Augustine: DE TRINITATE

To the most blessed lord, to be venerated for most sincere charity, the holy brother and fellow-priest, Pope Aurelius, Augustine sends greeting in the Lord.

De trinitate quae deus summus et uerus est libros iuuenis inchoaui, senex edidi. Omiseram quippe hoc opus posteaquam comperi praereptos mihi esse siue subreptos antequam eos absoluerem et retractatos ut mea dispositio fuerat expolirem. Non enim singillatim sed omnes simul edere ea ratione decreueram quoniam praecedentibus consequentes inquisitione proficiente nectuntur.

On the Trinity, which is God most high and true, I began the books when young; as an old man I published them. I had, in fact, set this work aside after I learned that they had been snatched from me or surreptitiously taken before I could complete them and, having gone back over them (retracting them), polish them as my plan had been. For I had resolved, for this reason, to publish not singly but all at once, since, as the inquiry makes progress, the consequents are bound to the antecedents.

Cum ergo per eos homines (qui priusquam uellem ad quosdam illorum peruenire potuerunt) dispositio mea nequiuisset impleri, interruptam dictationem reliqueram cogitans hoc ipsum in aliquibus scriptis meis conqueri ut scirent qui possent non a me fuisse eosdem libros editos sed ablatos priusquam mihi editione mea digni uiderentur.

Therefore, since through those men (who were able to reach certain of them before I wished) my disposition could not be fulfilled, I had left the dictation interrupted, thinking to complain of this very thing in some of my writings, so that those who could might know that those same books had not been published by me, but had been taken away before they seemed to me worthy of my own edition.

Verum multorum fratrum uehementissima postulatione et maxime tua iussione compulsus opus tam laboriosum adiuuante domino terminare curaui, eosque emendatos non ut uolui sed ut potui, ne ab illis qui subrepti iam in manus hominum exierant plurimum discreparent, uenerationi tuae per filium nostrum condiaconum carissimum misi et cuicumque audiendos, describendos legendosque permisi. In quibus si seruari mea dispositio potuisset, essent profecto etsi easdem sententias habentes, multo tamen enodatiores atque planiores quantum rerum tantarum explicandarum difficultas et facultas nostra pateretur. Sunt autem qui primos quattuor uel potius quinque etiam sine prooemiis habent et duodecimum sine extrema parte non parua, sed si eis haec editio potuerit innotescere, omnia si uoluerint et ualuerint emendabunt.

But, compelled by the most vehement postulation of many brethren, and especially by your command, I took care, with the Lord aiding, to terminate a work so laborious; and I sent them emended, not as I wished but as I was able—lest they should differ very greatly from those which, having been surreptitiously stolen, had already gone out into the hands of men—to your Veneration through our most dear son the subdeacon, and I permitted them to be heard, copied, and read by whomever. In which, if my disposition could have been preserved, they would indeed, though holding the same sententiae, be nevertheless much clearer and plainer, so far as the difficulty of explaining matters so great and our capacity would allow. There are, moreover, those who have the first four, or rather even five, without the proems, and the twelfth without a no small final part; but if this edition can become known to them, they will amend everything, if they are willing and able.

Peto sane ut hanc epistulam seorsum quidem sed tamen ad caput eorundem librorum iubeas anteponi. Ora pro me.

I ask indeed that you order this epistle, separately to be sure, yet to be prefixed at the head of those same books. Pray for me.

LIBER I

BOOK 1

[I 1] Lecturus haec quae de trinitate disserimus prius oportet ut nouerit stilum nostrum aduersus eorum uigilare calumnias qui fidei contemnentes initium immaturo et peruerso rationis amore falluntur. Quorum nonnulli ea quae de corporalibus rebus siue per sensus corporeos experta notauerunt, siue quae natura humani ingenii et diligentiae uiuacitate uel artis adiutorio perceperunt, ad res incorporeas et spiritales transferre conantur ut ex his illas metiri atque opinari uelint. Sunt item alii qui secundum animi humani naturam uel affectum de deo sentiunt, si quid sentiunt, et ex hoc errore cum de deo disputant sermoni suo distortas et fallaces regulas figunt.

[1 1] The one about to read these things which we discourse concerning the Trinity must first know that our style keeps watch against the calumnies of those who, despising faith, are deceived at the outset by an immature and perverse love of reason. Some of these try to transfer to incorporeal and spiritual matters the things which, concerning bodily things, they have noted either by experiences through bodily senses, or which they have perceived by the nature of human ingenuity and the vivacity of diligence or by the aid of art, so that from these they may wish to measure and to opine about those. There are likewise others who think about God according to the nature or affection of the human mind, if they think anything, and from this error, when they dispute about God, they fasten upon their discourse distorted and fallacious rules.

Est item aliud hominum genus, eorum qui uniuersam quidem creaturam, quae profecto mutabilis est, nituntur transcendere ut ad incommutabilem substantiam quae deus est erigant intentionem; sed mortalitatis onere praegrauati cum et uideri uolunt scire quod nesciunt et quod uolunt scire non possunt, praesumptiones opinionum suarum audacius affirmando intercludunt sibimet intellegentiae uias, magis eligentes sententiam suam non corrigere peruersam quam mutare defensam.

There is likewise another kind of men, those who strive to transcend the universal creation—which is assuredly mutable—in order to raise their intention to the immutable substance which is God; but, weighed down by the burden of mortality, while they both wish to seem to know what they do not know, and cannot know what they wish to know, by more audaciously affirming the presumptions of their opinions they shut off for themselves the ways of intelligence, choosing rather not to correct their perverse opinion than to change the one they have defended.

Et hic quidem omnium morbus est trium generum quae proposui: et eorum scilicet qui secundum corpus de deo sapiunt; et eorum qui secundum spiritalem creaturam, sicuti est anima; et eorum qui neque secundum corpus neque secundum spiritalem creaturam, et tamen de deo falsa existimant, eo remotiores a uero quo id quod sapiunt nec in corpore reperitur nec in facto et condito spiritu nec in ipso creatore. Qui enim opinatur deum, uerbi gratia, candidum uel rutilum, fallitur; sed tamen haec inueniuntur in corpore. Rursus qui opinatur deum nunc obliuiscentem, nunc recordantem uel si quid huiusmodi est, nihilominus in errore est; sed tamen haec inueniuntur in animo.

And this indeed is the common disease of the three kinds which I have proposed: namely of those who, according to the body, are wise about God; and of those who, according to the spiritual creature, such as the soul; and of those who neither according to the body nor according to the spiritual creature, and yet think falsely about God, being the more remote from the true in proportion as that which they think is found neither in the body, nor in the made and created spirit, nor in the Creator himself. For he who supposes God, for example, to be white or ruddy, is deceived; yet these qualities are found in the body. Again, he who supposes God now forgetting, now remembering, or anything of this sort, is nonetheless in error; yet these are found in the mind.

Qui autem putant eius esse potentiae deum ut seipsum ipse genuerit, eo plus errant quod non solum deus ita non est sed nec spiritalis nec corporalis creatura. Nulla enim omnino res est quae se ipsam gignat ut sit.

But those who think it within God’s potency that he himself has generated himself err all the more, since not only is God not thus, but neither is a spiritual nor a corporeal creature. For there is absolutely no thing that generates itself in order to be.

[2] Vt ergo ab huiusmodi falsitatibus humanus animus purgaretur, sancta scriptura paruulis congruens nullius generis rerum uerba uitauit ex quibus quasi gradatim ad diuina atque sublimia noster intellectus uelut nutritus assurgeret. Nam et uerbis ex rebus corporalibus sumptis usa est cum de deo loqueretur, uelut cum ait: Sub umbraculo alarum tuarum protege me. Et de spiritali creatura multa transtulit quibus significaret illud quod ita non esset sed ita dici opus esset, sicuti est: Ego sum deus zelans, et: Poenitet me hominem fecisse. De rebus autem quae omnino non sunt non traxit aliqua uocabula quibus uel figuraret locutiones uel sirparet aenigmata.

[2] Therefore, in order that the human mind might be purged from falsities of this sort, Holy Scripture, suiting the little ones, avoided the words of no kind of things, from which, as if step by step, our intellect, as though nourished, might arise to divine and sublime things. For it also used words taken from bodily things when it spoke about God, as when it says: Under the shelter of your wings protect me. And from the spiritual creature it transferred many things by which it would signify that which was not so, yet had need to be so said, as in: I am a jealous God, and: It repents me that I made man. But from things which are not at all it drew no vocables with which it might either figure locutions or strew enigmas.

Vnde perniciosius et inanius euanescunt qui tertio illo genere erroris a ueritate secluduntur hoc suspicando de deo quod neque in ipso neque in ulla creatura inueniri potest. Rebus enim quae in creatura reperiuntur solet scriptura diuina uelut infantilia oblectamenta formare quibus infirmorum ad quaerenda superiora et inferiora deserenda pro suo modulo tamquam passibus moueretur aspectus. Quae uero proprie de deo dicuntur, quae in nulla creatura reperiuntur, raro ponit scriptura diuina, sicut illud quod dictum est ad Moysen: Ego sum qui sum, et: Qui est misit me ad uos.

Whence more perniciously and more vainly do those evanesce who are shut out from the truth by that third kind of error, by suspecting this about God which can be found neither in himself nor in any creature. For from the things which are found in the creature, divine Scripture is wont to fashion, as it were, infantile amusements, by which the gaze of the weak, according to its own measure, might be moved with steps to seek higher things and to abandon lower things. But the things which are said properly of God, which are found in no creature, divine Scripture sets forth rarely, as that which was said to Moses: I am who I am, and: He who is has sent me to you.

Cum enim esse aliquo modo dicatur et corpus et animus, nisi proprio quodam modo uellet intellegi, non id utique diceret. Et illud quod ait apostolus: Qui solus habet immortalitatem. Cum et anima modo quodam immortalis esse dicatur et sit, non diceret, solus habet, nisi quia uera immortalitas incommutabilitas est, quam nulla potest habere creatura quoniam solius creatoris est.

For since both body and soul are said to be in some manner, unless he wished to be understood in a certain proper manner, he would not, assuredly, have said it. And that which the apostle says: Who alone has immortality. Since the soul too is said to be immortal in a certain manner, and is, he would not have said, he alone has, except because true immortality is incommutability, which no creature can have, since it belongs to the Creator alone.

Hoc et Iacobus dicit: Omne datum optimum et omne donum perfectum desursus est descendens a patre luminum, apud quem non est commutatio nec momenti obumbratio. Hoc et Dauid: Mutabis ea et mutabuntur; tu autem idem ipse es.

This also James says: Every best thing given and every perfect gift is from above, descending from the Father of lights, with whom there is no commutation nor overshadowing of a moment. This also David: You will change them, and they will be changed; but you are the very same.

[3] Proinde substantiam dei sine ulla sui commutatione mutabilia facientem, et sine ullo suo temporali motu temporalia creantem, intueri et plene nosse difficile est. Et ideo est necessaria purgatio mentis nostrae qua illud ineffabile ineffabiliter uideri possit; qua nondum praediti fide nutrimur, et per quaedam tolerabiliora ut ad illud capiendum apti et habiles efficiamur itinera ducimur. Vnde apostolus in Christo quidem dicit esse omnes thesauros sapientiae et scientiae absconditos.

[3] Accordingly, the substance of God, making mutable things without any change of himself, and creating temporal things without any temporal motion of his own, is difficult to contemplate and to know fully. And therefore a purgation of our mind is necessary, by which the ineffable may be seen ineffably; not yet endowed with it, we are nourished by faith, and we are led along certain more tolerable roads so that we may be made apt and able to grasp that. Whence the apostle says that in Christ are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.

Eum tamen, quamuis iam gratia eius renatis sed adhuc carnalibus et animalibus, tamquam paruulis in Christo, non ex diuina uirtute in qua aequalis est patri sed ex humana infirmitate et qua crucifixus est, commendauit. Ait namque: neque enim iudicaui me scire aliquid in uobis nisi Iesum Christum et hunc crucifixum. Deinde secutus ait: Et ego in infirmitate et in timore et tremore multo fui apud uos.

