclete shall come, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He shall bear witness of me'? By proceeding, therefore, from the Father, He is said not to speak of Himself; and just as it does not thereby follow that the Son is less because He said:
'The Son cannot do anything of Himself, but what He sees the Father doing' (for He said this not from the form of a servant, but from the form of God, as we have already shown; and these words do not indicate that He is less, but that He is from the Father); so neither is it hereby brought about that the Holy Spirit is less because it was said of Him: 'For He will not speak of Himself, but whatsoever He shall hear, that will He speak'; for this was said according to that which He proceeds from the Father.
But since the Son is from the Father and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, why are they not both called sons, nor both begotten, but the one alone is the only-begotten Son, while the Holy Spirit is neither son nor begotten — because if begotten, he would surely be a son — this we shall discuss in another place, if God grants it and as far as he grants. Yet here let them be watchful, if they can, who have thought that even this supported their view, as though to prove the Father greater than the Son, because the Son said: 'Father, glorify me.' Behold, the Holy Spirit also glorifies him; is he then greater than the Son?
Moreover, if the Holy Spirit glorifies the Son because he shall receive of what is the Son's, and receives of his because all things that the Father has are the Son's, it is manifest that when the Holy Spirit glorifies the Son, the Father glorifies the Son. Whence it is recognized that all things the Father has belong not only to the Son but also to the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit is able to glorify the Son whom the Father glorifies. But if he who glorifies is greater than the one whom he glorifies, then let them allow that those are equal who mutually glorify one another. Now it is written that the Son also glorifies the Father: 'I,' he says, 'have glorified thee upon the earth.'
Let them indeed take care lest the Holy Spirit be thought greater than both, because he glorifies the Son whom the Father glorifies, while it is written that he himself is glorified neither by the Father nor by the Son. But being refuted in these matters they turn to this, saying: 'He who sends is greater than he who is sent.' Accordingly the Father is greater than the Son, because the Son constantly recalls that he was sent by the Father; he is greater also than the Holy Spirit, because Jesus said of him: 'Whom the Father will send in my name'; and the Holy Spirit is less than both, because both the Father sends him, as we have recalled, and the Son, when he says: 'But if I go, I will send him to you.' On this question I first ask whence and whither the Son was sent. 'I,' he says, 'went forth from the Father and came into this world';
therefore to go forth from the Father and to come into this world — this is to be sent. What then is it that the same evangelist says of him: 'He was in this world, and the world was made through him, and the world knew him not'; and then adds: 'He came unto his own'? Surely he was sent thither whither he came. But if into this world — and this consists in the fact that he went forth from the Father and came into this world — and he was in this world, then he was sent thither where he already was. For that also which is written in the prophet, that God says: 'I fill heaven and earth,' if it was said of the Son (for some would have it that it was he who spoke either to the prophets or in the prophets), whither was he sent except thither where he already was? For he who said, 'I fill heaven and earth,' was everywhere.
But if it was said of the Father, where could he be without his Word and without his Wisdom, which reaches mightily from end to end and disposes all things sweetly? Nor indeed could he be anywhere without his Spirit. And so if God is everywhere, everywhere too is his Spirit. Thither then the Holy Spirit also was sent, where he already was. For even he who finds no place to go from the face of God, and says: 'If I ascend into heaven, thou art there; if I descend into hell, thou art present' — wishing God to be understood as present everywhere — first named his Spirit. For thus he says: 'Whither shall I go from thy Spirit? And whither shall I flee from thy face?'
Wherefore, if both the Son and the Holy Spirit are sent thither where they already were, it must be asked how this sending, whether of the Son or of the Holy Spirit, is to be understood. For the Father alone is nowhere read to have been sent. And of the Son the Apostle writes thus: 'But when the fullness of time was come, God sent his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, that he might redeem those who were under the law.' 'He sent,' he says, 'his Son, made of a woman.' By which name what Catholic does not know that he wished to signify, not the loss of virginity, but the difference of sex, according to the Hebrew manner of speaking? So then when he says, 'God sent his Son, made of a woman,' he sufficiently shows that the Son was sent by the very fact that he was made of a woman.
That therefore which was born of God was in this world; but that which was born of Mary was sent, coming into this world. And so he could not be sent by the Father without the Holy Spirit, not only because the Father is understood, when he sent him — that is, made him of a woman — assuredly not to have done so without his Spirit, but also because it is most manifestly and openly said in the Gospel to the Virgin Mary, when she asked the angel: 'How shall this be?' — 'The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee'; and Matthew says: 'She was found with child of the Holy Spirit'; although also in the prophet Isaiah Christ himself is understood to speak of his coming that was to be: 'And now the Lord hath sent me, and his Spirit.'
Perhaps someone may press us to say that the Son was sent even by himself, because that conception and birth of Mary is the operation of the Trinity, by whose creating all things are created. 'And how then,' he says, 'did the Father send him, if he sent himself?' To whom I first reply by asking that he say, if he can: how did the Father sanctify him, if he sanctified himself? For the same Lord says both: 'He whom the Father,' he says, 'hath sanctified and sent into the world, ye say that he blasphemeth, because I said, I am the Son of God'; but in another place he says: 'And for their sakes I sanctify myself.' Likewise I ask how the Father delivered him up, if he delivered up himself. For the Apostle Paul says both:
'He that spared not,' he says, 'his own Son, but delivered him up for us all.' But elsewhere, of the Savior himself, he says: 'Who loved me and delivered up himself for me.' I believe he will answer, if he understands these things aright, that there is one will of the Father and of the Son and an inseparable operation. So then let him understand that incarnation and that birth from the Virgin — in which the Son is understood to be sent — to have been accomplished inseparably by one and the same operation of the Father and the Son, the Holy Spirit assuredly not being separated therefrom, of whom it is openly said: 'She was found with child of the Holy Spirit.' For even if we inquire in this way, perhaps what we are saying will appear more clearly. In what way did God send his Son? Did he command that he should come, and did the Son, obeying the command, come?
Or did he ask? Or did he merely admonish? But whichever of these it was, it was assuredly done by a word; and the Word of God is the very Son of God. Wherefore, when the Father sent him by a word, it was by the Father and by his Word that it came about that he was sent. Therefore the same Son was sent by the Father and the Son, because the Word of the Father is the Son himself. For who would clothe himself in so sacrilegious an opinion as to think that a temporal word was made by the Father, in order that the eternal Son might be sent and appear in the flesh in time? But surely in the very Word of God, which was in the beginning with God and was God — that is, in the very Wisdom of God — there was without time that time at which it behooved him to appear in the flesh.
