On the Holy Trinity 6
6.0 In reply to the argument alleged against the equality of the Son from the apostle’s words, saying that Christ is the ‘power of God and the wisdom of God,’ he propounds the question whether the Father Himself is not wisdom. But deferring for a while the answer to this, he adduces further proof of the unity and equality of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; and that God ought to be said and believed to be a Trinity, not triple (triplicem). And he adds an explanation of the saying of Hilary—Eternity in the Father, Appearance in the Image, and Use in the Gift PL 42, 923
————————————
The question is proposed, how the apostle calls Christ “the power of God, and the wisdom of God.” And an argument is raised, whether the Father is not wisdom Himself, but only the Father of wisdom; or whether Wisdom begat Wisdom. But the answer to this is deferred for a little, while the unity and equality of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, are proved; and that we ought to believe in a Trinity, not in a threefold (triplicem) god. Lastly, that saying of Hilary is explained, eternity in the Father, appearance in the image, use in the gift.
6.1 The Son, According to the Apostle, is the Power and Wisdom of the Father. Hence the Reasoning of the Catholics Against the Earlier Arians. A Difficulty is Raised, Whether the Father is Not Wisdom Himself, But Only the Father of Wisdom PL 42, 923
1. Somethink themselves hindered from admitting the equality of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, because it is written, “Christ, the power of God, and the wisdom of God;” in that, on this ground, there does not appear to be equality; because the Father is not Himself power and wisdom, but the begetter of power and wisdom. And, in truth, the question is usually asked with no common earnestness, in what way God can be called the Father of power and wisdom. For the apostle says, “Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.” And hence some on our side have reasoned in this way against the Arians, at least against those who at first set themselves up against the Catholic faith. For Arius himself is reported to have said, that if He is a Son, then He was born; if He was born, there was a time when the Son was not: not understanding that even to be born is, to God, from all eternity; so that the Son is co-eternal with the Father, as the brightness which is produced and is spread around by fire is co-eval with it, and would be co-eternal, if fire were eternal. And therefore some of the later Arians have abandoned that opinion, and have confessed that the Son of God did not begin to be in time. But among the arguments which those on our side used to hold against them who said that there was a time when the Son was not, some were wont to introduce such an argument as this: If the Son of God is the power and wisdom of God, and God was never without power and wisdom, then the Son is co-eternal with God the Father; but the apostle says, “Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God;” and a man must be senseless to say that God at any time had not power or wisdom; therefore there was no time when the Son was not.
2. Now this argument compels us to say that God the Father is not wise, except by having the wisdom which He begat, not by the Father in Himself being wisdom itself. Further, if it be so, just as the Son also Himself is called God of God, Light of Light, we must consider whether He can be called wisdom of wisdom, if God the Father is not wisdom itself, but only the begetter of wisdom. And if we hold this, why is He not the begetter also of His own greatness, and of His own goodness, and of His own eternity, and of His own omnipotence; so that He is not Himself His own greatness, and His own goodness, and His own eternity, and His own omnipotence; but is great with that greatness which He begat, and good with that goodness, and eternal with that eternity, and omnipotent with that omnipotence, which was born of Him; just as He Himself is not His own wisdom, but is wise with that wisdom which was born of Him? For we need not be afraid of being compelled to say that there are many sons of God, over and above the adoption of the creature, co-eternal with the Father, if He be the begetter of His own greatness, and goodness, and eternity, and omnipotence. Because it is easy to reply to this cavil, that it does not at all follow, because many things are named, that He should be the Father of many co-eternal sons; just as it does not follow that He is the Father of two sons, because Christ is said to be the power of God, and the wisdom of God. For that certainly is the power which is the wisdom, and that is the wisdom which is the power; and in like manner, therefore, of the rest also; so that that is the greatness which is the power, or any other of those things which either have been mentioned above, or may hereafter be mentioned.
Filius secundum Apostolum virtus et sapientia Dei Patris. Hinc ratiocinatio Catholicorum contra priores Arianos. Difficultas an Pater non sit ipse sapientia, sed tantum sapientiae Pater. Aequalitatem Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti putant nonnulli ex hoc impediri quominus intelligatur, quia scriptum est, Christum Dei virtutem et Dei sapientiam: ut ideo non videatur aequalitas, quia non est Pater ipse virtus et sapientia, sed genitor virtutis et sapientiae. Et revera non mediocri intentione quaeri solet, quomodo dicatur Deus virtutis et sapientiae Pater. Ait enim Apostolus, Christum Dei virtutem et Dei sapientiam . Et hinc nonnulli nostri adversum Arianos hoc modo ratiocinati sunt, eos duntaxat qui prius se adversum catholicam fidem extulerunt. Nam ipse Arius dixisse fertur, Si filius est, natus est; si natus est, erat tempus quando non erat filius: non intelligens etiam natum esse Deo sempiternum esse, ut sit coaeternus Patri Filius, sicut splendor qui gignitur ab igne atque diffunditur, coaevus est illi, et esset coaeternus, si esset ignis aeternus. Unde quidam posteriores Ariani abjecerunt istam sententiam, fassique sunt, non ex tempore coepisse Filium Dei. Sed inter disputationes quas habebant nostri adversum eos qui dicebant, Erat tempus quando non erat Filius, hanc etiam nonnulli ratiocinationem inserebant: Si Dei Filius virtus et sapientia Dei est, nec unquam Deus sine virtute et sapientia fuit, coaeternus est Deo Patri Filius: dicit autem Apostolus, Christum Dei virtutem et Dei sapientiam; et Deum aliquando non habuisse virtutem aut sapientiam, dementis est dicere: non igitur erat tempus quando non erat Filius.