Him, however, although already by his grace reborn yet still carnal and animal, as little ones in Christ, he commended—not from the divine virtue in which he is equal to the Father, but from the human infirmity by which he was crucified. For he says: for I judged myself to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and him crucified. Then, following, he said: And I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling.

Et paulo post eis dicit: Et ego, fratres, non potui loqui uobis quasi spiritalibus sed quasi carnalibus. Quasi paruulis in Christo lac uobis potum dedi, non escam; nondum enim poteratis, sed nec adhuc potestis.

And a little after he says to them: And I, brothers, was not able to speak to you as to spiritual, but as to carnal. As to little ones in Christ I gave you milk for drink, not food; for you were not yet able, nor even now are you able.

Hoc cum dicitur quibusdam irascuntur et sibi contumeliose dici putant, et plerumque malunt credere eos potius a quibus haec audiunt non habere quod dicant quam se capere non posse quod dixerint. Et aliquando afferimus eis rationem, non quam petunt cum de deo quaerunt quia nec ipsi eam ualent sumere nec nos fortasse uel apprehendere uel proferre, sed qua demonstretur eis quam sint inhabiles minimeque idonei percipiendo quod exigunt. Sed quia non audiunt quod uolunt, aut callide nos agere putant ut nostram occultemus imperitiam aut malitiose quod eis inuideamus peritiam, atque ita indignantes perturbatique discedunt.

When this is said, some grow angry and think it is being said to them contumeliously, and for the most part they prefer to believe that those from whom they hear these things have nothing to say, rather than that they themselves are unable to grasp what they have said. And sometimes we bring them a rationale—not the one which they request when they inquire about God, because neither are they able to take it up, nor perhaps are we able either to apprehend or to proffer it—but one by which it is demonstrated to them how unfit and by no means idoneous they are for perceiving what they demand. But because they do not hear what they want, they either suppose that we are acting cunningly so that we may occult our imperitia, or maliciously that we begrudge them peritia; and so, indignant and perturbed, they depart.

[II 4] Quapropter adiuuante domino deo nostro suscipiemus et eam ipsam quam flagitant, quantum possumus, reddere rationem, quod trinitas sit unus et solus et uerus deus, et quam recte pater et filius et spiritus sanctus unius eiusdemque substantiae uel essentiae dicatur, credatur, intellegatur; ut non quasi nostris excusationibus inludantur sed reipsa experiantur et esse illud summum bonum quod purgatissimis mentibus cernitur, et a se propterea cerni comprehendique non posse quia mentis humanae acies inualida in tam excellenti luce non figitur nisi per iustitiam fidei nutrita uegetetur. Sed primum secundum auctoritatem scripturarum sanctarum utrum ita se fides habeat demonstrandum est. Deinde si uoluerit et adiuuerit deus, istis garrulis ratiocinatoribus, elatioribus quam capacioribus atque ideo morbo periculosiore laborantibus, sic fortasse seruiemus ut inueniant aliquid unde dubitare non possint, et ob hoc in eo quod inuenire nequiuerint, de suis mentibus potius quam de ipsa ueritate uel de nostris disputationibus conquerantur.

[2 4] Wherefore, with the Lord our God helping, we will undertake also to render, as much as we are able, that very ratio which they demand: that the Trinity is the one and only and true God, and how rightly the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are said, believed, understood to be of one and the same substance or essence; so that they be not, as it were, mocked by our excuses, but may in very fact experience both that there is that Supreme Good which is discerned by most purified minds, and that by themselves it therefore cannot be seen and comprehended, because the keenness of the human mind, weak, is not fixed in so excellent a light unless, nourished by the justice of faith, it is quickened. But first, according to the authority of the holy Scriptures, it must be demonstrated whether faith stands thus. Then, if God shall will and aid, we will perhaps serve these garrulous reasoners, more elated than receptive and therefore laboring with a more dangerous disease, in such a way that they may find something about which they cannot doubt, and on this account, in that which they have been unable to find, let them complain rather of their own minds than of Truth itself or of our disputations.

Atque ita si quid eis erga deum uel amoris est uel timoris, ad initium fidei et ordinem redeant, iam sentientes quam salubriter in sancta ecclesia medicina fidelium constituta sit ut ad perceptionem incommutabilis ueritatis inbecillam mentem obseruata pietas sanet ne in opinionem noxiae falsitatis temeritas inordinata praecipitet. Nec pigebit autem me, sicubi haesito, quaerere; nec pudebit, sicubi erro, discere.

And thus, if they have anything either of love or of fear toward God, let them return to the beginning and the order of faith, already sensing how healthfully in the holy Church the medicine of the faithful has been established, so that, for the perception of immutable truth, an observed piety may heal the feeble mind, lest disordered rashness headlong precipitate into an opinion of noxious falsity. Nor will it irk me, wherever I hesitate, to seek; nor will it shame me, wherever I err, to learn.

[III 5] Proinde quisquis haec legit ubi pariter certus est, pergat mecum; ubi pariter haesitat, quaerat mecum; ubi errorem suum cognoscit, redeat ad me; ubi meum, reuocet me. Ita ingrediamur simul caritatis uiam tendentes ad eum de quo dictum est: Quaerite faciem eius semper. Et hoc placitum pium atque tutum coram domino deo nostro cum omnibus inierim qui ea quae scribo legunt et in omnibus scriptis meis maximeque in his ubi quaeritur unitas trinitatis, patris et filii et spiritus sancti, quia neque periculosius alicubi erratur, nec laboriosius aliquid quaeritur, nec fructuosius aliquid inuenitur. Quisquis ergo cum legit dicit: 'Non bene hoc dictum est quoniam non intellego,' locutionem meam reprehendit, non fidem; et forte uere potuit dici planius.

[3 5] Accordingly, whoever reads these things: where he is equally certain, let him go on with me; where he equally hesitates, let him seek with me; where he recognizes his own error, let him return to me; where he recognizes mine, let him call me back. Thus let us enter together the way of charity, stretching toward him of whom it is said: Seek his face always. And let me enter into this pious and safe compact before the Lord our God with all who read the things that I write, and in all my writings, and most especially in these where the unity of the trinity, of the father and the son and the holy spirit, is being sought, because nowhere is it more perilously erred, nor is anything sought more laboriously, nor is anything found more fruitful. Whoever therefore, when he reads, says, 'This has not been well said, since I do not understand,' criticizes my locution, not the faith; and perhaps truly it could have been said more plainly.

Verumtamen nullus hominum ita locutus est ut in omnibus ab omnibus intellegeretur. Videat ergo cui hoc in sermone meo displicet utrum alios in talibus rebus quaestionibusque uersatos cum intellegat, me non intellegit; et si ita est ponat librum meum uel etiam, si hoc uidetur, abiciat, et eis potius quos intellegit operam et tempus impendat. Non tamen propterea putet me tacere debuisse quia non tam expedite ac dilucide quam illi quos intellegit eloqui potui.

Nevertheless, no man has spoken in such a way as to be understood in all things by all. Let him, therefore, to whom this in my discourse displeases, consider whether, while he understands others versed in such matters and questions, he does not understand me; and if it is so, let him lay aside my book, or even, if this seems good, discard it, and rather expend effort and time on those whom he understands. Let him not, however, for that reason think that I ought to have been silent because I was not able to speak forth so expeditiously and lucidly as those whom he understands.

Neque enim omnia quae ab omnibus conscribuntur in omnium manus ueniunt, et fieri potest ut nonnulli qui etiam haec nostra intellegere ualent illos planiores non inueniant libros et in istos saltem incidant. Ideoque utile est plures a pluribus fieri diuerso stilo, non diuersa fide, etiam de quaestionibus eisdem ut ad plurimos res ipsa perueniat, ad alios sic, ad alios autem sic. At si ille qui se ista non intellexisse conqueritur nulla umquam de talibus rebus diligenter et acute disputate intellegere potui, secum agat uotis et studiis ut proficiat, non mecum querelis et conuiciis ut taceam.

For not all the things that are conscribed by all come into the hands of all, and it can happen that some who are even able to understand these of ours do not find those more plain books and at least fall upon these. And so it is useful that more works be made by more people with diverse style, not diverse faith, even on the same questions, so that the thing itself may come through to very many—thus to some, but thus to others. But if that man who complains that he has not understood these things says, “I have never been able to understand any discussions about such matters conducted diligently and acutely,” let him deal with himself by vows and studies so that he may make progress, not with me by complaints and revilings so that I should be silent.

Qui uero haec legens dicit: 'Intellego quidem quid dictum sit, sed non uere dictum est,' asserat, ut placet, sententiam suam et redarguat meam si potest. Quod si cum caritate et ueritate fecerit, mihique etiam (si in hac uita maneo) cognoscendum facere curauerit, uberrimum fructum laboris huius mei cepero. Quod si mihi non potuerit, quibus id potuerit me uolente ac libente praestiterit.

Who indeed, reading these things, says: 'I do understand what has been said, but it has not been said truly,' let him assert, as it pleases him, his own sententia and refute mine if he can. But if he shall have done this with charity and truth, and shall also have taken care to make it known to me (if I remain in this life), I shall have received the most abundant fruit of this my labor. But if he shall not have been able to do so for me, let him have rendered it to those for whom he has been able, I being willing and gladly consenting.

Ego tamen in lege domini meditabor, si non die ac nocte, saltem quibus temporum particulis possum, et meditationes meas ne obliuione fugiant stilo alligo sperans de misericordia dei quod in omnibus ueris quae certa mihi sunt perseuerantem me faciet; si quid autem aliter sapio, id quoque mihi ipse reuelabit siue per occultas inspirationes atque admonitiones siue per manifesta eloquia sua siue per fraternas sermocinationes. Hoc oro et hoc depositum desideriumque meum penes ipsum habeo, qui mihi satis idoneus est et custodire quae dedit et reddere quae promisit.

I, however, will meditate in the law of the Lord, if not by day and by night, at least in such particles of time as I can, and I bind my meditations with a stylus lest they flee by oblivion, hoping from the mercy of God that in all the truths which are certain to me he will make me persevering; but if I in any way think otherwise, he himself will also reveal that to me, whether through occult inspirations and admonitions or through his manifest utterances or through fraternal conversations. This I pray, and this deposit and my desire I hold with himself, who is to me sufficiently suitable both to guard what he has given and to render what he has promised.

[6] Arbitror sane nonnullos tardiores in quibusdam locis librorum meorum opinaturos me sensisse quod non sensi aut non sensisse quod sensi. Quorum errorem mihi tribui non debere quis nesciat, si uelut me sequentes neque apprehendentes deuiauerint in aliquam falsitatem dum per quaedam densa et opaca cogor uiam carpere, quandoquidem nec ipsis sanctis diuinorum librorum auctoritatibus ullo modo quisquam recte tribuerit tam multos et uarios errores haereticorum, cum omnes ex eisdem scripturis falsas atque fallaces opiniones suas conentur defendere? Admonet me plane ac mihi iubet suauissimo imperio lex Christi, hoc est caritas, ut cum aliquid falsi in libris meis me sensisse homines putant quod ego non sensi atque idipsum falsum alteri displicet, alteri placet, malim me reprehendi a reprehensore falsitatis quam ab eius laudatore laudari.

[6] I judge indeed that some slower persons, in certain passages of my books, will opine that I sensed what I did not sense, or that I did not sense what I did sense. Who does not know that their error ought not to be attributed to me, if, as it were, following me yet not apprehending me, they have deviated into some falsity while I am compelled to pick my way through certain dense and opaque matters, since not even to the very holy authorities of the divine books could anyone rightly attribute the so many and various errors of the heretics, when all try to defend their false and fallacious opinions from those same scriptures? Clearly the law of Christ, that is, charity, admonishes me and commands me with a most sweet authority, that when men think I have sensed some falsehood in my books which I did not sense, and that very same falsehood displeases one person and pleases another, I would rather be reproved by the reprover of falsehood than be praised by its praiser.