And so, since without any beginning of time the Word was in the beginning, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God, there was in that Word itself, without any time, that time at which the Word was to become flesh and dwell among us. And when this fullness of time was come, God sent his Son, made of a woman — that is, made in time, that the incarnate Word might appear to men — which in the Word itself was without time, the time at which it was to come to pass. For indeed the order of times is, in the eternal Wisdom of God, without time. So then, when this had been done by the Father and the Son, that the Son should appear in the flesh, he was fittingly said to be sent who appeared in that flesh, and he to have sent who did not appear in it.
Since those things which are outwardly enacted before bodily eyes arise from the inner disposition of spiritual nature, they are therefore fitly said to be sent. Now that form of the assumed manhood is the person of the Son, not also of the Father. Wherefore the invisible Father, together with the Son who is invisible with him, is said to have sent that same Son by making him visible. But if he were made visible in such a way that he ceased to be invisible with the Father — that is, if the substance of the invisible Word were changed and passing over into a visible creature were turned into it — then the Son would be understood to be sent by the Father in such wise that he was found to be only sent, and not also sending together with the Father.
But since the form of a servant was so assumed that the form of God remained unchangeable, it is manifest that what appeared in the Son was done by the Father and the Son who did not appear — that is, that by the invisible Father, together with the invisible Son, the same Son was sent as visible. Why then does he say: 'And I came not of myself'? This is now said according to the form of a servant, according to which it is also said: 'I judge no man.' If therefore he is said to be sent inasmuch as he appeared outwardly in a bodily creature, who inwardly in his spiritual nature is ever hidden from the eyes of mortals, it is now easy to understand also concerning the Holy Spirit why he too is said to be sent.
For a certain species of creature was made in time, in which the Holy Spirit might be visibly shown: either when in bodily form as a dove he descended upon the Lord himself, or when, after ten days had passed following his ascension, on the day of Pentecost there suddenly came from heaven a sound as of a mighty rushing wind, and there appeared to them divided tongues as of fire, which also settled upon each one of them. This operation, visibly expressed and offered to mortal eyes, was called the mission of the Holy Spirit;
not that his very substance appeared, by which he too is invisible and unchangeable, even as the Father and the Son; but that, by outward things seen, the hearts of men, moved from the temporal manifestation of him who was coming, might be turned to the hidden eternity of him who is ever present. Now for this reason it is nowhere written that God the Father is greater than the Holy Spirit, or the Holy Spirit less than God the Father: because the creature in which the Holy Spirit appeared was not so assumed as the Son of Man was assumed, in which form the person of the very Word of God was presented — not that he possessed the Word of God as the other holy sages did, but 'above his fellows';
and assuredly not because he possessed more of the Word, so as to be, than the rest by a more excellent wisdom, but because he was the very Word itself. For it is one thing to be the Word in flesh, another to be the Word made flesh — that is, one thing the Word in a man, another the Word who is man. For 'flesh' is put for 'man' in that which he says: 'The Word was made flesh,' just as in that other passage: 'And all flesh shall see the salvation of God.' For it does not mean flesh without soul or without mind, but 'all flesh' as if it were said 'every man.' Not then was the creature so assumed, in which the Holy Spirit might appear, as that flesh and that human form was assumed from the Virgin Mary.
For the Spirit did not beatify the dove, or that wind, or that fire, and join it to himself and to his person in unity and permanence for ever; nor indeed is the nature of the Holy Spirit changeable and convertible, so that these things were not made out of a creature, but he himself were changeably turned into this and that, as water into ice. But these things appeared as they ought fittingly to appear — the creature serving the Creator, and at his nod, while he himself remains unchangeably in himself, being changed and converted to signify and demonstrate him, as it was fitting that he should be signified and demonstrated to mortals. Accordingly, although that dove was called the Spirit, and of that fire, when it was said:
'There appeared to them,' it says, 'divided tongues as of fire, which also settled upon each one of them, and they began to speak with tongues, as the Spirit gave them to utter,' so that by that fire the Spirit might be shown to be demonstrated, as by the dove; yet we cannot in this way say the Holy Spirit to be both God and a dove, or both God and fire, as we say the Son to be both God and man, nor as we say the Son to be the Lamb of God — not only when John the Baptist says: 'Behold the Lamb of God,' but also when John the Evangelist sees the Lamb slain in the Apocalypse. For that prophetic vision was not exhibited to bodily eyes through bodily forms, but in the spirit through spiritual images of bodily things.
But that dove and that fire, whoever saw them saw with their eyes — although concerning the fire it may be disputed whether it was seen with the eyes or in the spirit, on account of the words being so placed; for it does not say, 'They saw divided tongues as of fire,' but, 'There appeared to them.' Now we are not accustomed to say, under the same meaning, 'It appeared to me,' as we say, 'I saw.' And in those spiritual visions of bodily images it is customary to say both 'It appeared to me' and 'I saw,' but in these which are demonstrated to the eyes through an expressed bodily species, it is not customary to say 'It appeared to me,' but 'I saw.' Concerning that fire, therefore, there can be a question how it was seen — whether inwardly in the spirit as though outwardly, or truly outwardly before the eyes of flesh;
but concerning that dove, which is said to have descended in a bodily form, no one has ever doubted that it was seen with the eyes. Nor, just as we say the Son is a rock (for it is written: 'And that rock was Christ'), can we in like manner say the Spirit is a dove or fire. For that rock already existed in the created order, and by the mode of its action was named by the name of Christ, whom it signified — just as that stone which Jacob placed at his head he also took up with an anointing to signify the Lord; just as Isaac was Christ when he carried the wood for his own immolation. To these there was added a certain significant action, they already existing; but not so did that dove and fire suddenly come into being solely to signify these things.