Quae ratiocinatio ad id cogit, ut dicamus Deum Patrem non esse sapientem, nisi habendo sapientiam quam genuit, non existendo per se Pater ipsa sapientia. Deinde si ita est, Filius quoque ipse sicut dicitur Deus de Deo, lumen de lumine, videndum est utrum possit sapientia de sapientia dici, si non est Deus Pater ipsa sapientia, sed tantum genitor sapientiae. Quod si tenemus, cur non et magnitudinis suae, et bonitatis, et aeternitatis, et omnipotentiae suae genitor sit, ut non ipse sit sua magnitudo, et sua bonitas, et sua aeternitas, et sua omnipotentia, sed ea magnitudine magnus sit quam genuit, et ea bonitate bonus, et ea aeternitate aeternus, et ea omnipotentia omnipotens quae de illo nata est, sicut non ipse sua sapientia est, sed ea sapientia sapiens est quae de illo nata est? Nam illud non est formidandum, ne cogamur multos filios Dei dicere, praeter adoptionem creaturae, coaeternos Patri, si magnitudinis suae genitor est, et bonitatis, et aeternitatis, et omnipotentiae. Huic enim calumniae facile respondetur, sic non effici, quia multa nominata sunt, ut ille multorum filiorum coaeternorum sit pater; quemadmodum non efficitur ut duorum sit, cum dicitur Christus Dei virtus et Dei sapientia. Eadem quippe virtus quae sapientia, et eadem sapientia quae virtus est: ita igitur etiam de caeteris, ut eadem sit magnitudo quae virtus, et si qua alia, quae vel supra commemorata sunt, vel commemorari adhuc possunt.
6.2 What is Said of the Father and Son Together, and What Not PL 42, 924
3. But if nothing is spoken of the Father as such, except that which is spoken of Him in relation to the Son, that is, that He is His father, or begetter, or beginning; and if also the begetter is by consequence a beginning to that which he begets of himself; but whatever else is spoken of Him is so spoken as with the Son, or rather in the Son; whether that He is great with that greatness which He begat, or just with that justice which He begat, or good with that goodness which He begat, or powerful with that force or power which He begat, or wise with that wisdom which He begat: yet the Father is not said to be greatness itself, but the begetter of greatness; but the Son, as He is called the Son as such, is not so called with the Father but in relation to the Father, so is not great in and by himself, but with the Father, of whom He is the greatness; and so also is called wise with the Father, of whom He Himself is the wisdom; just as the Father is called wise with the Son, because He is wise with that wisdom which He begat; therefore the one is not called without the other, whatever they are called in respect to themselves; that is, whatever they are called that manifests their essential nature, both are so called together;—if these things are so, then the Father is not God without the Son, nor the Son God without the Father, but both together are God. And that which is said, “In the beginning was the Word,” means that the Word was in the Father. Or if “In the beginning” is intended to mean, Before all things; then in that which follows, “And the Word was with God,” the Son alone is understood to be the Word, not the Father and Son together, as though both were one Word (for He is the Word in the same way as He is the Image, but the Father and Son are not both together the Image, but the Son alone is the Image of the Father: just as He is also the Son of the Father, for both together are not the Son). But in that which is added, “And the Word was with God,” there is much reason to understand thus: “The Word,” which is the Son alone, “was with God,” which is not the Father alone, but God the Father and the Son together. But what wonder is there, if this can be said in the case of some twofold things widely different from each other? For what are so different as soul and body? Yet we can say the soul was with a man, that is, in a man; although the soul is not the body, and man is both soul and body together. So that what follows in the Scripture, “And the Word was God,” may be understood thus: The Word, which is not the Father, was God together with the Father. Are we then to say thus, that the Father is the begetter of His own greatness, that is, the begetter of His own power, or the begetter of His own wisdom; and that the Son is greatness, and power, and wisdom; but that the great, omnipotent, and wise God, is both together? How then God of God, Light of Light? For not both together are God of God, but only the Son is of God, that is to say, of the Father; nor are both together Light of Light, but the Son only is of Light, that is, of the Father. Unless, perhaps, it was in order to intimate and inculcate briefly that the Son is co-eternal with the Father, that it is said, God of God, and Light of Light, or anything else of the like kind: as if to say, This which is not the Son without the Father, of this which is not the Father without the Son; that is, this Light which is not Light without the Father, of that Light, viz. the Father, which is not Light without the Son; so that, when it is said, God which is not the Son without the Father, and of God which is not the Father without the Son, it may be perfectly understood that the Begetter did not precede that which He begot. And if this be so, then this alone cannot be said of them, namely, this or that of this or that, which they are not both together. Just as the Word cannot be said to be of the Word, because both are not the Word together, but only the Son; nor image of image, since they are not both together the image; nor Son of Son, since both together are not the Son, according to that which is said, “I and my Father are one.” For “we are one” means, what He is, that am I also; according to essence, not according to relation.
Quae de Patre et Filio simul dicuntur, quae non. Sed si non dicitur in se ipso nisi quod ad Filium dicitur, id est, pater, vel genitor, vel principium ejus; si etiam gignens ei quod de se gignit, consequenter principium est; quidquid autem aliud dicitur, cum Filio dicitur, vel potius in Filio, sive magnus ea magnitudine quam genuit, sive justus ea justitia quam genuit, sive bonus ea bonitate quam genuit, sive potens ea potentia vel virtute quam genuit, sive sapiens ea sapientia quam genuit: magnitudo autem ipsa non dicitur Pater, sed magnitudinis generator: Filius vero sicut in se ipso dicitur Filius, quod non cum Patre dicitur, sed ad Patrem, non sic et in se ipso magnus, sed cum Patre cujus ipse magnitudo est: sic et sapiens cum Patre dicitur, cujus ipse sapientia est; sicut ille sapiens cum Filio, quia ea sapientia sapiens est quam genuit: quidquid ergo ad se dicuntur, non dicitur alter sine altero, id est, quidquid dicuntur quod substantiam eorum ostendat, ambo simul dicuntur. Si haec ita sunt, jam ergo nec Deus est Pater sine Filio, nec Filius Deus sine Patre, sed ambo simul Deus. Et quod dictum est, In principio erat Verbum; in Patre erat Verbum, intelligitur: aut si in principio sic dictum est, ac si diceretur, Ante omnia; quod sequitur, Et Verbum erat apud Deum, Verbum quidem solus Filius accipitur, non simul Pater et Filius, tanquam ambo unum Verbum (sic enim Verbum quomodo Imago, non autem Pater et Filius simul ambo imago, sed Filius solus imago Patris, quemadmodum et Filius: non enim ambo simul filius): quod vero adjungitur, Et Verbum erat apud Deum; multum est ut sic intelligatur, Verbum, quod solus est Filius, erat apud Deum, quod non solus est Pater, sed Pater et Filius simul Deus. Sed quid mirum, si in duabus quibusdam rebus longe inter se diversis potest hoc dici? Quid enim tam diversum, quam animus et corpus? Potest tamen dici, Animus erat apud hominem, id est, in homine: cum animus non sit corpus, homo autem animus simul et corpus sit. Ut etiam quod consequenter scriptum est, Et Deus erat Verbum , sic intelligatur: Verbum quod non est Pater, Deus erat simul cum Patre. Itane ergo dicimus, ut Pater sit generator magnitudinis, hoc est generator virtutis, vel generator sapientiae suae: Filius autem magnitudo, virtus, et sapientia: Deus vero magnus, omnipotens, sapiens, ambo simul? Quomodo ergo Deus de Deo, lumen de lumine? Non enim simul ambo Deus de Deo, sed solus Filius de Deo, scilicet Patre: nec ambo simul lumen de lumine, sed solus Filius de lumine Patre. Nisi forte ad insinuandum et brevissime inculcandum quod coaeternus est Patri Filius, ita dictum est, Deus de Deo, et lumen de lumine, et si quid hoc modo dicitur, ac si diceretur, Hoc quod non est Filius sine Patre, de hoc quod non est Pater sine Filio, id est, hoc lumen quod lumen non est sine Patre, de hoc lumine Patre quod lumen non est sine Filio: ut cum dicitur, Deus quod non est Filius sine Patre, et de Deo quod non est Pater sine Filio, perfecte intelligatur quod non praecessit genitor illud quod genuit. Quod si ita est, hoc solum de eis dici non potest, illud de illo, quod simul ambo non sunt. Sicut Verbum de verbo dici non potest, quia non simul ambo verbum, sed solus Filius: nec imago de imagine, quia non simul ambo imago: nec Filius de Filio, quia non simul ambo filius, secundum quod dicitur, Ego et Pater unum sumus . Unum sumus enim dictum est, Quod ille, hoc et ego secundum essentiam, non secundum relativum.