Ab illo enim, quamuis ego non recte qui hoc non senserim, error tamen ipse recte uituperatur; ab hoc autem nec ego recte laudor a quo existimor id sensisse quod uituperat ueritas, nec ipsa sententia quam uituperat ueritas. Ergo in nomine domini susceptum opus aggrediamur.

By the former, indeed—although I am not in the right, I who did not sense this—yet the error itself is rightly vituperated; but by the latter, neither am I rightly praised by him by whom I am supposed to have sensed that which truth vituperates, nor is the very opinion which truth vituperates. Therefore, in the name of the Lord, let us undertake the work that has been taken up.

[IV 7] Omnes quos legere potui qui ante me scripserunt de trinitate quae deus est, diuinorum librorum ueterum et nouorum catholici tractatores, hoc intenderunt secundum scripturas docere, quod pater et filius et spiritus sanctus unius substantiae inseparabili aequalitate diuinam insinuent unitatem, ideoque non sint tres dii sed unus deus — quamuis pater filium genuerit, et ideo filius non sit qui pater est; filiusque a patre sit genitus, et ideo pater non sit qui filius est; spiritusque sanctus nec pater sit nec filius, sed tantum patris et filii spiritus, patri et filio etiam ipse coaequalis et ad trinitatis pertinens unitatem. Non tamen eandem trinitatem natam de uirgine Maria et sub Pontio Pilato crucifixam et sepultam tertio die resurrexisse et in caelum ascendisse, sed tantummodo filium. Nec eandem trinitatem descendisse in specie columbae super Iesum baptizatum aut die pentecostes post ascensionem domini sonitu facto de caelo quasi ferretur flatus uehemens et linguis diuisis uelut ignis, sed tantummodo spiritum sanctum.

[4 7] All those whom I was able to read who before me wrote about the Trinity which is God, Catholic expositors of the divine books both Old and New, aimed to teach according to the Scriptures that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, of one substance by inseparable equality, intimate the divine unity, and therefore are not three gods but one God — although the Father has begotten the Son, and therefore the Son is not he who the Father is; and the Son is begotten of the Father, and therefore the Father is not he who the Son is; and the Holy Spirit is neither Father nor Son, but only the Spirit of the Father and of the Son, he himself also coequal with the Father and the Son and pertaining to the unity of the Trinity. Yet not that the same Trinity was born of the Virgin Mary and under Pontius Pilate was crucified and buried, rose on the third day, and ascended into heaven, but only the Son. Nor that the same Trinity descended in the appearance of a dove upon Jesus being baptized, or on the day of Pentecost after the ascension of the Lord when a sound was made from heaven as if a violent blast were being borne and with tongues divided as it were of fire, but only the Holy Spirit.

Nec eandem trinitatem dixisse de caelo: Tu es filius meus, siue cum baptizatus est a Iohanne siue in monte quando cum illo erant tres discipuli, aut quando sonuit uox dicens: Et clarificaui et iterum clarificabo, sed tantummodo patris uocem fuisse ad filium factam — quamuis pater et filius et spiritus sanctus sicut inseparabiles sunt, ita inseparabiliter operentur.

Nor did the same Trinity say from heaven, “You are my Son,” whether when he was baptized by John or on the mountain when three disciples were with him, or when a voice sounded saying, “I have glorified [it], and I will glorify it again,” but that it was only the Father’s voice addressed to the Son — although the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, just as they are inseparable, so they operate inseparably.

Haec et mea fides est quando haec est catholica fides.

This too is my faith, since this is the catholic faith.

[V 8] Sed in ea nonnulli perturbantur cum audiunt deum patrem et deum filium et deum spiritum sanctum, et tamen hanc trinitatem non tres deos sed unum deum; et quemadmodum id intellegant quaerunt, praesertim cum dicitur inseparabiliter operari trinitatem in omni re quam deus operatur, et tamen quandam uocem patris sonuisse, quae uox filii non sit; in carne autem natum et passum et resurrexisse et ascendisse non nisi filium; in columbae autem specie uenisse non nisi spiritum sanctum. Intellegere uolunt quomodo et illam uocem quae non nisi patris fuit trinitas fecerit, et illam carnem in qua non nisi filius de uirgine natus est eadem trinitas creauerit, et illam columbae speciem in qua non nisi spiritus sanctus apparuit illa ipsa trinitas operata sit. Alioquin non inseparabiliter trinitas operatur, sed alia pater facit, alia filius, alia spiritus sanctus; aut si quaedam simul faciunt, quaedam sine inuicem, iam non inseparabilis trinitas.

[5 8] But in this some are disturbed when they hear God the Father and God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, and yet that this Trinity is not three gods but one God; and they ask how they are to understand this, especially when it is said that the Trinity operates inseparably in every work that God operates, and yet that a certain voice of the Father sounded, which voice is not the Son; but in the flesh to have been born and to have suffered and to have risen again and to have ascended, none but the Son; and in the form of a dove to have come, none but the Holy Spirit. They want to understand how both that voice, which was none but the Father's, the Trinity made; and how that flesh in which none but the Son was born of the Virgin the same Trinity created; and how that appearance of the dove in which none but the Holy Spirit appeared that very Trinity wrought. Otherwise the Trinity does not operate inseparably, but the Father does certain things, the Son other things, the Holy Spirit other things; or if certain things they do together, certain things without one another, then no longer an inseparable Trinity.

Mouet etiam quomodo spiritus sanctus in trinitate sit, quem nec pater nec filius nec ambo genuerint, cum sit spiritus patris et filii. Quia ergo quaerunt ista homines, et taedio nobis sunt ut si quid hinc ex dono dei sapit infirmitas nostra, edisseramus eis ut possumus, neque cum inuidia tabescente iter habeamus.

It also moves them how the Holy Spirit may be in the Trinity, whom neither the Father nor the Son nor both have begotten, since he is the Spirit of the Father and of the Son. Therefore, since men inquire into these things and are a tedium to us, let us, if our weakness savors anything here from the gift of God, expound to them as we can, and let us not pursue our course with envy wasting away.

Si dicimus nos nihil de talibus rebus cogitare solere, mentimur; si autem fatemur habitare ista in cogitationibus nostris quoniam rapimur amore indagandae ueritatis, flagitant iure caritatis ut eis indicemus quid hinc excogitare potuerimus. Non quia iam acceperim aut iam perfectus sim (nam si Paulus apostolus, quanto magis ego longe infra illius pedes iacens, non me arbitror apprehendisse?), sed pro modulo meo si ea quae retro sunt obliuiscor et in anteriora me extendo et secundum intentionem sequor ad palmam supernae uocationis, quantum eiusdem uiae peregerim et quo peruenerim unde mihi in fine reliquus cursus est ut aperiam desideratur a me illis desiderantibus quibus me seruire cogit libera caritas. Oportet autem et donabit deus ut eis ministrando quae legant ipse quoque proficiam, et eis cupiens respondere quaerentibus ipse quoque inueniam quod quaerebam.

If we say that we are accustomed to think nothing about such matters, we lie; but if we confess that these things inhabit our cogitations, since we are carried off by love of tracking out the truth, they, by the right of charity, demand that we indicate to them what we have been able to excogitate hereupon. Not because I have already received or am already perfect (for if Paul the apostle—how much more I, lying far beneath his feet—do not reckon that I have apprehended?), but according to my measure, if I forget the things that are behind and stretch myself out to the things before, and according to the intention I follow toward the prize of the supernal vocation, how far along the same way I have gone and to what point I have come, from where there remains to me at the end a course still left—that I should lay open is desired of me by those who desire, whom free charity compels me to serve. Moreover, it is fitting—and God will grant—that by ministering to them things to read I too may profit, and that, desiring to respond to those who are inquiring, I too may find what I was seeking.

Ergo suscepi haec iubente atque adiuuante domino deo nostro non tam cognita cum auctoritate disserere quam ea cum pietate disserendo cognoscere.

Therefore I have undertaken these things, at the bidding and with the aiding of our Lord God, not so much to discourse upon things known with authority as to come to know them by discoursing with piety.

[VI 9] Qui dixerunt dominum nostrum Iesum Christum non esse deum, aut non esse uerum deum, aut non cum patre unum et solum deum, aut non uere immortalem quia mutabilem, manifestissima diuinorum testimoniorum et consona uoce conuicti sunt. Vnde sunt illa: In principio erat uerbum, et uerbum erat apud deum, et deus erat uerbum. Manifestum enim quod uerbum dei filium dei unicum accipimus, de quo post dicit: Et uerbum caro factum est, propter natiuitatem incarnationis eius quae facta est in tempore ex uirgine.

[6 9] Those who have said that our Lord Jesus Christ is not God, or not true God, or not with the Father the one and sole God, or not truly immortal because changeable, have been convicted by the most manifest divine testimonies and a consonant voice. Whence are these: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” For it is manifest that we receive the Word of God as the only Son of God, of whom afterward he says: “And the Word became flesh,” on account of the nativity of his incarnation which took place in time from a virgin.

In eo autem declarat non tantum deum esse sed etiam eiusdem cum patre substantiae quia cum dixisset: Et deus erat uerbum, Hoc erat, inquit, in principio apud deum; omnia per ipsum facta sunt, et sine ipso factum est nihil. Neque enim dicit omnia 'nisi quae facta sunt,' id est omnem creaturam. Vnde liquido apparet ipsum factum non esse per quem facta sunt omnia.

In this, moreover, he declares not only that he is God but also of the same substance with the Father, because, when he had said: “And the Word was God,” he adds, “This was in the beginning with God; all things were made through him, and without him was made nothing.” For he does not say “all things, except the things that were made,” that is, the whole creature. Whence it clearly appears that he by whom all things were made was not himself made.

Et si factus non est, creatura non est; si autem creatura non est, eiusdem cum patre substantiae est. Omnis enim substantia quae deus non est creatura est, et quae creatura non est deus est. Et si non est filius eiusdem substantiae cuius pater, ergo facta substantia est; si facta substantia est, non omnia per ipsum facta sunt; at si omnia per ipsum facta sunt, unius igitur eiusdemque cum patre substantiae est.

And if he was not made, he is not a creature; but if he is not a creature, he is of the same substance with the Father. For every substance which is not God is a creature, and that which is not a creature is God. And if the Son is not of the same substance as the Father, then he is a made substance; if he is a made substance, not all things were made through him; but if all things were made through him, therefore he is of one and the same substance with the Father.

Et ideo non tantum deus sed et uerus deus. Quod idem Iohannes apertissime in epistula sua dicit: Scimus quod filius dei uenerit et dederit nobis intellectum ut cognoscamus uerum et simus in uero, filio eius Iesu Christo. Hic est uerus deus et uita aeterna.

And therefore not only God but also true God. Which the same John says most openly in his epistle: “We know that the Son of God has come and has given us intellect, that we may know the True One and may be in the True One, his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.”

[10] Hinc etiam consequenter intellegitur non tantummodo de patre dixisse apostolus Paulum: Qui solus habet immortalitatem, sed de uno et solo deo, quod est ipsa trinitas. Neque enim ipsa uita aeterna mortalis est secundum aliquam mutabilitatem; ac per hoc filius dei, quia uita aeterna est, cum patre etiam ipse intellegitur ubi dictum est: Solus habet immortalitatem. Eius enim uitae aeternae et nos participes facti pro modulo nostro immortales efficimur.

[10] Hence also consequently it is understood that the apostle Paul said not only of the Father, “who alone has immortality,” but of the one and sole God, which is the Trinity itself. For eternal life itself is not mortal according to any mutability; and through this the Son of God, because he is eternal life, is understood along with the Father where it is said: “He alone has immortality.” For of that eternal life we also, having been made participants, according to our measure are rendered immortal.