These rather seem to me similar to that flame which appeared to Moses in the bush, and to that pillar which the people followed in the wilderness, and to the lightnings and thunders which occurred when the law was given on the mountain. For the bodily species of those things came into being for this purpose: that it might signify something and pass away. On account, therefore, of these bodily forms, which came into being temporally to signify him and, as was fitting, to demonstrate him to human senses, the Holy Spirit also is said to be sent;
yet he was not said to be less than the Father, as the Son was on account of the form of a servant, because that form of a servant cleaved to the unity of the person, whereas those bodily species appeared for a time to demonstrate what was needful, and afterward ceased to be. Why then is the Father not also said to be sent through those bodily species — the fire of the bush and the pillars of cloud or fire, and the lightnings on the mountain, and any such things as then appeared — since we have learned by the testimony of Scripture that he spoke to the fathers face to face, if through those modes and forms of the creature, bodily expressed and presented to human sight, he himself was demonstrated? But if the Son was demonstrated through them, why is he said to be sent so long afterward, when he was made of a woman, as the Apostle says:
'But when the fullness of time was come, God sent his Son, made of a woman,' seeing that even before he was sent, when he appeared to the fathers through those changeable forms of the creature? Or if he could not rightly be said to be sent except when the Word was made flesh, why is the Holy Spirit said to be sent, of whom no such incorporation took place? But if through those visible things which are commended in the Law and the Prophets neither the Father nor the Son but the Holy Spirit was shown, why is he too now said to be sent, since even before he was sent in those modes? In the perplexity of this question we must first, with the Lord's help, inquire whether it was the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit; or sometimes the Father, sometimes the Son, sometimes the Holy Spirit;
or whether without any distinction of persons, as when God is called one and alone — that is, the Trinity itself — appeared to the fathers through those forms of the creature. Then, whichever of these shall be found or seen, we must inquire whether for this work only a creature was formed, in which God might be shown to human sight as he then judged fitting; or whether the angels who already existed were so sent as to speak in the person of God, taking on a bodily species from the corporeal creature for the use of their ministry, as was needful in each case; or whether their own body — to which they are not subject, but which, being subject, they rule — they were changing and turning into the shapes they willed, accommodated and fitted to their actions, according to the power granted them by the Creator.
Lastly, we shall see that which we had set out to inquire: whether the Son or the Holy Spirit were sent even before, and if they were sent, what difference there is between that sending and the one we read of in the Gospel; or whether none of them was sent except when either the Son was made of the Virgin Mary, or the Holy Spirit appeared in a visible species, whether in the dove or in the fiery tongues. Let us therefore pass over those who too carnally have thought the nature of the Word of God and the Wisdom, which remaining in itself renews all things, whom we call the only Son of God, to be not only changeable but even visible. For these have brought a very gross heart to the searching out of divine things, more boldly than reverently.
For the soul, since it is a spiritual substance, and since it too was made, and could not have been made except by him through whom all things were made and without whom nothing was made — although it is changeable, is nevertheless not visible. Yet this they believed concerning the Word himself and the very Wisdom of God, through whom the soul was made — although that Wisdom is not only invisible, which the soul also is, but also unchangeable, which the soul is not. For that same unchangeability of hers is recalled in the words: 'Remaining in herself, she renews all things.'
And these men indeed, trying as it were to prop up the ruin of their error with the testimonies of the divine Scriptures, adduce a sentence of the Apostle Paul; and what was said of the one and only God, in whom the Trinity itself is understood, they take to have been said of the Father only, and not also of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: 'Now to the King of the ages, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever'; and that other: 'Blessed and only Potentate, King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone hath immortality and dwelleth in light inaccessible, whom no man hath seen nor can see.' How these things are to be understood, I think we have now sufficiently discussed.
But those who will have these things understood not of the Son nor of the Holy Spirit, but only of the Father, say that the Son was visible not through the flesh assumed of the Virgin, but even before, through himself. 'For he himself,' they say, 'appeared to the eyes of the fathers.' To whom if you should say: 'How then is the Son visible through himself, so also mortal through himself, that it may be established for you that what was said, "Who alone hath immortality," you wish to be understood only of the Father? For if the Son is mortal on account of the flesh assumed, on account of this allow that he is also visible' — they answer that they do not call the Son mortal on account of this flesh, but that as he was visible before, so also he was mortal before.
For if they say the Son is mortal on account of the flesh, then the Father is no longer, apart from the Son, alone in having immortality, because his Word also, through whom all things were made, has immortality. For not because he assumed mortal flesh did he therefore lose his own immortality, seeing that not even to the human soul could it happen that it should die with the body, the Lord himself saying: 'Fear not them that kill the body, but cannot kill the soul.' Or did the Holy Spirit also assume flesh? (About which they will assuredly, beyond doubt, be thrown into confusion.) If the Son is mortal on account of the flesh, how do they take the Father alone, apart from the Son and apart from the Holy Spirit, to have immortality, seeing that the Holy Spirit did not assume flesh?
For if the Holy Spirit has not immortality, then the Son is not mortal on account of the flesh; but if the Holy Spirit has immortality, then it was not said of the Father only that he alone has immortality. Wherefore they think that they can prove the Son to be mortal through himself even before the incarnation, because that very changeableness is not unfittingly called mortality, according to which the soul also is said to die — not because it is changed and turned into a body or into some other substance, but in its very own substance, whatever now is in another mode than it was, is discovered to be mortal in respect of that whereby it ceased to be what it was.
'Since therefore,' they say, 'before the Son of God was born of the Virgin Mary, he himself appeared to our fathers not in one and the same species but in manifold ways, one way and another, he is both visible through himself, because before the flesh was assumed his substance was conspicuous to mortal eyes, and mortal inasmuch as he is changeable. So too the Holy Spirit, who appeared at one time as a dove, at another as fire. Whence,' they say, 'not to the Trinity, but singularly and properly to the Father alone, does that belong which was said: "To the immortal, invisible, the only God," and: "Who alone hath immortality and dwelleth in light inaccessible,"
whom no man hath seen nor can see.' Passing over, therefore, these men who could not even know the invisible substance of the soul — whence it was far removed from them to know that the substance of the one and only God, that is, of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, remains not only invisible but also unchangeable, and thereby subsists in true and sincere immortality;
we, who say that God — neither the Father nor the Son nor the Holy Spirit — has ever appeared to bodily eyes except through a corporeal creature subject to his power, let us in catholic peace, with peaceful zeal, inquire — ready to be corrected if we are fraternally and rightly reproved, ready even if we are bitten by an enemy who nonetheless speaks the truth — whether God appeared without distinction to our fathers before Christ came in the flesh, or whether some one person of the Trinity, or each singly as if by turns.