6.3 That the Unity of the Essence of the Father and the Son is to Be Gathered from the Words, ‘We are One.’ The Son is Equal to the Father Both in Wisdom and in All Other Things PL 42, 926
4. And I know not whether the words, “They are one,” are ever found in Scripture as spoken of things of which the nature is different. But if there are more things than one of the same nature, and they differ in sentiment, they are not one, and that so far as they differ in sentiment. For if the disciples were already one by the fact of being men, He would not say, “That they may be one, as we are one,” when commending them to the Father. But because Paul and Apollos were both alike men, and also of like sentiments, “He that planteth,” he says, “and he that watereth are one.” When, therefore, anything is so called one, that it is not added in what it is one, and yet more things than one are called one, then the same essence and nature is signified, not differing nor disagreeing. But when it is added in what it is one, it may be meant that something is made one out of things more than one, though they are different in nature. As soul and body are assuredly not one; for, what are so different? unless there be added, or understood in what they are one, that is, one man, or one animal [person]. Thence the apostle says, “He who is joined to a harlot, is one body;” he does not say, they are one or he is one; but he has added “body,” as though it were one body composed by being joined together of two different bodies, masculine and feminine. And, “He that is joined unto the Lord,” he says,” is one spirit:” he did not say, he that is joined unto the Lord is one, or they are one; but he added, “spirit.” For the spirit of man and the Spirit of God are different in nature; but by being joined they become one spirit of two different spirits, so that the Spirit of God is blessed and perfect without the human spirit, but the spirit of man cannot be blessed without God. Nor is it without cause, I think, that when the Lord said so much in the Gospel according to John, and so often, of unity itself, whether of His own with the Father, or of ours interchangeably with ourselves; He has nowhere said, that we are also one with Himself, but, “that they maybe one as we also are one.” Therefore the Father and the Son are one, undoubtedly according to unity of substance; and there is one God, and one great, and one wise, as we have argued.
5. Whence then is the Father greater? For if greater, He is greater by greatness; but whereas the Son is His greatness, neither assuredly is the Son greater than He who begat Him, nor is the Father greater than that greatness, whereby He is great; therefore they are equal. For whence is He equal, if not in that which He is, to whom it is not one thing to be, and another to be great? Or if the Father is greater in eternity, the Son is not equal in anything whatsoever. For whence equal? If you say in greatness, that greatness is not equal which is less eternal, and so of all things else. Or is He perhaps equal in power, but not equal in wisdom? But how is that power which is less wise, equal? Or is He equal in wisdom, but not equal in power? But how is that wisdom equal which is less powerful? It remains, therefore, that if He is not equal in anything, He is not equal in all. But Scripture proclaims, that “He thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” Therefore any adversary of the truth whatever, provided he feels bound by apostolical authority, must needs confess that the Son is equal with God in each one thing whatsoever. Let him choose that which he will; from it he will be shown, that He is equal in all things which are said of His substance.
Unitatem essentiae Patris et Filii haberi ex verbis, Unum sumus. Filius et in sapientia et in caeteris aequalis Patri. Et nescio utrum inveniatur in Scripturis dictum, unum sunt, quorum est diversa natura. Si autem aliqua plura ejusdem naturae sint, et diversa sentiant, non sunt unum et quantum diversa sentiunt. Nam si jam unum essent ex eo quod homines erant, non diceret, Ut sint unum, sicut nos unum , cum suos discipulos Patri commendaret. At vero Paulus et Apollo, quia et ambo homines, et idem sentiebant: Qui plantat, inquit, et qui rigat, unum sunt . Cum ergo sic dicitur unum, ut non addatur quid unum, et plura unum dicantur, eadem natura atque essentia, non dissidens nec dissentiens significatur. Cum vero additur quid unum, potest aliquid significari ex pluribus unum factum, quamvis diversis natura. Sicut anima et corpus non sunt utique unum; quid enim tam diversum? nisi addatur aut subintelligatur quid unum, id est, unus homo, aut unum animal. Inde Apostolus: Qui adhaeret meretrici, inquit, unum corpus est: non dixit, Unum sunt, aut, Unum est; sed addidit, corpus, tanquam ex duobus diversis masculino et feminino unum corpus adjunctione compositum. Et, Qui adhaeret Domino, inquit, unus spiritus est : non dixit, Qui adhaeret Domino, unus est, aut, unum sunt; sed addidit, spiritus. Diversi sunt enim natura, spiritus hominis et spiritus Dei; sed inhaerendo fit unus spiritus ex diversis duobus, ita ut sine humano spiritu beatus sit Dei spiritus atque perfectus, beatus autem hominis spiritus non nisi cum Deo. Nec frustra, ut existimo, cum tanta in Evangelio secundum Joannem et toties diceret Dominus de ipsa unitate, vel sua cum Patre, vel nostra invicem nobiscum; nusquam dixit, Ut nos et ipsi unum: sed, Ut unum sint, sicut et nos unum sumus . Pater ergo et Filius unum sunt, utique secundum unitatem substantiae, et unus Deus est, et unus magnus, et unus sapiens, sicut tractatum est.