Sed aliud est ipsa cuius participes efficimur uita aeterna, aliud nos qui eius participatione uiuemus in aeternum. Si enim dixisset: 'Quem temporibus propriis ostendit pater beatus et solus potens, rex regum et dominus dominantium, qui solus habet immortalitatem,' nec sic inde separatum filium oporteret intellegi. Neque enim quia ipse filius alibi loquens uoce sapientiae (ipse est enim sapientia dei) ait: Gyrum caeli circuiui sola, separauit a se patrem.

But the eternal life itself, of which we are made participants, is one thing; we, who by participation in it will live forever, are another. For if he had said: 'Whom in his own proper times the blessed and only potent Father, King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone has immortality, showed,' not even thus ought the Son to be understood as separated therefrom. Nor indeed, because the Son himself elsewhere, speaking with the voice of Wisdom (for he himself is the Wisdom of God), says: 'I alone circled the circuit of the heaven,' did he separate the Father from himself.

Quanto magis ergo non est necesse ut tantummodo de patre praeter filium intellegatur quod dictum est: Qui solus habet immortalitatem, cum ita dictum sit: Vt serues, inquit, mandatum sine macula, inreprehensibile, usque in aduentum domini nostri Iesu Christi, quem temporibus proprii ostendit beatus et solus potens, rex regum et dominus dominantium, qui solus habet immortalitatem et lucem habitat inaccessibilem; quem nemo hominum uidit nec uidere potest; cui est honor et gloria in saecula saeculorum. In quibus uerbis nec pater proprie nominatus est nec filius nec spiritus sanctus, sed beatus et solus potens, rex regum et dominus dominantium, quod est unus et solus et uerus deus, ipsa trinitas.

How much more therefore is it not necessary that what was said, “Who alone has immortality,” be understood only of the Father apart from the Son, since it was said thus: “That you keep, he says, the commandment without spot, irreprehensible, until the advent of our Lord Jesus Christ, which in its own proper times the blessed and only Potentate, King of kings and Lord of lords, will show, who alone has immortality and dwells in inaccessible light; whom no human has seen nor can see; to whom is honor and glory unto the ages of ages.” In which words neither the Father is expressly named nor the Son nor the Holy Spirit, but “the blessed and only Potentate, King of kings and Lord of lords,” which is the one and only and true God, the Trinity itself.

[11] Nisi forte quae sequuntur perturbabunt hunc intellectum, quia dixit: Quem nemo hominum uidit nec uidere potest, cum hoc etiam ad Christum pertinere secundum eius diuinitatem accipiatur quam non uiderunt iudaei, qui tamen carnem uiderunt et crucifixerunt. Videri autem diuinitas humano uisu nullo modo potest, sed eo uisu uidetur quo iam qui uident non homines sed ultra homines sunt. Recte ergo ipse deus trinitas intellegitur beatus et solus potens ostendens aduentum domini nostri Iesu Christi temporibus propriis.

[11] Unless perhaps the things that follow will perturb this understanding, because he said: “Whom no human beings have seen nor can see,” since this also is taken to pertain to Christ according to his divinity, which the Jews did not see, who nevertheless saw the flesh and crucified it. But the divinity can in no way be seen by human vision, but is seen by that vision by which those who see are now not men but beyond men. Rightly, therefore, God himself, the Trinity, is understood as blessed and alone potent, showing the advent of our Lord Jesus Christ in his proper times.

Sic enim dictum est: Solus habet immortalitatem, quomodo dictum est: Qui facit mirabilia solus. Quod uelim scire de quo dictum accipiant. Si de patre tantum, quomodo ergo uerum est quod ipse filius dicit: Quaecumque enim pater facit, haec eadem et filius facit similiter?

For thus it is said: He alone has immortality, just as it is said: Who alone works marvels. I would like to know of whom they accept this as said. If of the Father only, how then is it true what the Son himself says: For whatever the Father does, these same things the Son likewise does?

In quidquam est inter mirabilia mirabilius quam resuscitare et uiuificare mortuos? Dicit autem idem filius: Sicut pater suscitat mortuos et uiuificat, sic et filius quos uult uiuificat. Quomodo ergo solus pater facit mirabilia, cum haec uerba nec patrem tantum nec filium tantum permittant intellegi, sed utique deum unum uerum solum, id est patrem et filium et spiritum sanctum?

Is there anything among marvels more marvelous than to resuscitate and vivify the dead? Moreover, the same Son says: Just as the Father resuscitates the dead and vivifies, so also the Son vivifies whom he wills. How, then, does the Father alone do wonders, when these words permit to be understood neither the Father only nor the Son only, but assuredly the one true God alone, that is, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit?

[12] Item dicit idem apostolus: Nobis unus deus pater ex quo omnia, et nos in ipso; et unus dominus Iesus Christus per quem omnia, et nos per ipsum. Quis dubitet eum omnia 'quae creata sunt' dicere, sicut Iohannes: Omnia per ipsum facta sunt? Quaero itaque de quo dicit alio loco: Quoniam ex ipso et per ipsum et in ipso sunt omnia; ipsi gloria in saecula saeculorum.

[12] Likewise the same apostle says: For us 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. Who would doubt that by “all things” he says “the things which were created,” as John: All things were made through him? I therefore inquire of whom he says in another place: For from him and through him and in him are all things; to him be glory unto the ages of ages.

Si enim de patre et filio et spiritu sancto ut singulis personis singula tribuantur, ex ipso, ex patre; per ipsum, per filium; in ipso, in spiritu sancto; manifestum quod pater et filius et spiritus sanctus unus deus est quando singulariter intulit: Ipsi gloria in saecula saeculorum. Vnde enim coepit hunc sensum; non ait: O altitudo diuitiarum 'sapientiae et scientiae patris aut filii aut spiritus sancti,' sed sapientiae et scientiae dei! Quam inscrutabilia sunt iudicia eius et inuestigabiles uiae eius!

If indeed, concerning the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, so that to the single persons single things be assigned—“of him,” of the Father; “through him,” through the Son; “in him,” in the Holy Spirit—it is manifest that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit is one God, since he added in the singular: “To him be glory unto the ages of ages.” For whence did he begin this sense? He does not say: “O depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of the Father or of the Son or of the Holy Spirit,” but of God! How inscrutable are his judgments and untraceable his ways!

Quis enim cognouit sensum domini? Aut quis consiliarius eius fuit? Aut quis prior dedit, et retribuetur ei? Quoniam ex ipso et per ipsum et in ipso sunt omnia; ipsi gloria in saecula saeculorum.

For who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor? Or who gave first, and will it be repaid to him? For from him and through him and in him are all things; to him be glory unto the ages of ages.

Amen. Si autem hoc de patre tantummodo intellegi uolunt, quomodo ergo omnia per patrem sunt sicut hic dicitur, et omnia per filium sicut ad corinthios ubi ait: Et unus dominus Iesus Christus per quem omnia, et sicut in euangelio Iohannis: Omnia per ipsum facta sunt? Si enim alia per patrem, alia per filium, iam non omnia per patrem nec omnia per filium.

Amen. But if they wish this to be understood of the Father only, how then are all things through the Father as is said here, and all things through the Son as in the letter to the Corinthians where he says: And one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and as in the Gospel of John: All things were made through him? For if some things are through the Father, others through the Son, then already not all things are through the Father nor all things through the Son.

Si autem omnia per patrem et omnia per filium, eadem per patre quae per filium. Aequalis ergo est patri filius, et inseparabilis operatio est patris et filii. Quia si uel filium fecit pater quem non fecit ipse filius, non omnia per filium facta sunt.

But if all things are through the Father and all things through the Son, the same things are through the Father as through the Son. Therefore the Son is equal to the Father, and the operation of the Father and the Son is inseparable. For if even the Father made the Son whom the Son himself did not make, not all things were made through the Son.

At omnia per filium facta sunt. Ipse igitur factus non est ut cum patre faceret omnia quae facta sunt. Quamquam nec ab ipso uerbo tacuerit apostolus et apertissime omnino dixerit: Qui cum in forma dei esset, non rapinam arbitratus est esse aequalis deo, hic deum proprie patrem appellans, sicut alibi: Caput autem Christi deus.

But all things were made through the Son. He himself therefore was not made, so that with the Father he might make all things that were made. Although the Apostle has not been silent even about the very Word and has said most plainly: “Who, though he was in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal to God,” here calling God properly “Father,” as elsewhere: “But the head of Christ is God.”

[13] Similiter et de spiritu sancto collecta sunt testimonia quibus ante nos qui haec disputauerunt abundantius usi sunt, quia et ipse deus et non creatura. Quod si non creatura, non tantum deus (nam et homines dicti sunt dii), sed etiam uerus deus. Ergo patri et filio prorsus aequalis et in trinitatis unitate consubstantialis et coaeternus.

[13] Similarly also about the Holy Spirit testimonies have been collected, which those who disputed these things before us used more abundantly, since he too is God and not a creature. But if not a creature, not only a “god” (for even men are called gods), but also true God. Therefore altogether equal to the Father and the Son, and in the unity of the Trinity consubstantial and coeternal.

Maxime uero illo loco satis claret quod spiritus sanctus non sit creatura ubi iubemur non seruire creaturae sed creatori, non eo modo quo iubemur per caritatem seruire inuicem, quod est graece *douleuein, sed eo modo quo tantum deo seruitur, quod est graece *latreuein. Vnde idolatrae dicuntur qui simulacris eam seruitutem exhibent quae debetur deo. Secundum hanc enim seruitutem dictum est: Dominum deum tuum adorabis et illi soli seruies.

Most especially indeed in that place it is clear enough that the Holy Spirit is not a creature, where we are commanded not to serve the creature but the Creator; not in the manner in which we are commanded to serve one another through charity, which is Greek *douleuein, but in the manner in which only God is served, which is Greek *latreuein. Whence idolaters are so called who render to images that servitude which is owed to God. According to this servitude, indeed, it has been said: You shall worship the Lord your God, and him alone shall you serve.

Nam hoc distinctius in graeca scriptura inuenitur, *latreuseis enim habet. Porro si tali seruitute creaturae seruire prohibemur quandoquidem dictum est: Dominum deum tuum adorabis et illi soli seruies — unde et apostolus detestatur eos qui coluerunt et seruierunt creaturae quam creatori —, non est utique creatura spiritus sanctus cui ab omnibus sanctis talis seruitus exhibetur dicente apostolo: Nos enim sumus circumcisio, spiritui dei seruientes, quod est in graeco *latreuontes. Plures enim codices etiam latini sic habent, qui spiritui dei seruimus; graeci autem omnes aut paene omnes.

For this is found more distinctly in the Greek Scripture, for it has *latreuseis. Furthermore, if by such servitude we are forbidden to serve the creature, since it was said: You shall adore the Lord your God, and him alone shall you serve — whence also the Apostle detests those who worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator —, the Holy Spirit is assuredly not a creature, to whom by all the saints such service is rendered, the Apostle saying: For we are the circumcision, serving the Spirit of God, which in Greek is *latreuontes. For many Latin codices also have it thus, “who serve the Spirit of God”; but the Greek [codices] all or almost all.

In nonnullis autem exemplaribus latinis inuenimus non spiritui dei seruimus, sed spiritu deo seruimus.

But in some Latin exemplars we find not “we serve the Spirit of God,” but “we serve God in spirit.”

Sed qui in hoc errant et auctoritati grauiori cedere detractant, numquid et illud uarium in codicibus reperiunt: Nescitis quia corpora uestra templum in uobis est spiritus sancti quem habetis a deo? Quid autem insanius magisque sacrilegum est quam ut quisquam dicere audeat membra Christi templum esse creaturae minoris secundum ipsos quam Christus est? Alio enim loco dicit: Corpora uestra membra sunt Christi.

But those who err in this and refuse to yield to the weightier authority, do they also find this to be variable in the codices: Do you not know that your bodies are a temple within you of the Holy Spirit whom you have from God? And what is more insane and more sacrilegious than that anyone should dare to say that the members of Christ are a temple of a lesser creature, according to them, than Christ is? For in another place he says: Your bodies are members of Christ.