And first, in that which is written in Genesis, that God spoke with the man whom he had fashioned of the clay — if, setting aside the figurative meaning, that the truth of the deed may be held even according to the letter, we treat of these things — God seems then to have spoken with the man in the form of a man. This indeed is not expressly set down in the book, but the context of the reading suggests it, especially by that which is written, that Adam heard the voice of God walking in paradise at eventide, and hid himself in the midst of the tree that was in paradise, and answered God when he said, 'Adam, where art thou?': 'I heard thy voice and hid myself from thy face, because I am naked.' For how such a walking and conversing of God could be understood according to the letter, except in a human form, I do not see.
For it cannot be said that a voice alone was produced where God is said to have walked, or that he who walked was not visible in the place, since Adam too says that he hid himself from the face of God. Who then was he? Was it the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit? Or was it altogether God, the Trinity itself without distinction, that spoke to the man in the form of a man? Indeed the very context of the Scripture is nowhere felt to pass from person to person; but he seems to speak to the first man who said: 'Let there be light,' and: 'Let there be a firmament,' and the rest through each of those days — whom we are accustomed to take as God the Father, saying that whatever he willed to make should be made.
For he made all things through his Word, which Word we know, according to the right rule of faith, to be his only Son. If therefore God the Father spoke to the first man, and he himself walked in paradise at eventide, and the sinner hid himself from his face in the midst of the tree of paradise, why should he not be understood to have himself appeared to Abraham and to Moses, and to whom he willed and as he willed, through a changeable and visible creature subject to himself, while he himself remains in himself and in his own substance, by which he is unchangeable and invisible? But it could be that Scripture passed secretly from person to person, and when it had related that the Father said:
'Let there be light,' and the rest which he is recalled to have made through the Word, it thereupon indicated the Son to be speaking to the first man — not openly setting this forth, but intimating it to be understood by those who could. Whoever therefore has the powers whereby he can penetrate this secret with the keen edge of the mind, so that it may appear to him clearly whether even the Father can, or whether only the Son and the Holy Spirit can, appear to human eyes through a visible creature — let him proceed to search out these things, and, if he can, to express and treat them in words;
the matter nevertheless, as far as pertains to this testimony of Scripture where God spoke with man, is, in my judgment, hidden — because it does not even evidently appear whether Adam was accustomed to see God with bodily eyes, especially since there is a great question of what sort of eyes were opened to them when they tasted the forbidden food; for before they had tasted, these were closed. This only would I not rashly say: if that Scripture intimates paradise to be a certain bodily place, then God could in no way walk there except in some bodily form. For it can be said that only voices were produced which the man might hear, without his seeing any form; nor, because it is written, 'Adam hid himself from the face of God,' does it forthwith follow that he was accustomed to see his face.
For what if he indeed could not see, but himself feared to be seen by him whose voice he had heard and whose walking presence he had perceived? For Cain too said to God: 'From thy face I will hide myself'; nor are we thereby compelled to confess that he was accustomed to behold the face of God with bodily eyes in any visible form, although concerning his crime he had heard the voice of him questioning and speaking with him. But of what sort was the speech with which God then sounded in the outward ears of men, especially when speaking to the first man — this is both difficult to find out, and we have not undertaken it in this discourse.
Nevertheless, if only voices and sounds were produced by which a certain sensible presence of God was afforded to those first men, why I should not there understand the person of God the Father, I know not — seeing that his person is shown both in that voice when Jesus, shining forth on the mountain before three disciples, appeared, and in that where the dove descended upon him who had been baptized, and in that where he cried out to the Father concerning his own glorification, and it was answered him: 'I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.'
This is not because a voice could have come to be without the working of the Son and the Holy Spirit (for the Trinity works inseparably), but because that voice was produced which should manifest the person of the Father alone; just as the Trinity fashioned that human form from the Virgin Mary, yet it is the person of the Son alone, for the invisible Trinity fashioned the visible person of the Son alone. Nor does anything forbid us to understand that those voices addressed to Adam were produced not only by the Trinity but also to take them as demonstrating the person of that same Trinity. For there we are compelled to understand none but the Father, where it was said: 'This is my beloved Son'; for Jesus can neither be believed nor understood to be also the Son of the Holy Spirit, nor indeed His own son. And where there sounded:
'and I have glorified it, and will glorify it again' — we confess it to be none but the person of the Father; for it is the answer to that word of the Lord in which He had said: 'Father, glorify Thy Son,' which He could say to none but God the Father alone, and not also to the Holy Spirit, whose son He is not. But here, where it is written: 'And the Lord God said to Adam,' nothing can be said as to why the Trinity itself should not be understood. Likewise also what is written: 'And the Lord said to Abraham: Go forth from thy land and from thy kindred and from thy father's house,' it is not made plain whether only a voice came to Abraham's ears, or whether something also appeared to his eyes. A little afterward, however, it is said somewhat more openly: 'And the Lord appeared to Abraham and said to him:'
'To thy seed will I give this land.' But neither there is it expressed in what appearance the Lord was seen by him, nor whether it was the Father or the Son or the Holy Spirit who was seen by him. Unless perhaps for this reason they think that the Son was seen by Abraham, because it is not written 'God was seen by him,' but 'The Lord was seen by him'; as though the Son were properly called Lord, the Apostle saying: 'For although there are those who are called gods, whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords, yet for us there is one God the Father, from whom are all things and we in Him, and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and we through Him.' But since God the Father too is found in many places called Lord, as in that passage: 'The Lord said to me: Thou art my Son;'
'I have this day begotten thee'; and that other: 'The Lord said to my Lord: Sit at my right hand'; since also the Holy Spirit is found called Lord, where the Apostle says: 'Now the Lord is the Spirit,' and lest anyone should suppose that the Son was meant, and that He was called Spirit on account of His incorporeal substance, he went on to add: 'But where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty'; and that the Spirit of the Lord is the Holy Spirit no one will doubt. Neither here, then, does it evidently appear whether it was some person of the Trinity, or God the Trinity Himself — of which one God it was said: 'Thou shalt adore the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve' — that was seen by Abraham.