Unde ergo major Pater? Si enim major, magnitudine major: cum autem magnitudo Filius ejus sit, nec ille utique major est eo qui se genuit, nec ille major est ea magnitudine qua magnus est: ergo aequalis. Nam unde aequalis, si non eo quo est, cui non est aliud esse, et aliud magnum esse? Aut si aeternitate Pater major est, non est aequalis Filius quacumque re. Unde enim aequalis? Si magnitudine dixeris, non est par magnitudo, quae minus aeterna est, atque ita caetera. An forte in virtute aequalis est, in sapientia vero non est aequalis? Sed quomodo est aequalis virtus quae minus sapit? An in sapientia aequalis est, in virtute autem non est aequalis? Sed quomodo aequalis est sapientia, quae minus potens est? Restat ergo ut si in ulla re aequalis non est, in omnibus non sit aequalis. At Scriptura clamat, Non rapinam arbitratus est esse aequalis Deo . Cogitur ergo quivis adversarius veritatis, qui modo tenetur apostolica auctoritate, in qualibet vel una re aequalem Deo Filium confiteri. Eligat quam voluerit: hinc ei ostendetur in omnibus esse aequalem, quae de substantia ejus dicuntur.
6.4 The Same Argument Continued PL 42, 927
6. For in like manner the virtues which are in the human mind, although each has its own several and different meaning, yet are in no way mutually separable; so that, for instance, whosoever were equal in courage, are equal also in prudence, and temperance, and justice. For if you say that such and such men are equal in courage, but that one of them is greater in prudence, it follows that the courage of the other is less prudent, and so neither are they equal in courage, since the courage of the former is more prudent. And so you will find it to be the case with the other virtues, if you consider them one by one. For the question is not of the strength of the body, but of the courage of the mind. How much more therefore is this the case in that unchangeable and eternal substance, which is incomparably more simple than the human mind is? Since, in the human mind, to be is not the same as to be strong, or prudent, or just, or temperate; for a mind can exist, and yet have none of these virtues. But in God to be is the same as to be strong, or to be just, or to be wise, or whatever is said of that simple multiplicity, or multifold simplicity, whereby to signify His substance. Wherefore, whether we say God of God in such way that this name belongs to each, yet not so that both together are two Gods, but one God; for they are in such way united with each other, as according to the apostle’s testimony may take place even in diverse and differing substances; for both the Lord alone is a Spirit, and the spirit of a man alone is assuredly a spirit; yet, if it cleave to the Lord, “it is one spirit:” how much more there, where there is an absolutely inseparable and eternal union, so that He may not seem absurdly to be called as it were the Son of both, when He is called the Son of God, if that which is called God is only said of both together. Or perhaps it is, that whatever is said of God so as to indicate His substance, is not said except of both together, nay of the Trinity itself together? Whether therefore it be this or that (which needs a closer inquiry), it is enough for the present to see from what has been said, that the Son is in no respect equal with the Father, if He is found to be unequal in anything which has to do with signifying His substance, as we have already shown. But the apostle has said that He is equal. Therefore the Son is equal with the Father in all things, and is of one and the same substance.
Sequitur de eodem argumento. Sic enim virtutes quae sunt in animo humano, quamvis alio atque alio modo singulae intelligantur, nullo modo tamen separantur ab invicem, ut quicumque fuerint aequales, verbi gratia, in fortitudine, aequales sint et prudentia, et temperantia, et justitia. Si enim dixeris aequales esse istos fortitudine, sed illum praestare prudentia; sequitur ut hujus fortitudo minus prudens sit, ac per hoc nec fortitudine aequales sunt, quando est illius fortitudo prudentior. Atque ita de caeteris virtutibus invenies, si omnes eadem consideratione percurras. Non enim de viribus corporis agitur, sed de animi fortitudine. Quanto ergo magis in illa incommutabili aeternaque substantia incomparabiliter simpliciore quam est animus humanus, haec ita se habent? Humano quippe animo non hoc est esse quod est fortem esse, aut prudentem, aut justum, aut temperantem: potest enim esse animus, et nullam istarum habere virtutem. Deo autem hoc est esse quod est fortem esse, aut justum esse, aut sapientem esse, et si quid de illa simplici multiplicitate, vel multiplici simplicitate dixeris, quo substantia ejus significetur. Quamobrem, sive ita dicatur Deus de Deo, ut et singulis hoc nomen conveniat, non tamen ut ambo simul duo dii, sed unus Deus sit. Ita enim sibi cohaerent, quemadmodum et in distantibus diversisque substantiis fieri Apostolus testis est. Nam et solus Dominus spiritus est, et solus hominis spiritus utique spiritus est, tamen si haereat Domino unus spiritus est: quanto magis ibi, ubi est omnino inseparabilis atque aeterna connexio, ne absurde dici videatur quasi filius amborum, cum dicitur Filius Dei, si id quod dicitur Deus, non nisi de ambobus dicitur simul: sive quidquid de Deo dicitur quod substantiam ejus indicet, non nisi de ambobus simul, imo de ipsa simul Trinitate dicitur? Sive ergo hoc, sive illud sit, quod diligentius discutiendum est, nunc unde agitur satis est videre, nullo modo Filium aequalem esse Patri, si in aliquo scilicet quod pertineat ad significandam ejus substantiam inaequalis invenitur, sicut jam ostendimus. Apostolus autem dixit aequalem. In omnibus ergo aequalis est Patri Filius, et est unius ejusdemque substantiae.