Si autem quae membra sunt Christi templum est spiritus sancti, non est creatura spiritus sanctus, quia cui corpus nostrum templum exhibemus necesse est ut huic eam seruitutem debeamus qua non nisi deo seruiendum est, quae graece appellatur *latreia. Vnde consequenter dicit: Glorificate ergo deum in corpore uestro.

But if what are the members of Christ is the temple of the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit is not a creature, because to the one to whom we present our body as a temple, it is necessary that we owe to him that servitude which is to be rendered to none save God, which in Greek is called *latreia. Whence, consequently, he says: Glorify therefore God in your body.

[VII 14] His et talibus diuinarum scripturarum testimoniis quibus, ut dixi, priores copiosius usi expugnauerunt haereticorum tales calumnias uel errores, insinuatur fidei nostrae unitas et aequalitas trinitatis. Sed quia multa in sanctis libris propter incarnationem uerbi dei, quae pro salute nostra reparanda facta est ut mediator dei et hominum esset homo Christus Iesus, ita dicuntur ut maiorem filio patrem significent uel etiam apertissime ostendant, errauerunt homines minus diligenter scrutantes uel intuentes uniuersam seriem scripturarum, et ea quae de Christo Iesu secundum hominem dicta sunt ad eius substantiam quae ante incarnationem sempiterna erat et sempiterna est transferre conati sunt. Et illi quidem dicunt minorem filium esse quam pater est quia scriptum est ipso domino dicente: Pater maior me est.

[7 14] By these and such testimonies of the divine Scriptures, with which, as I said, the predecessors more copiously made use to rout such calumnies or errors of the heretics, there is intimated the unity of our faith and the equality of the Trinity. But because many things in the holy books, on account of the Incarnation of the Word of God—which was wrought to be restored for our salvation, so that the man Christ Jesus might be the mediator of God and men—are so spoken as to signify the Father as greater than the Son, or even to show it most openly, men who less diligently scrutinize or consider the whole series of the Scriptures have erred, and have tried to transfer the things that are said of Christ Jesus according to the man to his substance which before the Incarnation was sempiternal and is sempiternal. And indeed they say that the Son is lesser than the Father, because it is written, with the Lord himself saying: “The Father is greater than I am.”

Veritas autem ostendit secundum istum modum etiam se ipso minorem filium. Quomodo enim non etiam se ipso minor factus est qui semetipsum exianiuit formam serui accipiens? Neque enim sic accepit formam serui ut amitteret formam dei in qua erat aequalis patri.

But Truth shows that, according to this mode, the Son is also less than himself. For how was he not also made less than himself, who emptied himself, taking the form of a servant? For he did not so take the form of a servant as to lose the form of God, in which he was equal to the Father.

Si ergo ita accepta est forma serui ut non amitteretur forma dei, cum et in forma serui et in forma dei idem ipse sit filius unigenitus dei patri, in forma dei aequalis patri, in forma serui mediator dei et hominum homo Christus Iesus, quis non intellegat quod in forma dei etiam ipse se ipso maior est, in forma autem serui etiam se ipso minor est? Non itaque immerito scriptura utrumque dicit, et aequalem patri filium, et patrem maiorem filio. Illud enim propter formam dei, hoc autem propter formam serui sine ulla confusione intellegitur.

If therefore the form of a servant was so received that the form of God was not lost, since both in the form of a servant and in the form of God the very same is the Only-begotten Son of God the Father, in the form of God equal to the Father, in the form of a servant the mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who would not understand that in the form of God he is even greater than himself, but in the form of a servant he is even less than himself? Not therefore without cause does Scripture say both: both that the Son is equal to the Father, and that the Father is greater than the Son. The one, indeed, is understood on account of the form of God; the other, however, on account of the form of a servant, without any confusion.

Et haec nobis regula per omnes sanctas scripturas dissoluendae huius quaestionis ex uno capite epistulae Pauli apostoli promitur ubi manifestius ista distinctio commendatur. Ait enim: Qui cum in forma dei esset, non rapinam arbitratus est esse aequalis deo, sed semetipsum exinaniuit formam serui accipiens, in similitudine hominum factus et habitu inuentus ut homo. Est ergo dei filius deo patri natura aequalis, habitu minor.

And this rule for us for dissolving this question through all the holy scriptures is brought forth from one chapter of the epistle of the Apostle Paul, where this distinction is more manifestly commended. For he says: Who, although he was in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal to God, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, made in the similitude of men and in habit found as a man. Therefore the Son of God is by nature equal to God the Father, by habit lesser.

In forma enim serui quam accepit minor est patre; in forma autem dei in qua erat etiam antequam hanc accepisset aequalis est patri. In forma dei uerbum per quod facta sunt omnia; in forma autem serui factus ex muliere, factus sub lege ut eos qui sub lege erant redimeret. Proinde in forma dei fecit hominem; in forma serui factus est homo.

For in the form of a servant, which he received, he is lesser than the Father; but in the form of God, in which he was even before he had received this, he is equal to the Father. In the form of God, the Word through which all things were made; but in the form of a servant, made of a woman, made under the Law that he might redeem those who were under the Law. Accordingly, in the form of God he made man; in the form of a servant he was made man.

Nam si pater tantum sine filio fecisset hominem, non scriptum esset: Faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram. Ergo quia forma dei accepit formam serui, utrumque deus et utrumque homo; sed utrumque deus propter accipientem deum, utrumque autem homo propter acceptum hominem. Neque enim illa susceptione alterum eorum in alterum conuersum atque mutatum est; nec diuinitas quippe in creaturam mutata est ut desisteret esse diuinitas, nec creatura in diuinitatem ut desisteret esse creatura.

For if the Father alone without the Son had made man, it would not have been written: Let us make man to our image and likeness. Therefore because the form of God accepted the form of a servant, both are God and both are man; but both are God on account of the accepting God, and both, however, man on account of the man accepted. For by that assumption neither of the two was converted into the other and changed; neither, indeed, was the divinity changed into a creature so that it should cease to be divinity, nor the creature into divinity so that it should cease to be a creature.

[VIII 15] Illud autem quod ait idem apostolus: Cum autem ei omnia subiecta fuerint, tunc et ipse filius subiectus erit ei qui illi subiecit omnia, aut ideo dictum est ne quisquam putaret habitum Christi, qui ex humana creatura susceptus est, conuersum iri postea in ipsam diuinitatem uel, ut certius expresserim, deitatem, quae non est creatura sed est unitas trinitatis incorporea et incommutabilis, et sibimet consubstantialis et coaeterna natura. Aut si quisquam contendit, ut aliqui senserunt, ita dictum: Et ipse filius subiectus erit ei qui illi subiecit omnia, ut ipsam subiectionem, commutationem et conuersionem credat futuram creaturae in ipsam substantiam uel essentiam creatoris, id est ut quae fuerat substantia creaturae fiat substantia creatoris, certe uel hoc concedit quod non habet ullam dubitationem nondum hoc fuisse factum cum dominus diceret: Pater maior me est. Dixit enim hoc non solum antequam ascendisset in caelum, uerum etiam antequam passus resurrexisset a mortuis.

[8 15] But as to that which the same apostle says: ‘But when all things shall have been subjected to him, then the Son himself also will be subjected to him who subjected all things to him,’ either it was said for this reason, lest anyone should think that the habit of Christ, which was assumed from the human creature, would afterwards be converted into the very divinity—or, to express it more precisely, deity—which is not a creature but is the unity of the Trinity, incorporeal and incommutable, and a nature consubstantial and coeternal with itself. Or if anyone contends, as some have thought, that it was said thus—‘And the Son himself will be subjected to him who subjected all things to him’—so that he may believe that the very subjection will be a commutation and conversion of the creature into the very substance or essence of the Creator, that is, that what had been the substance of the creature should become the substance of the Creator, at least he grants this much, that he has no doubt that this had not yet been done when the Lord said: ‘The Father is greater than I.’ For he said this not only before he had ascended into heaven, but even before, having suffered, he rose from the dead.

Illi autem qui putant humanam in eo naturam in deitatis substantiam mutari atque conuerti, et ita dictum: Tunc et ipse filius subiectus erit ei qui illi subiecit omnia, ac si diceretur: 'Tunc et ipse filius hominis et a uerbo dei suscepta humana natura commutabitur in eius naturam qui ei subiecit omnia,' tunc futurum putant cum post diem iudicii tradiderit regnum deo et patri. Ac per hoc etiam secundum istam opinionem adhuc pater maior est quam serui forma quae de uirgine accepta est. Quod si et aliqui hoc affirmant, quod iam fuerit in dei substantiam mutatus homo Christus Iesus, illud certe negare non possunt quod adhuc natura hominis manebat quando ante passionem dicebat: Quoniam pater maior me est.

Those, however, who think that the human nature in him is changed and converted into the substance of the Deity, and that thus it is said: Then the Son himself will be subjected to him who subjected all things to him, as if it were being said: 'Then the Son of Man himself and the human nature assumed by the Word of God will be transmuted into the nature of him who subjected all things to him,' suppose that this will come to pass when, after the day of judgment, he shall have handed over the kingdom to God and the Father. And through this, even according to that opinion, the Father is still greater than the form of a servant which was received from the Virgin. But if some also affirm this, that the man Christ Jesus has already been changed into the substance of God, they certainly cannot deny that the nature of man was still abiding when, before the Passion, he was saying: Because the Father is greater than I.

Vnde nulla cunctatio est secundum hoc esse dictum quod forma serui maior est pater, cui in forma dei aequalis est filius.

Whence there is no hesitation that it was said in this sense, that the Father is greater than the form of a servant, to whom in the form of God the Son is equal.

Nec quisquam cum audierit quod ait apostolus: Cum autem dixerit quia omnia subiecta sunt, manifestum quia pater eum qui subiecit illi omnia, ita existimet de patre intellegendum quod subiecerit omnia filio ut ipsum filium sibi omnia subiecisse non putet. {Quod apostolus ad philippenses ostendit dicens: Nostra autem conuersatio in caelis est; unde et saluatorem exspectamus dominum Iesum Christum, qui transfigurauit corpus humilitatis nostrae conforme ut fiat corpori gloriae suae, secundum operationem suam qua possit etiam sibi subicere omnia.} Inseparabilis enim est operatio patris et filii. Alioquin nec ipse pater sibi subiecit omnia, sed filius ei subiecit qui ei regnum tradidit et euacuat omnem principatum et omnem potestatem et uirtutem.

Nor let anyone, when he has heard what the apostle says: “But when it shall be said that all things are subjected, it is manifest that the Father, he who subjected all things to him,” so think that it is to be understood of the Father as having subjected all things to the Son, that he not suppose the Son himself has not subjected all things to himself. {Which the apostle shows to the Philippians, saying: But our citizenship is in the heavens; from where also we await the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will transfigure the body of our humility to be made conform to the body of his glory, according to his operation by which he is able also to subject all things to himself.} For the operation of the Father and of the Son is inseparable. Otherwise neither has the Father himself subjected all things to himself, but the Son has subjected them to him, he who hands over the kingdom to him and makes void every principality and every authority and power.

De filio quippe ista dicta sunt: Cum tradiderit, inquit, regnum deo et patri, cum euacuauerit omnem principatum et omnem potestatem et uirtutem. Ipse enim subiecit qui euacuat.

Indeed these things were said about the Son: “When he shall have delivered,” he says, “the kingdom to God and Father, when he shall have abolished every principality and every authority and power.” For he it is who subjects, who abolishes.

[16] Nec sic arbitremur Christum traditurum regnum deo et patri ut adimat sibi. Nam et hoc quidam uaniloqui crediderunt. Cum enim dicitur: Tradiderit regnum deo et patri, non separatur ipse quia simul cum patre unus deus est.

[16] Nor let us so suppose that Christ will hand over the kingdom to God and Father as to take it away from himself. For some vain-talkers have believed this too. For when it is said: He will have handed over the kingdom to God and Father, he himself is not separated, because together with the Father he is one God.