But at the oak of Mamre he saw three men, whom he both invited and received into hospitality, and to whom, as they feasted, he ministered. Yet Scripture began to narrate that deed in such a way that it does not say 'Three men appeared to him,' but 'The Lord appeared to him.' And then, consequently, expounding how the Lord appeared to him, it weaves in the account of the three men whom Abraham, using the plural number, invites to receive into hospitality; and afterward he addresses them in the singular, as if one, and one, as if a single one, promises him a son by Sarah, whom Scripture calls the Lord, just as in the very opening of the same narrative: 'The Lord,' it says, 'appeared to Abraham.' He invites them therefore, and washes their feet, and escorts them as they depart, as though they were men;
but he speaks as though with the Lord God, whether when a son is promised him, or when the imminent destruction of Sodom is disclosed to him. [XI 20] This passage of Scripture demands no small nor passing consideration. For if one man had appeared, then those who say that even before He was born of the Virgin the Son was visible through His own substance — what else would they cry out but that it was He? For 'Of the Father,' they say, 'it was said: To the invisible, the only God.' And yet I could still ask how, before He assumed flesh, He was found in bearing like a man, seeing that His feet were washed and He feasted on human food. How could this be done while He was still in the form of God, not counting it robbery to be equal with God?
For had He already emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, made in the likeness of men and found in bearing as a man, when we know that He did this by the birth from the Virgin? How then, before He had done this, did He appear to Abraham as one man? Or was that form not a true one? I could ask these things if one man had appeared to Abraham and it were believed that He was the Son of God. But since three were seen, and not one of them was said to be greater than the rest in either form or age or power, why should we not here understand the equality of the Trinity, visibly intimated through a visible creature, and in the three persons one and the same substance?
For lest anyone should suppose that it was thus intimated that one among the three was greater, and that He was to be understood as the Lord, the Son of God, while the other two were His angels — because, though three were seen, Abraham there addresses one Lord — Holy Scripture, in contradicting such future thoughts and opinions, did not fail to forestall them, when a little after it says that two angels came to Lot, among whom that righteous man too, who merited to be delivered from the burning of Sodom, speaks to one Lord. For thus Scripture continues, saying: 'And the Lord departed, after He had ceased speaking to Abraham, and Abraham returned to his place. [XII] And two angels came to Sodom in the evening.' Here must be considered more attentively the very thing I have set myself to show.
With three, certainly, Abraham was speaking, and he addressed the Lord in the singular. 'Perhaps,' someone says, 'he recognized one of the three as the Lord, but the other two as His angels.' What then does it mean that Scripture consequently says: 'And the Lord departed, after He had ceased speaking to Abraham, and Abraham returned to his place. And two angels came to Sodom in the evening'? Or had perhaps that one departed, who was recognized as the Lord among the three, and had He sent the two angels who were with Him to consume Sodom? Let us therefore see what follows. 'There came,' it says, 'two angels to Sodom in the evening. And Lot was sitting at the gate of Sodom.'
'And when Lot saw them, he rose up to meet them and bowed himself with his face to the ground and said: Behold, my lords, turn aside into the house of your servant.' Here it is manifest both that there were two angels, and that they were invited into hospitality in the plural, and honorably called lords, though perhaps they were thought to be men. But again it gives one pause, for unless they were recognized as angels of God, Lot would not have bowed with his face to the ground. Why then are both hospitality and food offered to them, as though they needed such humanity? But let whatever lie hidden here lie hidden; let us now pursue what we have undertaken. Two appear; both are called angels; they are invited in the plural; he speaks with the two in the plural, until Sodom is departed from. Then Scripture continues and says:
'And it came to pass, after they had brought them forth outside, that they said: Saving, save thy soul; look not back, nor stand in all this region; go to the mountain and there thou shalt be saved, lest perchance thou be overtaken. And Lot said to them: I pray, Lord, since thy servant hath found mercy before thee.' Is this also so here? 'He said to them: I pray, Lord' — if that one who was the Lord and had sent the angels had now departed? Why is it said 'I pray, Lord' and not 'I pray, lords'? Or, if he wished to address one of them, why does Scripture say: 'And Lot said to them: I pray, Lord, since thy servant hath found mercy before thee'?
Do we here also understand two persons in the plural number, yet, when the same two are addressed as though one, one Lord God of one substance? But which two persons do we here understand? The Father and the Son, or the Father and the Holy Spirit, or the Son and the Holy Spirit? Perhaps this last which I have named is the fitting one. For they said that they were sent, which we say of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. For nowhere in the Scriptures does it occur to us that the Father was sent. [XIII 23] But Moses, when he was sent to lead the people of Israel out of Egypt, is thus written to have had the Lord appear to him: 'He was feeding,' it says, 'the sheep of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian, and he drove the sheep into the desert and came to the mountain of God, Horeb.'
'And the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire out of the bush. And he saw that the bush was burning with fire, but the bush was not consumed. And Moses said: I will go and see this sight which I have seen so great, since the bush is not burnt up.' When therefore the Lord saw that he came to see, the Lord called him out of the bush, saying: 'I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.' And here He is first called the angel of the Lord, then God. Is then the angel the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob? Rightly, therefore, can the Saviour Himself be understood, of whom the Apostle says: 'Whose are the fathers, and of whom is Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed for ever.'
He therefore who is over all, God blessed for ever, is not absurdly here also understood to be the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob. But why was He first called the angel of the Lord, when He appeared out of the bush in a flame of fire? Was it because He was one of the many angels, but by dispensation bore the person of His Lord; or was something of the creature assumed, which for the present business might appear visibly, and from which voices might be sensibly uttered, whereby the presence of the Lord might be exhibited through the subjected creature even to the bodily senses of man, as was fitting?
For if He was one of the angels, who could easily affirm whether the person of the Son had been laid upon him to announce, or that of the Holy Spirit, or of God the Father, or of the whole Trinity itself, who is the one and only God, so that he should say: 'I am the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob'? For we cannot say that the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob is the Son of God and is not the Father. Or will anyone dare to deny that the Holy Spirit, or the Trinity itself, which we believe and understand to be one God, is the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob? For He is not the God of those fathers who is not God.