6.5 The Holy Spirit Also is Equal to the Father and the Son in All Things PL 42, 927
7. Wherefore also the Holy Spirit consists in the same unity of substance, and in the same equality. For whether He is the unity of both, or the holiness, or the love, or therefore the unity because the love, and therefore the love because the holiness, it is manifest that He is not one of the two, through whom the two are joined, through whom the Begotten is loved by the Begetter, and loves Him that begat Him, and through whom, not by participation, but by their own essence, neither by the gift of any superior, but by their own, they are “keeping the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace;” which we are commanded to imitate by grace, both towards God and towards ourselves. “On which two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” So those three are God, one, alone, great, wise, holy, blessed. But we are blessed from Him, and through Him, and in Him; because we ourselves are one by His gift, and one spirit with Him, because our soul cleaves to Him so as to follow Him. And it is good for us to cleave to God, since He will destroy every man who is estranged from Him. Therefore the Holy Spirit, whatever it is, is something common both to the Father and Son. But that communion itself is consubstantial and co-eternal; and if it may fitly be called friendship, let it be so called; but it is more aptly called love. And this is also a substance, since God is a substance, and “God is love,” as it is written. But as He is a substance together with the Father and the Son, so that substance is together with them great, and together with them good, and together with them holy, and whatsoever else is said in reference to substance; since it is not one thing to God to be, and another to be great or to be good, and the rest, as we have shown above. For if love is less great therein [i.e. in God] than wisdom, then wisdom is loved in less degree than according to what it is; love is therefore equal, in order that wisdom may be loved according to its being; but wisdom is equal with the Father, as we have proved above; therefore also the Holy Spirit is equal; and if equal, equal in all things, on account of the absolute simplicity which is in that substance. And therefore they are not more than three: One who loves Him who is from Himself, and One who loves Him from whom He is, and Love itself. And if this last is nothing, how is “God love”? If it is not substance, how is God substance?
Spiritus sanctus etiam Patri et Filio aequalis in omnibus. Quapropter etiam Spiritus sanctus in eadem unitate substantiae et aequalitate consistit. Sive enim sit unitas amborum, sive sanctitas, sive charitas, sive ideo unitas quia charitas, et ideo charitas quia sanctitas, manifestum est quod non aliquis duorum est quo uterque conjungitur, quo genitus a gignente diligatur, generatoremque suum diligat, sintque non participatione, sed essentia sua, neque dono superioris alicujus, sed suo proprio servantes unitatem spiritus in vinculo pacis . Quod imitari per gratiam, et ad Deum, et ad nos ipsos jubemur. In quibus duobus praeceptis tota Lex pendet et Prophetae . Ita sunt illa tria, Deus unus, solus, magnus, sapiens, sanctus, beatus. Nos autem ex ipso, et per ipsum, et in ipso beati; quia ipsius munere inter nos unum, cum illo autem unus spiritus, quia agglutinatur anima nostra post eum. Et nobis haerere Deo bonum est, quia perdet omnem qui fornicatur ab eo . Spiritus ergo sanctus commune aliquid est Patris et Filii, quidquid illud est. At ipsa communio, consubstantialis et coaeterna: quae si amicitia convenienter dici potest, dicatur; sed aptius dicitur charitas. Et haec quoque substantia, quia Deus substantia, et Deus charitas, sicut scriptum est . Sicut autem substantia simul cum Patre et Filio, ita simul magna, et simul bona, et simul sancta, et quidquid aliud ad se dicitur: quoniam non aliud est Deo esse, et aliud magnum esse vel bonum esse, et caetera, sicut supra ostendimus. Si enim minus magna est ibi charitas quam sapientia, minus quam est diligitur sapientia: aequalis est igitur, ut quanta est sapientia tantum diligatur: est autem sapientia aequalis Patri, sicut supra disputavimus: aequalis est igitur etiam Spiritus sanctus; et si aequalis, in omnibus aequalis propter summam simplicitatem quae in illa substantia est. Et ideo non amplius quam tria sunt; unus diligens eum qui de illo est, et unus diligens eum de quo est, et ipsa dilectio. Quae si nihil est, quomodo Deus dilectio est? Si non est substantia, quomodo Deus substantia est?
6.6 How God is a Substance Both Simple and Manifold PL 42, 928
8. But if it is asked how that substance is both simple and manifold: consider, first, why the creature is manifold, but in no way really simple. And first, all that is body is composed certainly of parts; so that therein one part is greater, another less, and the whole is greater than any part whatever or how great soever. For the heaven and the earth are parts of the whole bulk of the world; and the earth alone, and the heaven alone, is composed of innumerable parts; and its third part is less than the remainder, and the half of it is less than the whole; and the whole body of the world, which is usually called by its two parts, viz. the heaven and the earth, is certainly greater than the heaven alone or the earth alone. And in each several body, size is one thing, color another, shape another; for the same color and the same shape may remain with diminished size; and the same shape and the same size may remain with the color changed; and the same shape not remaining, yet the thing may be just as great, and of the same color. And whatever other things are predicated together of body can be changed either all together, or the larger part of them without the rest. And hence the nature of body is conclusively proved to be manifold, and in no respect simple. The spiritual creature also, that is, the soul, is indeed the more simple of the two if compared with the body; but if we omit the comparison with the body, it is manifold, and itself also not simple. For it is on this account more simple than the body, because it is not diffused in bulk through extension of place, but in each body, it is both whole in the whole, and whole in each several part of it; and, therefore, when anything takes place in any small particle whatever of the body, such as the soul can feel, although it does not take place in the whole body, yet the whole soul feels it, since the whole soul is not unconscious of it. But, nevertheless, since in the soul also it is one thing to be skillful, another to be indolent, another to be intelligent, another to be of retentive memory; since cupidity is one thing, fear another, joy another, sadness another; and since things innumerable, and in innumerable ways, are to be found in the nature of the soul, some without others, and some more, some less; it is manifest that its nature is not simple, but manifold. For nothing simple is changeable, but every creature is changeable.
Quomodo Deus substantia simplex et multiplex. Si autem quaeritur quomodo simplex et multiplex sit illa substantia; animadvertenda est primo creatura quare sit multiplex, nullo autem modo vere simplex. Et prius corpus universum utique partibus constat; ita ut sit ibi alia pars major, alia minor, et majus sit universum quam pars quaelibet aut quantalibet. Nam et coelum et terra partes sunt universae mundanae molis: et sola terra, et solum coelum innumerabilibus partibus constat, et in tertia sui parte minor est quam in caetera, et in dimidia minor quam in tota; et totum mundi corpus quod duabus plerumque partibus appellari solet, id est, coelum et terra, utique majus est quam solum coelum aut sola terra. Et in unoquoque corpore aliud est magnitudo, aliud color, aliud figura. Potest enim et diminuta magnitudine manere idem color et eadem figura, et colore mutato manere eadem figura et eadem magnitudo, et figura eadem non manente tam magnum esse et eodem modo coloratum: et quaecumque alia simul dicuntur de corpore, possunt et simul et plura sine caeteris commutari. Ac per hoc multiplex esse convincitur natura corporis, simplex autem nullo modo. Creatura quoque spiritualis, sicut est anima, est quidem in corporis comparatione simplicior: sine comparatione autem corporis multiplex est, etiam ipsa non simplex. Nam ideo simplicior est corpore, quia non mole diffunditur per spatium loci, sed in unoquoque corpore, et in toto tota est, et in qualibet ejus parte tota est; et ideo cum fit aliquid in quavis exigua particula corporis quod sentiat anima, quamvis non fiat in toto corpore, illa tamen tota sentit, quia totam non latet: sed tamen etiam in anima cum aliud sit artificiosum esse, aliud inertem, aliud acutum, aliud memorem, aliud cupiditas, aliud timor, aliud laetitia, aliud tristitia, possintque et alia sine aliis, et alia magis, alia minus, innumerabilia et innumerabiliter in animae natura inveniri; manifestum est non simplicem, sed multiplicem esse naturam. Nihil enim simplex mutabile est; omnis autem creatura mutabilis.