Sed diuinarum scripturarum incuriosos et contentionum studiosos fallit uerbum quod positum est, donec. Ita namque sequitur: Oportet enim illum regnare donec ponat omnes inimicos sub pedibus suis, tamquam cum posuerit non sit regnaturus. Nec intellegunt ita dictum sicut est illud: Confirmatum est cor eius; non commouebitur donec uideat super inimicos suos.

But the word that is set, ‘until,’ deceives those careless of the divine Scriptures and zealous for contentions. For thus it follows: ‘For he must reign until he puts all enemies under his feet,’ as though, when he has put them, he were not to be going to reign. Nor do they understand that it is said in this way, as is this: ‘His heart is confirmed; he will not be moved until he sees over his enemies.’

Non enim cum uiderit, iam commouebitur.

For when he has seen, he will not thereafter be moved.

Quid ergo est: Cum tradiderit regnum deo et patri, quasi modo non habeat regnum deus et pater? Sed quia omnes iustos quibus nunc regnat ex fide uiuentibus mediator dei et hominum homo Christus Iesus perducturus est ad speciem quam uisionem dicit idem apostolus facie ad faciem, ita dictum est: Cum tradiderit regnum deo et patri, ac si diceretur: 'Cum perduxerit credentes ad contemplationem dei et patris.' Sicut enim dicit: Omnia mihi tradita sunt a patre meo; et nemo nouit filium nisi pater, neque patrem quis nouit nisi filius et cui uoluerit filius reuelare; tunc reuelabitur a filio pater cum euacuauerit omnem principatum et omnem potestatem et uirtutem, id est ut necessaria non sit dispensatio similitudinum per angelicos principatus et potestates et uirtutes. Ex quarum persona non inconuenienter intellegitur dici in cantico canticorum ad sponsam: Similitudines auri faciemus tibi cum distinctionibus argenti quoadusque rex in recubitu suo est; id est quoadusque Christus in secreto suo est, quia uita nostra abscondita est cum Christo in deo.

What then is this: When he shall have handed over the kingdom to God and the Father, as if God and the Father does not just now have the kingdom? But because all the just, over whom he now reigns, living by faith, the mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus, is going to lead through to sight, which the same Apostle calls “vision,” face to face, it is thus said: When he shall have handed over the kingdom to God and the Father, as if it were being said: 'When he shall have led believers to the contemplation of God and the Father.' For just as he says: All things have been handed over to me by my Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father, nor does anyone know the Father except the Son and him to whom the Son shall have willed to reveal; then the Father will be revealed by the Son when he shall have abolished every principality and every power and virtue, that is, so that the dispensation of similitudes through angelic principalities and powers and virtues may not be necessary. In whose person it is not incongruent to understand it said in the Song of Songs to the bride: We shall make for you likenesses of gold with distinctions of silver until the king is on his couch; that is, until Christ is in his secret, because our life is hidden with Christ in God.

Cum Christus, inquit, apparuerit uita uestra, tunc et uos cum ipso apparebitis in gloria. Quod antequam fiat, uidemus nunc per speculum in aenigmate, hoc est in similitudinibus; tunc autem facie ad faciem.

“When Christ,” he says, “your life, shall appear, then you also will appear with him in glory.” Which, before that happens, we see now through a mirror in an enigma, that is, in similitudes; but then, face to face.

[17] Haec enim nobis contemplatio promittitur actionum omnium finis atque aeterna perfectio gaudiorum. Filii enim dei sumus, et nondum apparuit quod erimus. Scimus quia cum apparuerit, similes ei erimus quoniam uidebimus eum sicuti est.

[17] For this contemplation is promised to us as the end of all actions and the eternal perfection of joys. For we are sons of God, and it has not yet appeared what we shall be. We know that when he appears, we shall be like him, because we shall see him just as he is.

Quod enim dixit famulo suo Moysi: Ego sum qui sum. Et dices itaque filiis Israhel: Qui est misit me ad uos; hoc contemplabimur cum uiuemus in aeternum. Ita quippe ait: Haec est autem uita aeterna ut cognoscant te unum uerum deum et quem misisti Iesum Christum.

For he said to his servant Moses: “I am who I am.” And thus you shall say to the sons of Israel: “He who is has sent me to you”; this we shall contemplate when we live eternally. For thus indeed he says: “Now this is eternal life, that they may know you, the one true God, and Jesus Christ whom you sent.”

Hoc fiet cum uenerit dominus et inluminauerit occulta tenebrarum, cum tenebrae mortalitatis huius corruptionisque transierit. Tunc erit mane nostrum de quo in psalmo dicitur: Mane adstabo tibi et contemplabor. De hac contemplatione intellego dictum: Cum tradiderit regnum deo et patri, id est cum perduxerit iustos quibus nunc ex fide uiuentibus regnat mediator dei et hominum homo Christus Iesus ad contemplationem dei et patris.

This will come to pass when the Lord has come and has illuminated the occult things of darkness, when the darkness of this mortality and of corruption has passed away. Then there will be our morning, of which it is said in the psalm: In the morning I will stand before you and I will contemplate. Of this contemplation I understand the saying: When he shall have handed over the kingdom to God and the Father—that is, when he shall have led the just, over whom the mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus, now reigns as they live by faith—unto the contemplation of God and of the Father.

Si desipio hic, corrigat me qui melius sapit; mihi aliud non uidetur. Neque enim quaeremus aliud cum ad illius contemplationem peruenerimus, quae nunc non est quamdiu gaudium nostrum in spe est. Spes autem quae uidetur non est spes.

If I am foolish here, let whoever is wiser correct me; it does not seem otherwise to me. For neither shall we seek anything else when we have come to the contemplation of Him, which now is not, so long as our joy is in hope. But hope which is seen is not hope.

Quod enim uidet quis, quid et sperat? Si autem quod non uidemus speramus, per patientiam exspectamus quoadusque rex in recubitu suo est. Tunc erit quod scriptum est: Adimplebis me laetitia cum uultu tuo.

For what someone sees, what also does he hope for? But if we hope for what we do not see, through patience we await until the king is in his recline. Then there will be what is written: You will fill me with joy with your countenance.

Illa laetitia nihil amplius requiretur quia nec erit quod amplius requiratur. Ostendetur enim nobis pater et sufficiet nobis. Quod bene intellexerat Philippus ut diceret: Domine, ostende nobis patrem et sufficit nobis.

In that joy nothing further will be required, because there will not be anything further to be required. For the Father will be shown to us, and he will suffice for us. Which Philip had well understood, so that he said: Lord, show us the Father, and it suffices for us.

Sed nondum intellexerat eo quoque modo idipsum se potuisse dicere: 'Domine, ostende nobis te et sufficit nobis.' Vt enim hoc intellegeret, responsum est ei a domino: tanto tempore uobiscum sum et non cognouistis me? Philippe, qui me uidit, uidit et patre. Sed quia uolebat eum ex fide uiuere antequam illud posset uidere, secutus est et ait: Non credis quia ego in patre et pater in me? Quamdiu enim sumus in corpore, peregrinamur a Domino. Per fidem enim ambulamus, non per speciem.

But he had not yet understood that in that very mode he could have said this same thing: 'Lord, show us you, and it suffices for us.' For that he might understand this, a response was given to him by the Lord: for so long a time I am with you, and have you not known me? Philip, he who has seen me has seen the Father also. But because he wanted him to live by faith before he could see that, he followed up and said: Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in me? For as long as we are in the body, we sojourn away from the Lord. For we walk through faith, not through sight.

Contemplatio quippe merces est fidei, cui mercedi per fidem corda mundantur, sicut scriptum est: Mundans fide corda eorum. Probatur autem quod illi contemplationi corda mundentur illa maxime sententia: Beati mundicordes quoniam ipsi deum uidebunt. Et quia haec est uita aeterna, dicit deus in psalmis: Longitudinem dierum replebo eum, et ostendam illi salutare meum.

Contemplation, indeed, is the reward of faith, for which reward hearts are cleansed through faith, just as it is written: Cleansing their hearts by faith. Moreover, that hearts are cleansed for that contemplation is proved most especially by this sentence: Blessed are the pure of heart, for they shall see God. And because this is eternal life, God says in the Psalms: With length of days I will fill him, and I will show him my salvation.

Siue ergo audiamus: 'Ostende nobis filium,' siue audiamus: Ostende nobis patrem, tantumdem ualet quia neuter sine altero potest ostendi. Vnum quippe sunt, sicut ait: Ego et pater unum sumus. Denique propter ipsam inseparabilitatem sufficienter aliquando nominatur uel pater solus uel filius solus adimpleturus nos laetitia cum uultu suo.

Therefore whether we hear: 'Show us the Son,' or we hear: Show us the Father, it amounts to the same, because neither can be shown without the other. For they are one, as he says: I and the Father are one. Finally, on account of that very inseparability, it is sufficiently the case that sometimes either the Father alone or the Son alone is named, as about to fill us with joy by his countenance.

[18] Nec inde separatur utriusque spiritus, id est patris et filii spiritus, qui spiritus sanctus proprie dicitur, spiritus ueritatis quem hic mundum accipere non potest. Hoc est enim plenum gaudium nostrum quo amplius non est, frui trinitate deo ad cuius imaginem facti sumus. Propter hoc aliquando ita loquitur de spiritu sancto tamquam solus ipse sufficiat ad beatitudinem nostram; et ideo solus sufficit quia separari a patre et filio non potest, sicut pater solus sufficit quia separari a filio et spiritu sancto non potest, et filius ideo sufficit solus quia separari a patre et spiritu sancto non potest.

[18] Nor, from that, is the Spirit of both separated—that is, the Spirit of the Father and of the Son—who is properly called the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of truth, whom this world cannot receive. For this is our full joy, beyond which there is no more: to enjoy God the Trinity, after whose image we have been made. On account of this he sometimes speaks thus about the Holy Spirit, as though he alone sufficed for our beatitude; and therefore he alone suffices, because he cannot be separated from the Father and the Son—just as the Father alone suffices because he cannot be separated from the Son and the Holy Spirit, and the Son for that reason alone suffices, because he cannot be separated from the Father and the Holy Spirit.

Quid enim sibi uult quod ait: Si diligitis me, mandata mea seruate, et ego rogabo patrem, et alium aduocatum dabit uobis ut uobiscum sit in aeternum, spiritum ueritatis quem hic mundus accipere non potest, id est dilectores mundi? Animalis enim homo non percipit quae sunt spiritus dei.

For what does it mean, that he says: “If you love me, keep my commandments, and I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to be with you forever, the Spirit of truth whom this world cannot receive, that is, the lovers of the world? For the natural man does not perceive the things that are of the Spirit of God.”

Sed adhuc uideri potest ideo dictum: Et ego rogabo patrem, et alium aduocatum dabit uobis, quasi non sufficiat solus filius. Illo autem loco ita de illo dictum est tamquam solus omnino sufficiat: Cum uenerit ille spiritus ueritatis, docebit uos omnem ueritatem. Numquid ergo separatur hinc filius tamquam ipse non doceat omnem ueritatem, aut quasi hoc impleat spiritus sanctus quod minus potuit docere filius?

But still it can be seen to have been said for this reason: And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate, as though the Son alone did not suffice. Yet in that place it is said of him as if he altogether sufficed: When that Spirit of truth shall have come, he will teach you all truth. Is the Son, then, separated from this, as though he himself does not teach all truth, or as though the Holy Spirit fulfills this which the Son was less able to teach?

Dicant ergo, si placet, maiorem esse filio spiritum sanctum quem minorem illo solent dicere. An quia non dictum est: 'Ipse solus,' aut: 'Nemo nisi ipse' uos docebit omnem ueritatem, ideo permittunt ut cum illo docere credatur et filius? Apostolus ergo separauit filium ab sciendis his quae dei sunt ubi ait: Sic et quae dei sunt nemo scit nisi spiritus dei!