Furthermore, if not only the Father is God, as all even the heretics concede, but also the Son — which, will they, nill they, they are compelled to confess, since the Apostle says: 'Who is over all, God blessed for ever' — and the Holy Spirit too, the same Apostle saying: 'Glorify therefore God in your body,' when above he had said: 'Know ye not that your bodies are the temple in you of the Holy Spirit whom ye have from God?', and these three are one God, as catholic soundness believes: then it is not sufficiently clear which person in the Trinity, and whether any, or that of the Trinity itself, that angel bore, if he was one among the rest of the angels.
But if for the use of the present matter a creature was assumed, which might appear to human eyes and sound in the ears, and be called both the angel of the Lord and Lord and God, then God the Father cannot here be understood, but either the Son or the Holy Spirit — although I do not recall that the Holy Spirit is anywhere called an angel. Yet it might be understood from the work; for it was said of Him: 'The things that are to come He will announce to you,' and 'angel' in Greek is interpreted 'messenger' in Latin. But of the Lord Jesus Christ we read most evidently in the prophet that He was called the Angel of great counsel, since both the Holy Spirit and the Son of God is God and Lord of angels. [XIV 24] Again, at the going out of the children of Israel from Egypt it is written:
'And God went before them, by day indeed in a pillar of cloud and showed them the way, but by night in a pillar of fire; and the pillar of cloud by day and the pillar of fire by night did not fail before the people.' Who here also would doubt that God appeared to the eyes of mortals through the subjected and corporeal creature, not through His own substance? But whether the Father or the Son or the Holy Spirit or the Trinity itself, the one God, likewise does not appear. Nor there is this distinguished, so far as I judge, where it is written: 'And the majesty of the Lord appeared in the cloud, and the Lord spoke to Moses saying: I have heard the murmuring of the children of Israel,' and the rest. [XV 25] Now indeed concerning the clouds and voices and lightnings and trumpet and smoke on Mount Sinai, when it was said:
'Now the whole of Mount Sinai was smoking, because God had descended upon it in fire, and the smoke went up like the smoke of a furnace. And all the people were exceedingly confounded in mind; and there were sounds of the trumpet going forth very strongly. Moses spoke, and God answered him with a voice.' And a little after, when the law had been given in the ten precepts, it consequently says: 'And all the people saw the voices and the lamps and the voices of the trumpet and the smoking mountain.' And a little after: 'And all the people,' it says, 'stood afar off. But Moses entered into the mist where God was, and the Lord said to Moses,' and the rest.
What shall I say of this, except that no one is so senseless as to believe that smoke, fire, clouds and mist, and any such things, are the substance of the Word and Wisdom of God, which is Christ, or of the Holy Spirit? For concerning God the Father not even the Arians ever dared to say this. Therefore all those things were made by the creature serving the Creator, and presented to human senses in a manner fitting for the dispensation — unless perhaps, because it was said, 'But Moses entered into the mist where God was,' carnal thought will suppose that the mist indeed was seen by the people, but that within the mist Moses saw with fleshly eyes the Son of God, whom the raving heretics wish to have been seen in His own substance.
Truly let Moses have seen Him with fleshly eyes, if with fleshly eyes there can be seen not only the Wisdom of God, which is Christ, but even that of any man whatsoever and of any sort of wise man. Or because it is written of the elders of Israel that 'they saw the place where the God of Israel had stood, and that under His feet was as it were a work of sapphire stone, and as it were the appearance of the firmament of heaven,' is it therefore to be believed that the Word and Wisdom of God stood through His own substance in the space of an earthly place — that Wisdom which 'reacheth from end to end mightily and ordereth all things sweetly' — and that thus the Word of God, through which all things were made, is mutable, so as now to contract, now to extend itself? May the Lord cleanse the hearts of His faithful from such thoughts.
But through the subjected creature, as we have often said, all these visible and sensible things are exhibited to signify the invisible and intelligible God — not only the Father, but also the Son and the Holy Spirit, from whom are all things, through whom are all things, in whom are all things; although the invisible things of God are clearly seen by the creature of the world, being understood through the things that are made, His eternal power also and divinity. But as regards that which we have now undertaken, neither on Mount Sinai do I see how it may appear, through all those things which were terribly shown to the senses of mortals, whether God the Trinity or the Father or the Son or the Holy Spirit was properly speaking.
Nevertheless, if it be permitted to conjecture something here modestly and hesitantly, without the rashness of asserting: if one person of the Trinity can be understood, why do we not rather understand the Holy Spirit? — since the very law which was there given upon tablets of stone is said to have been written by the finger of God, by which name we know the Holy Spirit to be signified in the Gospel. And fifty days are counted from the slaying of the lamb and the celebration of the Passover up to the day on which these things began to be done on Mount Sinai, just as after the Lord's passion fifty days are counted from His resurrection, and the Holy Spirit, promised by the Son of God, came.
And at that very coming of His, which we read of in the Acts of the Apostles, fire appeared through a division of tongues, which also settled upon each one of them — which agrees with Exodus, where it is written: 'Now the whole of Mount Sinai was smoking, because God had descended upon it in fire,' and somewhat after: 'The appearance,' it says, 'of the majesty of the Lord was like burning fire upon the summit of the mountain before the children of Israel.' Or if these things were done for this reason, that neither the Father nor the Son could there be presented in that manner without the Holy Spirit, by whom that very law had to be written, then we know indeed that God appeared there not through His own substance, which remains invisible and unchangeable, but through that appearance of the creature.
But some one person of the Trinity, by some proper sign, so far as pertains to the capacity of my understanding, we do not see. [XVI 27] There is also that whereby many are wont to be moved, because it is written: 'And the Lord spoke to Moses face to face, as one speaks to his friend'; while a little after the same Moses says: 'If therefore I have found grace before thee, show me thyself manifestly, that I may see thee, that I may be finding grace before thee, and that I may know that this nation is thy people'; and a little after again: 'And Moses said to the Lord: Show me thy majesty.'
What is this, that in all the things which were done above, God was thought to be seen through His own substance — whence He was believed by wretched men to be, not through a creature but through Himself, the visible Son of God — and that Moses' having entered into the mist seemed to be for this purpose, that to the eyes of the people indeed the misty darkness might be shown, but that he within might contemplate and hear the words of God as though His face? And how was it said: 'The Lord spoke to Moses face to face, as one speaks to his friend'? Behold, the same man says: 'If I have found grace in thy sight, show me thyself manifestly.' He knew therefore what he saw bodily, and he sought spiritually the true vision of God.