6.7 God is a Trinity, But Not Triple (Triplex) PL 42, 929
But God is truly called in manifold ways, great, good, wise, blessed, true, and whatsoever other thing seems to be said of Him not unworthily: but His greatness is the same as His wisdom; for He is not great by bulk, but by power; and His goodness is the same as His wisdom and greatness, and His truth the same as all those things; and in Him it is not one thing to be blessed, and another to be great, or wise, or true, or good, or in a word to be Himself.
9. Neither, since He is a Trinity, is He therefore to be thought triple (triplex) otherwise the Father alone, or the Son alone, will be less than the Father and Son together. Although, indeed, it is hard to see how we can say, either the Father alone, or the Son alone; since both the Father is with the Son, and the Son with the Father, always and inseparably: not that both are the Father, or both are the Son; but because they are always one in relation to the other, and neither the one nor the other alone. But because we call even the Trinity itself God alone, although He is always with holy spirits and souls, but say that He only is God, because they are not also God with Him; so we call the Father the Father alone, not because He is separate from the Son, but because they are not both together the Father.
Deus Trinitas, sed non triplex. Deus vero multipliciter quidem dicitur magnus, bonus, sapiens, beatus, verus, et quidquid aliud non indigne dici videtur: sed eadem magnitudo ejus est, quae sapientia; non enim mole magnus est, sed virtute: et eadem bonitas quae sapientia et magnitudo, et eadem veritas quae illa omnia: et non est ibi aliud beatum esse, et aliud magnum, aut sapientem, aut verum, aut bonum esse, aut omnino ipsum esse.
Nec quoniam Trinitas est, ideo triplex putandus est: alioquin minor erit Pater solus, aut Filius solus, quam simul Pater et Filius. Quanquam non inveniatur quomodo dici possit, aut Pater solus, aut Filius solus; cum semper atque inseparabiliter et ille cum Filio sit, et ille cum Patre: non ut ambo sint Pater, aut ambo Filius; sed quia semper in invicem, neuter solus. Quia vero dicimus et Deum solum ipsam Trinitatem, quamvis semper sit cum spiritibus et animabus sanctis; sed solum dicimus quod Deus est, quia non et illi cum illo Deus sunt: ita solum Patrem dicimus Patrem, non quia separatur a Filio, sed quia non simul ambo Pater sunt.
6.8 No Addition Can Be Made to the Nature of God PL 42, 929
Since, therefore, the Father alone, or the Son alone, or the Holy Spirit alone, is as great as is the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit together, in no manner is He to be called threefold. Forasmuch as bodies increase by union of themselves. For although he who cleaves to his wife is one body; yet it is a greater body than if it were that of the husband alone, or of the wife alone. But in spiritual things, when the less adheres to the greater, as the creature to the Creator, the former becomes greater than it was, not the latter. For in those things which are not great by bulk, to be greater is to be better. And the spirit of any creature becomes better, when it cleaves to the Creator, than if it did not so cleave; and therefore also greater because better. “He,” then, “that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit:” but yet the Lord does not therefore become greater, although he who is joined to the Lord does so. In God Himself, therefore when the equal Son, or the Holy Spirit equal to the Father and the Son, is joined to the equal Father, God does not become greater than each of them severally; because that perfectness cannot increase. But whether it be the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit, He is perfect, and God the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit is perfect; and therefore He is a Trinity rather than triple.
Dei naturae nulla fit accessio. Cum itaque tantus est solus Pater, vel solus Filius, vel solus Spiritus sanctus, quantus est simul Pater et Filius et Spiritus sanctus, nullo modo triplex dicendus est. Corpora quippe adjunctione sua crescunt. Quamvis enim qui adhaeret uxori suae, unum corpus sit; majus tamen corpus fit, quam si solius viri esset, aut solius uxoris. In rebus autem spiritualibus, cum minor majori adhaerescit, sicut creatura Creatori, illa fit major quam erat, non ille. In iis enim quae non mole magna sunt, hoc est majus esse quod est melius esse. Melior autem fit spiritus alicujus creaturae, cum adhaeret Creatori, quam si non adhaereat; et ideo etiam major quia melior. Qui ergo adhaeret Domino, unus spiritus est : sed tamen Dominus non ideo fit major, quamvis fiat ille qui adhaeret Domino. In ipso igitur Deo cum adhaeret aequali Patri Filius aequalis, aut Spiritus sanctus Patri et Filio aequalis, non fit major Deus quam singuli eorum; quia non est quo crescat illa perfectio. Perfectus autem sive Pater, sive Filius, sive Spiritus sanctus, et perfectus Deus Pater et Filius et Spiritus sanctus: et ideo Trinitas potius quam triplex.