Let them say then, if it please, that the Holy Spirit is greater than the Son, whom they are accustomed to call lesser than him. Or because it was not said: 'He himself alone,' or: 'No one except he himself will teach you all the truth,' do they therefore permit that the Son also be believed to teach along with him? Did the Apostle then separate the Son from the knowing of the things that are God’s when he said: So too the things of God no one knows except the Spirit of God!

ut iam isti peruersi possint ex hoc dicere quod et filium non doceat quae dei sunt nisi spiritus sanctus, tamquam maior minorem; cui filius ipse tantum tribuit ut diceret: Quia haec locutus sum uobis, tristitia cor uestrum impleuit. Sed ego ueritatem dico: expedit uobis ut ego eam; nam si non abiero, aduocatus non ueniet ad uos.

so that now these perverse men can from this say that even the Son does not teach the things that are God’s unless the Holy Spirit [does], as a greater [to] a lesser; to whom the Son himself attributed so much as to say: “Because I have spoken these things to you, sorrow has filled your heart. But I speak the truth: it is expedient for you that I go; for if I do not depart, the Advocate will not come to you.”

[IX] Hoc autem dixit non propter inaequalitatem uerbi dei et spiritus sancti, sed tamquam impedimento esset praesentia filii hominis apud eos quominus ueniret ille qui minor non esset quia non semetipsum exinaniuit sicut filius formam serui accipiens.

[9] However, he said this not on account of an inequality of the Word of God and the Holy Spirit, but as though the presence of the Son of Man among them were an impediment, preventing the coming of him who would not be lesser, because he did not empty himself as the Son, taking the form of a servant.

Oportebat ergo ut auferretur ab oculis eorum forma serui quam intuentes hoc solum esse Christum putabant quod uidebant. Inde est et illud quod ait: Si diligeretis me, gauderetis quoniam eo ad patrem, quia pater maior me est, id est propterea me oportet ire ad patrem quia dum me ita uidetis, et ex hoc quod uidetis aestimatis minor sum patre, atque ita circa creaturam susceptumque habitum occupati aequalitatem quam cum patre habeo non intellegitis. Inde est et illud: Noli me tangere; nondum enim ascendi ad patrem meum.

It was therefore necessary that the form of a servant be taken away from their eyes, which, as they gazed upon it, they thought Christ to be only that which they saw. From this is also that which he says: If you loved me, you would rejoice because I go to the Father, because the Father is greater than I; that is, for this reason it behooves me to go to the Father, because while you see me thus, and from this which you see you reckon that I am lesser than the Father, and so, being occupied with the creature and the assumed guise, you do not understand the equality which I have with the Father. From this is also that: Do not touch me; for I have not yet ascended to my Father.

Tactus enim tamquam finem facit notionis. Ideoque nolebat in eo esse finem intenti cordis in se ut hoc quod uidebatur tantummodo putaretur. Ascensio autem ad patrem erat ita uideri sicut aequalis est patri ut ibi esset finis uisionis quae sufficit nobis.

For touch, in fact, as it were, sets a limit to cognition. And therefore he did not wish the end of the heart intent upon him to be in this, that he should be thought to be only what was seen. But the Ascension to the Father was that he might be seen thus, as he is equal to the Father, so that there should be the end of the vision which suffices for us.

Aliquando item de filio solo dicitur quod ipse sufficiat et in eius uisione merces tota promittitur dilectionis et desiderii nostri. Sic enim ait: Qui habet mandata mea et custodit ea, ille est qui me diligit. Qui autem me diligit, diligetur a patre meo; et ego diligam eum et ostendam me ipsum illi.

Sometimes likewise it is said of the Son alone that he himself suffices, and that in the vision of him the whole reward of our love and desire is promised. For thus he says: He who has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me. But he who loves me will be loved by my Father; and I will love him and will show myself to him.

Numquid hic quia non dixit: 'Ostendam illi et patrem' ideo separauit patrem? Sed quia uerum est: Ego et pater unum sumus, cum pater ostenditur, et filius ostenditur qui in illo est; et cum filius ostenditur, etiam pater ostenditur qui in illo est. Sicut ergo cum ait: Et ostendam illi me ipsum, intellegitur quia ostendit et patrem, ita et in eo quod dicitur: Cum tradiderit regnum deo et patri, intellegitur quia non adimit sibi.

Is it here because he did not say: 'I will show him also the Father' that therefore he separated the Father? But because it is true: 'I and the Father are one,' when the Father is shown, the Son also is shown who is in him; and when the Son is shown, the Father also is shown who is in him. Thus, therefore, when he says: 'And I will show myself to him,' it is understood that he also shows the Father; so also in that which is said: 'When he shall have delivered the kingdom to God and the Father,' it is understood that he does not take it away from himself.

Quoniam cum perducet credentes ad contemplationem dei et patris, profecto perducet ad contemplationem suam qui dixit: Et ostendam illi me ipsum. Et ideo consequenter cum dixisset illi Iudas: Domine, quid factum est quia ostensurus es te nobis et non huic mundo? respondit Iesus et dixit illi: Si quis me diligit, sermonem meum seruabit; et pater meus diliget illum, et ad illum ueniemus et mansionem apud illum faciemus.

Since when he leads believers to the contemplation of God and of the Father, assuredly he leads to his own contemplation, he who said: “And I will show myself to him.” And therefore, consequently, when Judas had said to him: “Lord, what has happened, that you are going to show yourself to us and not to this world?” Jesus answered and said to him: “If anyone loves me, he will keep my word; and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and we will make a dwelling with him.”

Ecce quia non solum se ipsum ostendit ei a quo diligitur, quia simul cum patre uenit ad eum et mansionem facit apud eum.

Behold, he not only shows himself to the one by whom he is loved, for together with the Father he comes to him and makes a dwelling with him.

[19] An forte putabitur mansionem in dilectore suo facientibus patre et filio exclusus esse ab hac mansione spiritus sanctus? Qui est ergo quod superius ait de spiritu sancto: Quem hic mundus accipere non potest quoniam non uidet illum; nostis illum uos quia uobiscum manet et in uobis est? Non itaque ab hac mansione separatus est de quo dictum est, uobiscum manet et in uobis est.

[19] Or will it perhaps be thought that, while the Father and the Son are making a mansion in their lover, the Holy Spirit is excluded from this mansion? What then of what he said above about the Holy Spirit: Whom this world cannot receive because it does not see him; you know him, because he remains with you and is in you? Therefore he is not separated from this mansion, of whom it was said, he remains with you and is in you.

Nisi forte quisquam sic absurdus est ut arbitretur cum pater et filius uenerint ut mansionem faciat apud dilectorem suum, discessurum inde spiritum sanctum et tamquam locum daturum esse maioribus. Sed et huic carnali cogitationi occurit scriptura; paulo quippe superius ait: Et ego rogabo patre, et alium aduocatum dabit uobis ut uobiscum sit in aeternum. Non ergo discedet patre et filio uenientibus, sed in eadem mansione cum ipsis erit in aeternum quia nec ille sine ipsis uenit nec illi sine illo.

Unless perhaps someone is so absurd as to suppose that, when the Father and the Son have come to make a mansion with the one who loves him, the Holy Spirit will depart from there and, as it were, give place to his betters. But Scripture meets this carnal thought as well; for a little above it says: And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate, that he may be with you forever. Therefore he will not depart when the Father and the Son come, but in the same mansion he will be with them forever, because neither does he come without them nor do they without him.

Sed propter insinuationem trinitatis personis etiam singulis nominatis dicuntur quaedam; non tamen aliis separatis intelleguntur propter eiusdem trinitatis unitatem unamque substantiam atque deitatem patris et filii et spiritus sancti.

But on account of the insinuation of the Trinity, certain things are also said when the individual persons are named; yet they are not understood with the others separated, on account of the unity of that same Trinity and the one substance and deity of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

[X 20] Tradet itaque regnum deo et patri dominus noster Iesus Christus, non se inde separato nec spiritu sancto, quoniam perducet credentes ad contemplationem dei ubi est finis omnium bonarum actionum et requies sempiterna et gaudium quod non auferetur a nobis. Hoc enim significat in eo quod ait: Iterum uidebo uos, et gaudebit cor uestrum, et gaudium uestrum nemo auferet a uobis. Huius gaudii similitudinem praesignabat Maria sedens ad pedes domini et intenta in uerbum eius, quieta scilicet ab omni actione et intenta in ueritatem secundum quendam modum cuius capax est ista uita, quo tamen praefiguraret illud quod futurum est in aeternum.

[10 20] Therefore our Lord Jesus Christ will hand over the kingdom to God and Father, not with himself separated thence nor with the Holy Spirit, since he will lead the believers through to the contemplation of God, where is the end of all good actions and everlasting rest and the joy that will not be taken away from us. For this he signifies in that he says: I will see you again, and your heart will rejoice, and your joy no one will take from you. A likeness of this joy Mary was pre-signifying, sitting at the Lord’s feet and intent upon his word, quiet, namely, from every action and intent upon the truth according to a certain mode of which this life is capable, by which nevertheless she prefigured that which will be in eternity.

Martha quippe sorore sua in necessitatis actione conuersante quamuis bona et utili, tamen cum requies successerit transitura, ipsa requiescebat in uerbo domini. Et ideo dominus conquerenti Marthae quod eam soror non adiuuaret respondit: Maria optimam partem elegit quae non auferetur ab ea. Non partem malam dixit quod agebat Martha, sed istam optimam quae non auferetur. Illa enim quae in ministerio indigentiae est, cum indigentia ipsa transierit, auferetur.

Martha, indeed, while her sister was engaged in the action of necessity—although good and useful, yet, when rest shall have succeeded, destined to pass away—she herself was resting in the word of the Lord. And therefore the Lord answered Martha, who was complaining that her sister did not help her: Mary has chosen the best part, which shall not be taken away from her. He did not say that the part Martha was doing was an evil part, but that this is the best, which shall not be taken away. For that which is in the ministry of indigence, when indigence itself has passed, will be taken away.

Boni quippe operis transituri merces est requies permansura. In illa igitur contemplatione deus erit omnia in omnibus quia nihil ab illo aliud requiretur, sed solo ipso inlustrari perfruique sufficiet.

For indeed the reward of the good work that is to pass away is the rest that will abide. In that contemplation, therefore, God will be all in all, because nothing else will be required from him, but to be illuminated by him alone and to enjoy him will suffice.

Ideoque ille in quo spiritus interpellat gemitibus inenarrabilibus: Vnam, inquit, petii a domino, hanc requiram, ut inhabitem in domo domini per omnes dies uitae meae, ut contempler delectationem domini. Contemplabimur enim deum patrem et filium et spiritum sanctum cum mediator dei et hominum homo Christus Iesus tradiderit regnum deo et patre ut iam non interpellet pro nobis mediator et sacerdos noster, filius dei et filius hominis; sed et ipse in quantum sacerdos est, assumpta propter nos forma serui, subiectus sit ei qui illi subiecit omnia et cui subiecit omnia; ut in quantum deus est cum illo nos subiectos habeat, in quantum sacerdos nobiscum illi subiectus sit. Quapropter cum filius sit et deus et homo, alia substantia deus, alia homo, homo potius in filio quam filius in patre; sicut caro animae meae alia substantia est ad animam meam quamuis in uno homine quam anima alterius hominis ad animam meam.

Therefore he, in whom the Spirit intercedes with unutterable groans: “One thing,” he says, “I have asked from the Lord, this will I seek: that I may dwell in the house of the Lord through all the days of my life, that I may contemplate the delectation of the Lord.” For we shall contemplate God the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit when the mediator of God and of men, the man Christ Jesus, shall have handed over the kingdom to God and Father, so that the mediator and our priest, the Son of God and Son of Man, may no longer intercede for us; but he himself also, inasmuch as he is priest, the form of a servant assumed on our account, may be subject to him who subjected all things to him and to whom he subjected all things; so that inasmuch as he is God he may have us, with him, as subjects, inasmuch as he is priest he may be subject along with us to him. Wherefore, since the Son is both God and man, one substance as God, another as man, the man rather in the Son than the Son in the Father; just as my flesh is another substance to my soul, although in one man, than the soul of another man is to my soul.