For that speaking which took place in voices was so modulated as if it were that of a friend speaking to a friend. But God the Father — who sees Him with bodily eyes? And that Word which 'was in the beginning, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,' through which all things were made — who sees it with bodily eyes? And the Spirit of Wisdom — who sees it with bodily eyes? What then is: 'Show me thyself manifestly, that I may see thee,' but 'Show me thy substance'? But if Moses had not said this, the fools who think that through those things which were done or said above the substance of God was visible to his eyes, would somehow have to be borne with;
but since here it is most openly shown that this was not granted even to one who desired it, who would dare to say that through those like forms, which had appeared visibly to this man too, not a creature serving God but that very thing which God is appeared to the eyes of any mortal? And here indeed there is what the Lord afterward says to Moses: 'Thou canst not see my face and live; for man shall not see my face and live. And the Lord said: Behold, there is a place with me, and thou shalt stand upon the rock as soon as my majesty passes by, and I will place thee in a cleft of the rock. And I will cover thee with my hand over thee until I pass, and I will take away my hand, and then thou shalt see my back parts; for my face shall not appear to thee.'
[XVII] Not unfittingly this is wont to be understood as prefigured from the person of our Lord Jesus Christ, so that His back parts are taken to be His flesh, in which He was born of the Virgin and died and rose again — whether they are called 'back parts' on account of the lastness of mortality, or because He deigned to assume it near the end of the age, that is, later. But His face is that form of God, in which He counted it not robbery to be equal with God the Father, which indeed no one can see and live; or because after this life, in which we are pilgrims away from the Lord, and where the body which is corrupted weighs down the soul, we shall see face to face, as the Apostle says. For of this life it is said in the Psalms:
'Verily every man living is altogether vanity,' and again: 'For in thy sight shall no living man be justified.' In which life, according to John also, it has not yet appeared what we shall be. 'We know,' he says, 'that when He shall appear, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is' — which surely he wished to be understood as after this life, when we shall have paid the debt of death and received the promise of resurrection. Or because even now, in so far as we spiritually understand the Wisdom of God through which all things were made, in so far we die to carnal affections, so that, accounting this world dead to us, we ourselves also die to this world and say what the Apostle says: 'The world is crucified to me, and I to the world.'
For of this death he likewise says: 'But if ye are dead with Christ, why do ye yet, as though living, decree concerning this world?' — Not therefore undeservedly will no one be able to see the face, that is, the very manifestation of the Wisdom of God, and live. For this is the very appearance for the contemplating of which everyone sighs who longs to love God with his whole heart and with his whole soul and with his whole mind; toward the contemplating of which he also, as far as he can, edifies his neighbour who loves his neighbour too as himself — on which two precepts hang the whole law and the prophets. Which is signified also in Moses himself. For when he had said, on account of the love of God with which he especially burned:
'If I have found grace in thy sight, show me thyself manifestly, that I may be finding grace before thee,' immediately, on account of the love of neighbour also, he subjoined and said: 'And that I may know that this nation is thy people.' That, then, is the appearance which ravishes every rational soul with desire of itself, the more ardently the purer it is, and the purer the more it rises to spiritual things, and the more it rises to spiritual things the more it dies to carnal things.
But while we are pilgrims away from the Lord and walk by faith, not by sight, we ought to see the back parts of Christ, that is, His flesh, through that very faith — that is, standing on the solid foundation of faith, which the rock signifies, and beholding it from such a most safe watchtower, namely in the catholic Church, of which it was said: 'And upon this rock I will build my Church.' For so much the more surely do we love the face of Christ, which we desire to see, as in His back parts we recognize how much Christ first loved us. But in the flesh itself the faith of His resurrection saves us and justifies us. 'For if thou shalt believe,' it says, 'in thy heart that God raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved'; and again:
'He was delivered up,' it says, 'for our offences, and rose again for our justification.' And therefore the merit of our faith is the resurrection of the Lord's body. For that that flesh died on the cross of the passion, even His enemies believe; but that it rose again, they do not believe. This, believing most firmly, we behold as from the solidity of the rock, whence with sure hope we await adoption, the redemption of our body; because we hope this in the members of Christ, which we ourselves are, which we know to be perfected in Him, as in our Head, by the soundness of faith. Hence He wills His back parts to be seen only when He has passed by, that His resurrection may be believed. For Pascha is a Hebrew word which we interpret 'passing over.'
Whence also John the Evangelist says: 'Now before the feast day of the Passover, Jesus knowing that His hour was come that He should pass out of this world to the Father.' But those who believe this, yet believe it not in the catholic Church but in some schism or in heresy, do not see the back parts of the Lord from the place which is with Him. For what does the Lord mean when He says: 'Behold, there is a place with me, and he shall stand upon the rock'? What earthly place is with the Lord, unless that which touches Him spiritually is with Him? For what place is not with the Lord, who 'reacheth from end to end mightily and ordereth all things sweetly,' and of whom it is said, 'Heaven is His seat and earth His footstool,' and who said: 'What house will ye build me?'
'Or what is the place of my rest? Hath not my hand made all these things?' But evidently the place with Him, in which one stands upon the rock, is understood to be the catholic Church herself, where one healthfully sees the Passover of the Lord, that is, the passing over of the Lord, and His back parts, that is, His body — whoever believes in His resurrection. 'And he shall stand,' it says, 'upon the rock as soon as my majesty passes by.' For in very truth, as soon as the majesty of the Lord passed by, in the glorification of the Lord by which, rising again, He ascended to the Father, we were made solid upon the rock.