6.9 Whether One or the Three Persons Together are Called the Only God PL 42, 930
10. And since we are showing how we can say the Father alone, because there is no Father in the Godhead except Himself, we must consider also the opinion which holds that the only true God is not the Father alone, but the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. For if any one should ask whether the Father alone is God, how can it be replied that He is not, unless perhaps we were to say that the Father indeed is God, but that He is not God alone, but that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are God alone? But then what shall we do with that testimony of the Lord? For He was speaking to the Father, and had named the Father as Him to whom He was speaking, when He says, “And this is life eternal, that they may know Thee the one true God.” And this the Arians indeed usually take, as if the Son were not true God. Passing them by, however, we must see whether, when it is said to the Father, “That they may know Thee the one true God,” we are forced to understand it as if He wished to intimate that the Father alone is the true God; lest we should not understand any to be God, except the three together, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Are we therefore, from the testimony of the Lord, both to call the Father the one true God, and the Son the one true God, and the Holy Spirit the one true God, and the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit together, that is, the Trinity itself together, not three true Gods but one true God? Or because He added, “And Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent,” are we to supply “the one true God;” so that the order of the words is this, “That they may know Thee, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent, the one true God?” Why then did He omit to mention the Holy Spirit? Is it because it follows, that whenever we name One who cleaves to One by a harmony so great that through this harmony both are one, this harmony itself must be understood, although it is not mentioned? For in that place, too, the apostle seems as it were to pass over the Holy Spirit; and yet there, too, He is understood, where he says, “All are yours, and ye are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s.” And again, “The head of the woman is the man, the head of the man is Christ, and the head of Christ is God.” But again, if God is only all three together, how can God be the head of Christ, that is, the Trinity the head of Christ, since Christ is in the Trinity in order that it may be the Trinity? Is that which is the Father with the Son, the head of that which is the Son alone? For the Father with the Son is God, but the Son alone is Christ: especially since it is the Word already made flesh that speaks; and according to this His humiliation also, the Father is greater than He, as He says, “for my Father is greater than I;” so that the very being of God, which is one to Him with the Father, is itself the head of the man who is mediator, which He is alone. For if we rightly call the mind the chief thing of man, that is, as it were the head of the human substance, although the man himself together with the mind is man; why is not the Word with the Father, which together is God, much more suitably and much more the head of Christ, although Christ as man cannot be understood except with the Word which was made flesh? But this, as we have already said, we shall consider somewhat more carefully hereafter. At present the equality and one and the same substance of the Trinity has been demonstrated as briefly as possible, that in whatever way that other question be determined, the more rigorous discussion of which we have deferred, nothing may hinder us from confessing the absolute equality of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
An una vel tres simul personae dicantur solus Deus. Et quoniam ostendimus quomodo possit dici solus Pater, quia non nisi ipse ibi Pater; consideranda est illa sententia qua dicitur, Deum verum solum non esse Patrem solum, sed Patrem et Filium et Spiritum sanctum. Si quis enim interroget, Pater solus utrum sit Deus: quomodo respondebitur non esse, nisi forte ita dicamus, esse quidem Patrem Deum, sed non eum esse solum Deum; esse autem solum Deum, Patrem et Filium et Spiritum sanctum? Sed quid agimus de illo testimonio Domini? Patri enim dicebat, et Patrem nominaverat ad quem loquebatur, cum ait: Haec est autem vita aeterna, ut cognoscant te unum verum Deum . Quod quidem Ariani sic solent accipere, quasi non sit Filius verus Deus. Quibus exclusis videndum est an intelligere cogamur, cum dictum est Patri, Ut cognoscant te unum verum Deum; tanquam hoc insinuare voluerit, quia et solus Pater Deus verus est, ne non intelligeremus Deum, nisi ipsa tria simul, Patrem et Filium et Spiritum sanctum. Num ergo ex Domini testimonio, et Patrem unum verum Deum dicimus, et Filium unum verum Deum, et Spiritum sanctum unum verum Deum, et simul Patrem et Filium et Spiritum sanctum, id est, simul ipsam Trinitatem, non tres veros deos, sed unum verum Deum? An quoniam addidit, Et quem misisti Jesum Christum; subaudiendum est, unum verum Deum; et ordo verborum est, Ut te et quem misisti Jesum Christum, cognoscant unum verum Deum? Cur ergo tacuit de Spiritu sancto? An quoniam consequens est ut ubicumque nominatur unum tanta pace uni adhaerens, ut per hanc utrumque unum sit, jam ex hoc intelligatur etiam ipsa pax, quamvis non commemoretur? Nam et illo loco Apostolus videtur quasi praetermittere Spiritum sanctum, et tamen etiam ibi intelligitur, ubi ait, Omnia sunt vestra; vos autem, Christi; Christus autem, Dei : et iterum, Caput mulieris, vir; caput viri, Christus; caput autem Christi, Deus . Sed rursus si Deus non nisi omnia simul tria, quomodo caput Christi Deus, id est, caput Christi Trinitas, cum in Trinitate sit Christus ut sit Trinitas? An quod est Pater cum Filio, caput est ei quod est solus Filius? Cum Filio enim Pater Deus, solus autem Filius Christus est: maxime quia jam Verbum caro factum loquitur, secundum quam humilitatem ejus etiam major est Pater, sicut dicit, Quoniam Pater major me est ; ut hoc ipsum Deum esse, quod illi cum Patre unum est, caput sit hominis Mediatoris, quod ipse solus est . Si enim mentem recte dicimus principale hominis, id est, tanquam caput humanae substantiae, cum ipse homo cum mente sit homo; cur non multo congruentius, multoque magis Verbum cum Patre quod simul Deus est, caput est Christi, quamvis Christus homo nisi cum Verbo quod caro factum est, intelligi non possit? Sed hoc, ut jam diximus, aliquanto diligentius postea considerabimus. Nunc autem aequalitas Trinitatis et una eademque substantia, quantum breviter potuimus, demonstrata est, ut quoquo modo se habet ista quaestio, quam discutiendam acriore intentione distulimus, nihil impediat quominus fateamur summam aequalitatem Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti.
6.10 Of the Attributes Assigned by Hilary to Each Person. The Trinity is Represented in Things that are Made PL 42, 931
11. A certain writer, when he would briefly intimate the special attributes of each of the persons in the Trinity, tells us that “Eternity is in the Father, form in the Image, use in the Gift.” And since he was a man of no mean authority in handling the Scriptures, and in the assertion of the faith, for it is Hilary who put this in his book (On the Trinity, ii.); I have searched into the hidden meaning of these words as far as I can, that is, of the Father, and the Image, and the Gift, of eternity, and of form, and of use. And I do not think that he intended more by the word eternity, than that the Father has not a father from whom He is; but the Son is from the Father, so as to be, and so as to be co-eternal with Him. For if an image perfectly fills the measure of that of which it is the image, then the image is made equal to that of which it is the image, not the latter to its own image. And in respect to this image he has named form, I believe on account of the quality of beauty, where there is at once such great fitness, and prime equality, and prime likeness, differing in nothing, and unequal in no respect, and in no part unlike, but answering exactly to Him whose image it is: where there is prime and absolute life, to whom it is not one thing to live, and another to be, but the same thing to be and to live; and prime and absolute intellect, to whom it is not one thing to live, another to understand, but to understand is to live, and is to be, and all things are one: as though a perfect Word (John i. 1), to which nothing is wanting, and a certain skill of the omnipotent and wise God, full of all living, unchangeable sciences, and all one in it, as itself is one from one, with whom it is one. Therein God knew all things which He made by it; and therefore, while times pass away and succeed, nothing passes away or succeeds to the knowledge of God. For things which are created are not therefore known by God, because they have been made; and not rather have been therefore made, even although changeable, because they are known unchangeably by Him. Therefore that unspeakable conjunction of the Father and His image is not without fruition, without love, without joy. Therefore that love, delight, felicity, or blessedness, if indeed it can be worthily expressed by any human word, is called by him, in short, Use; and is the Holy Spirit in the Trinity, not begotten, but the sweetness of the begetter and of the begotten, filling all creatures according to their capacity with abundant bountifulness and copiousness, that they may keep their proper order and rest satisfied in their proper place.