And Peter himself was then made solid, so that with confidence he might preach Him whom, before he was made solid, he had thrice denied out of fear — being indeed already by predestination placed on the watchtower of the rock, but with the Lord's hand still set over him lest he should see. For he was to see His back parts, and He had not yet passed over, nor lived from death to life; He was not yet glorified by the resurrection. For what follows too in Exodus, He says: 'I will cover thee with my hand over thee until I pass, and I will take away my hand, and then thou shalt see my back parts.' Many Israelites, whose figure Moses then was, after the Lord's resurrection believed in Him as though now seeing His back parts, His hand having been removed from their eyes. Whence also the Evangelist recalls such a prophecy of Isaiah:
'Make gross the heart of this people, and stop up their ears, and make heavy their eyes.' Finally, in the Psalm it is not absurdly understood to be said from their person: 'For day and night thy hand was heavy upon me' — by day perhaps, when He worked manifest miracles and yet was not recognized by them; but by night, when in the passion He was dying, when they more certainly supposed Him, like any man whatever, to have been slain and extinguished. But since, when He had passed over so that His back parts might be seen, the Apostle Peter preaching to them that Christ must suffer and rise again, they were pricked with the sorrow of penitence, so that there might come to pass in the baptized what is said at the head of that Psalm: 'Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven and whose sins are covered.' Therefore, when it had been said:
'Thy hand was heavy upon me' — as though when the Lord passed by so as now to remove His hand and His back parts might be seen — there follows the voice of one sorrowing and confessing, and receiving from faith in the Lord's resurrection the remission of sins: 'I was turned,' he says, 'in my anguish, while the thorn was fastened in. I acknowledged my sin, and my injustice I did not cover. I said: I will pronounce against myself my injustice to the Lord, and thou didst forgive the impiety of my heart.' For we ought not to be so wrapped in the cloud of the flesh as to suppose that the face indeed of the Lord is invisible, but His back visible — since in the form of a servant both appeared visibly; but in the form of God, far be it that any such thing should be thought.
Far be it that the Word of God and the Wisdom of God should have on one side a face, on the other a back, like a human body, or be changed at all by any appearance or motion, whether by place or by time. Wherefore, if in those voices which were made in Exodus, and in all those bodily demonstrations, the Lord Jesus Christ was shown — either at times Christ, as the consideration of this passage persuades, at times the Holy Spirit, as those things which we have said above admonish — this does not bring it about that God the Father was never seen by the fathers in any such appearance.
For many such visions were wrought in those times, without any explicit naming or designation therein of either Father or Son or Holy Spirit, yet through certain highly probable indications, since some tokens were present, so that it would be exceedingly rash to say that God the Father never appeared to the patriarchs or prophets through any visible forms. For this opinion has been begotten by those who could not understand within the unity of the Trinity what is said: 'Now to the King of the ages, immortal, invisible, the only God,' and: 'Whom no man hath seen, nor can see' — which is understood by a sound faith of the very substance, supreme and supremely divine and unchangeable, wherein both Father and Son and Holy Spirit are one and the only God.
But those visions were made through a changeable creature subject to the unchangeable God, showing God not properly as He is, but figuratively, as befitted the causes and seasons of things. Yet I do not know how these men understand what appeared to Daniel: the Ancient of Days, from whom the Son of Man — who for our sake deigned to be such — is understood to have received the kingdom; namely from Him who says to Him in the Psalms: 'Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee; ask of me, and I will give thee the nations for thine inheritance,' and who 'hath put all things under his feet.'
If, then, both the Father giving the kingdom and the Son receiving it appeared to Daniel in bodily form, how do these men say that the Father was never seen by the prophets and therefore alone ought to be understood as invisible, whom no man hath seen nor can see? For thus Daniel related: 'I beheld,' he says, 'till the thrones were set, and the Ancient of Days did sit. And his garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool; his throne was a flame of fire, its wheels a burning fire, and a stream of fire drew forth before his sight. Thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him. And the judgment was set, and the books were opened,' and the rest. And a little after: 'I beheld,' he says, 'in the vision of the night;'
'and behold, one like the Son of Man came with the clouds of heaven, and came even to the Ancient of Days, and was brought near before him. And there was given him dominion and honour and a kingdom; and all peoples, tribes, and tongues shall serve him. His power is an everlasting power, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom shall not be destroyed.' Behold the Father giving and the Son receiving an everlasting kingdom, and both are in the sight of the prophet under a visible form. Not unfittingly, therefore, is it also believed that God the Father is wont to appear to mortals in this manner. Unless perchance someone should say that the Father is on that account not visible, because He appeared in the sight of one dreaming, whereas the Son is visible and the Holy Spirit, because Moses beheld all those things while awake.
As if indeed Moses beheld the Word and Wisdom of God with carnal eyes, or as if a spirit can be seen — whether the human spirit which quickens this flesh, or that bodily thing itself which is called wind — how much less that Spirit of God who surpasses the minds of all men and angels by the ineffable excellence of the divine substance; or as if anyone should be cast headlong into such error as to dare to say that the Son and the Holy Spirit are visible even to waking men, but the Father only to those who dream. How, then, do they take of the Father alone: 'Whom no man hath seen nor can see'? Or when men sleep, are they then not men?
Or is He who can form a likeness of a body to signify Himself through the visions of dreamers unable to form the very bodily creature itself to signify Himself to the eyes of the waking, seeing that His very substance, whereby He is that which He is, can be shown by no likeness of a body to the sleeper, by no bodily form to the one awake — and this not only of the Father, but also of the Son and the Holy Spirit?
And certainly, as for those who are moved by the visions of the waking to believe that not the Father but only the Son or the Holy Spirit appeared to the bodily sight of men — to pass over the great breadth of the holy pages and their manifold meaning, from which no one of sound mind ought to affirm that the person of the Father was nowhere shown to the eyes of the waking through some bodily form; but, to pass over this, as I have said — what do they say of our father Abraham, to whom certainly, while he was awake and ministering, when Scripture had first said, 'The Lord appeared to Abraham,' not one nor two but three men appeared, of whom none was said to have towered more loftily than the others, none to have shone more honorably, none to have acted more imperiously?
Wherefore, since in that threefold division of ours we first set out to inquire whether it was the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit; or sometimes the Father, sometimes the Son, sometimes the Holy Spirit; or without any distinction of persons, as God is called one and only, that is, the Trinity itself — that appeared to the patriarchs through those forms of creation;
having inquired of the passages of the Holy Scriptures what we could, in so far as it seemed sufficient, a modest and cautious consideration of the divine mysteries, as I judge, persuades nothing other than that we should not rashly say which person of the Trinity appeared to any of the patriarchs or prophets in some body or likeness of a body, unless the continuous context of the reading sets around it some probable indications. For that very nature or substance or essence, or by whatever other name that which God is ought to be called — whatever it be — cannot be seen bodily.
But it must be believed that through a subordinate creature, in bodily form or likeness, not only the Son or the Holy Spirit but also the Father was able to give to mortal senses a signification of Himself. Since these things are so, lest the length of this second book proceed too immoderately, let us look at what remains in what follows.