12. Therefore all these things which are made by divine skill, show in themselves a certain unity, and form, and order; for each of them is both some one thing, as are the several natures of bodies and dispositions of souls; and is fashioned in some form, as are the figures or qualities of bodies, and the various learning or skill of souls; and seeks or preserves a certain order, as are the several weights or combinations of bodies and the loves or delights of souls. When therefore we regard the Creator, who is understood by the things that are made we must needs understand the Trinity of whom there appear traces in the creature, as is fitting. For in that Trinity is the supreme source of all things, and the most perfect beauty, and the most blessed delight. Those three, therefore, both seem to be mutually determined to each other, and are in themselves infinite. But here in corporeal things, one thing alone is not as much as three together, and two are something more than one; but in that highest Trinity one is as much as the three together, nor are two anything more than one. And They are infinite in themselves. So both each are in each, and all in each, and each in all, and all in all, and all are one. Let him who sees this, whether in part, or “through a glass and in an enigma,” rejoice in knowing God; and let him honor Him as God, and give thanks; but let him who does not see it, strive to see it through piety, not to cavil at it through blindness. Since God is one, but yet is a Trinity. Neither are we to take the words, “of whom, and through whom, and to whom are all things,” as used indiscriminately [i.e., to denote a unity without distinctions]; nor yet to denote many gods, for “to Him, be glory for ever and ever. Amen.”
Attributa per Hilarium singulis personis. Trinitas in rebus factis repraesentatur. Quidam cum vellet brevissime singularum in Trinitate personarum insinuare propria, Aeternitas, inquit, in Patre, species in Imagine, usus in Munere. Et quia non mediocris auctoritatis in tractatione Scripturarum, et assertione fidei vir exstitit; Hilarius enim hoc in libris suis posuit ; horum verborum, id est, Patris, et Imaginis, et Muneris, aeternitatis, et speciei, et usus, abditam scrutatus intelligentiam quantum valeo, non eum secutum arbitror in aeternitatis vocabulo, nisi quod Pater non habet Patrem de quo sit, Filius autem de Patre est ut sit, atque ut illi coaeternus sit. Imago enim si perfecte implet illud cujus imago est, ipsa coaequatur ei, non illud imagini suae. In qua imagine speciem nominavit, credo, propter pulchritudinem, ubi jam est tanta congruentia, et prima aequalitas, et prima similitudo, nulla in re dissidens, et nullo modo inaequalis, et nulla ex parte dissimilis, sed ad identidem respondens ei cujus imago est. Ubi est prima et summa vita, cui non est aliud vivere et aliud esse, sed idem est esse et vivere: et primus ac summus intellectus, cui non est aliud vivere et aliud intelligere, sed id quod est intelligere, hoc vivere, hoc esse est, unum omnia: tanquam Verbum perfectum, cui non desit aliquid, et ars quaedam omnipotentis atque sapientis Dei, plena omnium rationum viventium incommutabilium; et omnes unum in ea, sicut ipsa unum de uno, cum quo unum. Ibi novit omnia Deus quae fecit per ipsam, et ideo cum decedant et succedant tempora, non decedit aliquid vel succedit scientiae Dei. Non enim haec quae creata sunt, ideo sciuntur a Deo, quia facta sunt: ac non potius ideo facta sunt vel mutabilia, quia immutabiliter ab eo sciuntur. Ille igitur ineffabilis quidam complexus Patris et imaginis non est sine perfruitione, sine charitate, sine gaudio. Illa ergo dilectio, delectatio, felicitas vel beatitudo, si tamen aliqua humana voce digne dicitur, usus ab illo appellatus est breviter, et est in Trinitate Spiritus sanctus, non genitus, sed genitoris, genitique suavitas, ingenti largitate atque ubertate perfundens omnes creaturas pro captu earum, ut ordinem suum teneant et locis suis acquiescant.
Haec igitur omnia, quae arte divina facta sunt, et unitatem quamdam in se ostendunt, et speciem, et ordinem. Quidquid enim horum est, et unum aliquid est, sicut sunt naturae corporum, et ingenia animarum; et aliqua specie formatur, sicut sunt figurae vel qualitates corporum, ac doctrinae vel artes animarum; et ordinem aliquem petit aut tenet, sicut sunt pondera vel collocationes corporum, atque amores aut delectationes animarum. Oportet igitur ut Creatorem, per ea quae facta sunt, intellectum conspicientes , Trinitatem intelligamus, cujus in creatura, quomodo dignum est, apparet vestigium. In illa enim Trinitate summa origo est rerum omnium, et perfectissima pulchritudo, et beatissima delectatio. Itaque illa tria, et ad se invicem determinari videntur, et in se infinita sunt. Sed hic in rebus corporeis, non tantum est res una quantum tres simul, et plus aliquid sunt duae quam una res: caeterum in illa summa Trinitate tantum est una quantum tres simul, nec plus aliquid sunt duae quam una. Et in se infinita sunt. Ita et singula sunt in singulis, et omnia in singulis, et singula in omnibus, et omnia in omnibus, et unum omnia. Qui videt hoc vel ex parte, vel per speculum et in aenigmate , gaudeat cognoscens Deum, et sicut Deum honoret, et gratias agat: qui autem non videt, tendat per pietatem ad videndum; non per caecitatem ad calumniandum. Quoniam unus est Deus, sed tamen Trinitas. Nec confuse accipiendum est, Ex quo omnia, per quem omnia, in quo omnia: nec diis multis, sed ipsi gloria in saecula saeculorum. Amen. .