[21] Cum ergo tradiderit regnum deo et patri, id est cum credentes et uiuentes ex fide pro quibus nunc mediator interpellat perduxerit ad contemplationem cui percipiendae susupiramus et gemimus, et transierit labor et gemitus, iam non interpellabit pro nobis tradito regno deo et patri. Hoc significans ait: Haec uobis locutus sum in similitudinibus; ueniet hora quando iam non in similitudinibus loquar uobis, sed manifeste de patre nuntiabo uobis; id est iam non erunt similitudines cum uisio fuerit facie ad faciem. Hoc est enim quod ait, sed manifeste de patre nuntiabo uobis, ac si diceret, 'manifeste patrem ostendam uobis.' Nuntiabo quippe ait quia uerbum eius est.

[21] When therefore he shall have delivered the kingdom to God and the Father, that is, when he shall have led to contemplation—toward the receiving of which we sigh and groan—the believers and those living from faith, for whom the Mediator now intercedes, and toil and groaning shall have passed away, he will no longer intercede for us, the kingdom having been delivered to God and the Father. Signifying this he said: I have spoken these things to you in similitudes; an hour will come when I shall no longer speak to you in similitudes, but I will announce to you manifestly concerning the Father; that is, there will no longer be similitudes when the vision shall be face to face. For this is what he says, but I will announce to you manifestly concerning the Father, as if he were to say, 'manifestly I will show the Father to you.' For he says I will announce because he is his Word.

Sequitur enim et dicit: Illa die in nomine meo petetis, et non dico uobis quia ego rogabo patrem; ipse enim pater amat uos quia uos me amatis et credidistis quia ego a deo exiui. Exiui a patre et ueni in hunc mundum: iterum relinquo mundum et uado ad patrem.

For he follows on and says: ‘On that day you will petition in my name, and I do not say to you that I will ask the Father; for the Father himself loves you, because you love me and have believed that I have proceeded from God. I proceeded from the Father and came into this world; again I leave the world and go to the Father.’

Quid est, a patre exii, nisi 'non in ea forma qua aequalis sum patri sed aliter, id est in assumpta creatura minor apparui'? Et quid est, ueni in hunc mundum, nisi 'formam serui quam me exinaniens accepi etiam peccatorum qui mundum istum diligunt oculis demonstraui'? Et quid est, iterum relinquo mundum, nisi 'ab aspectu dilectorum mundi aufero quod uiderunt'? Et quid est, uado ad patrem, nisi 'doceo me sic intellegendum a fidelibus meis quomodo aequalis sum patri'? Hoc qui credunt digni habebuntur perduci a fide ad speciem, id est ad ipsam uisionem, quo perducens dictus est tradere regnum deo et patri. Fideles quippe eius quos redemit sanguine suo dicti sunt regnum eius pro quibus nunc interpellat; tunc autem illic eos sibi faciens inhaerere ubi aequalis est patri, non iam rogabit patrem pro eis. Ipse enim, inquit, pater amat uos.

What is, ‘I went forth from the father,’ unless ‘not in that form in which I am equal to the father but otherwise, that is, in the assumed creature I appeared as lesser’? And what is, ‘I came into this world,’ unless ‘the form of a servant which, emptying myself, I received, I even showed to the eyes of the sinners who love this world’? And what is, ‘again I leave the world,’ unless ‘from the sight of the lovers of the world I remove what they saw’? And what is, ‘I go to the father,’ unless ‘I teach that I am thus to be understood by my faithful ones as I am equal to the father’? Those who believe this will be held worthy to be led on from faith to sight, that is, to the very vision, to the which leading he is said to deliver the kingdom to god and father. For his faithful ones whom he redeemed with his blood are called his kingdom, for whom he now intercedes; but then, there making them adhere to himself where he is equal to the father, he will no longer ask the father for them. For the father himself, he says, loves you.

Ex hoc enim rogat quo minor est patre; quo uero aequalis exaudit cum patre. Vnde se ab eo quod dixit: Ipse enim pater amat uos, utique ipse non separat; sed secundum ea facit intellegi quae supra commemoraui satisque insinuaui, plerumque ita nominari unamquamque in trinitate personam ut et aliae illic intellegantur. Sic itaque dictum est: Ipse enim pater amat uos, ut consequenter intellegatur et filius et spiritus sanctus; non quia modo nos non amat qui proprio filio non pepercit sed pro nobis omnibus tradidit eum; sed tales nos amat deus quales futuri sumus, non quales sumus.

For from this he asks, in that by which he is lesser than the Father; but in that by which he is equal, he hearkens with the Father. Whence, from what he said, For the Father himself loves you, he certainly does not separate himself; but, in accordance with the things I have above recalled and sufficiently insinuated, he causes it to be understood that very often each person in the Trinity is so named that the others are understood there as well. Thus therefore it was said: For the Father himself loves you, so that consequently the Son and the Holy Spirit are understood too; not because he does not love us now—he who did not spare his own Son but delivered him over for us all—but God loves us such as we shall be, not such as we are.

Quales enim amat, tales in aeternum conseruat, quod tunc erit cum tradiderit regnum deo et patri qui nunc interpellat pro nobis, ut iam non roget patrem quia ipse pater amat nos. Quo autem merito nisi fidei qua credimus antequam illud quod promittitur uideamus? Per hanc enim peruenimus ad speciem ut tales amet quales amat ut simus, non quales odit quia sumus, et hortatur ac praestat ne tales esse semper uelimus.

For such as he loves, such he preserves unto eternity—this will be when he shall have handed over the kingdom to God and Father, he who now intercedes for us—so that he will no longer ask the Father, because the Father himself loves us. And by what merit, if not that of faith, by which we believe before we see that which is promised? For through this we come to the sight, that he may love us as such as he loves us to be, not such as he hates because we are; and he exhorts and grants that we not wish to be such forever.

[XI 22] Quapropter cognita ista regula intellegendarum scripturarum de filio dei ut distinguamus quid in eis sonet secundum formam dei in qua est et aequalis est patri, et quid secundum formam serui quam accepit et minor est patre, non conturbabimur tamquam contrariis ac repugnantibus inter se sanctorum librorum sententiis. Nam secundum formam dei aequalis est patri et filius et spiritus sanctus quia neuter eorum creatura est sicut iam ostendimus; secundum formam autem serui minor est patre quia ipse dixit: Pater maior me est; minor est se ipso quia de illo dictum est: Semetipsum exinaniuit; minor est spiritu sancto quia ipse ait: Qui dixerit blasphemiam in filium hominis, remittetur ei; qui autem dixerit in spiritum sanctum, non dimittetur ei. Et in ipso uirtutes operatus est dicens: Si ego in spiritu dei eicio daemonia, certe superuenit super uos regnum dei. Et apud Esaiam dicit, quam lectionem ipse in synagoga recitauit et de se completam sine scrupulo dubitationis ostendit: Spiritus, inquit, domini super me; propter quod unxit me, euangelizare pauperibus misit me, praedicare captiuis remissionem, et cetera; ad quae facienda ideo se dicit missum quia spiritus domini est super eum.

[11 22] Wherefore, this rule having been known for understanding the Scriptures about the Son of God—that we may distinguish what in them sounds according to the form of God, in which he is and is equal to the Father, and what according to the form of a servant which he took and is lesser than the Father—we shall not be disturbed as though by statements of the holy books that are contrary and mutually repugnant. For according to the form of God both the Son and the Holy Spirit are equal to the Father, because neither of them is a creature, as we have already shown; but according to the form of a servant he is less than the Father because he himself said: “The Father is greater than I”; he is less than himself because it was said of him: “He emptied himself”; he is less than the Holy Spirit because he himself says: “Whoever speaks blasphemy against the Son of Man, it will be remitted to him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him.” And by him he worked powers, saying: “If I cast out demons in the Spirit of God, surely the kingdom of God has come upon you.” And in Isaiah he says—reading which he himself recited in the synagogue and showed without scruple of doubt to have been fulfilled concerning himself: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me; for which reason he anointed me; he has sent me to evangelize to the poor, to proclaim release to captives,” and so forth; for doing which he therefore says he was sent because the Spirit of the Lord is upon him.

Secundum formam dei omnia per ipsum facta sunt; secundum formam serui ipse factus est ex muliere, factus sub lege. Secundum formam dei ipse et pater unum sunt; secundum formam serui non uenit facere uoluntatem suam sed uoluntatem eius qui misit eum. Secundum formam dei sicut habet pater uitam in semetipso, sic dedit et filio uitam habere in semetipso; secundum formam serui tristis est anima eius usque ad mortem, et: Pater, inquit, si fieri potest, transeat hic calix.

According to the form of God, all things were made through him; according to the form of a servant, he himself was made of a woman, made under the Law. According to the form of God, he and the Father are one; according to the form of a servant, he did not come to do his own will but the will of him who sent him. According to the form of God, as the Father has life in himself, so he also gave to the Son to have life in himself; according to the form of a servant, his soul is sorrowful unto death, and: “Father,” he says, “if it is possible, let this cup pass.”

Secundum formam dei ipse est uerum deus et uita aeterna; secundum formam serui factus est obediens usque ad mortem, mortem autem crucis.

According to the form of God he himself is true God and eternal life; according to the form of a servant he was made obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

[23] Secundum formam dei, omnia quae habet pater ipsius sunt: Et omnia tua mea sunt, inquit, et mea tua; secundum formam serui non est doctrina ipsius sed illius qui eum misit.

[23] According to the form of God, all things which the Father has are his: And “All yours are mine,” he says, “and mine are yours;” according to the form of a servant the doctrine is not his but that of him who sent him.

[XII] Et: De die et hora nemo scit neque angeli in caelo neque filius nisi pater. Hoc enim nescit quod nescientes facit, id est quod non ita sciebat ut tunc discipulis indicaret, sicut dictum est ad Abraham: Nunc cognoui quia times deum, id est nunc feci ut cognosceres, quia et ipse sibi in illa temptatione probatus innotuit. Nam et illud utique dicturus erat discipulis tempore opportuno, de quo futuro tamquam praeterito loquens ait: Iam non dicam uos seruos sed amicos.

[12] And: Of the day and the hour no one knows, neither the angels in heaven nor the Son, but the Father. For he “does not know” this in that he makes others not to know, that is, he did not know it in such a way as then to indicate it to the disciples, just as it was said to Abraham: Now I have known that you fear God—that is, Now I have made it so that you would know, because he too, proved in that temptation, became known to himself. For he was surely going to say that also to the disciples at an opportune time, of which, speaking of the future as though past, he says: Now I will no longer call you servants but friends.

Seruus enim nescit uoluntatem domini sui; uos autem dixi amicos quia omnia quae audiui a patre meo nota uobis feci; quod nondum fecerat, sed quia certo facturus erat quasi iam fecisset locutus est. Ipsis enim ait: Multa habeo uobis dicere, sed non potestis illa portare modo. Inter quae intellegitur et: De die et hora.

For a servant does not know the will of his lord; but you I have called friends, because all things which I have heard from my Father I have made known to you; which he had not yet done, but because he was surely going to do it, he spoke as if he had already done it. For to them he says: "I have many things to say to you, but you are not able to bear them now." Among which is understood also: "Of the day and the hour."

Nam et apostolus: Neque enim iudicaui me, inquit, scire aliquid in uobis nisi Christum Iesum et hunc crucifixum. Eis enim loquebatur qui capere altiora de Christi deitate non poterant. Quibus etiam paulo post dicit: Non potui loqui uobis quasi spiritalibus sed quasi carnalibus.

For the apostle also: For neither did I judge myself, he says, to know anything among you except Christ Jesus, and him crucified. For he was speaking to those who were not able to grasp higher things concerning the deity of Christ. To whom also a little later he says: I was not able to speak to you as to spiritual, but as to carnal.

Hoc ergo inter illos nesciebat quod per illum scire non poterant. Et hoc solum se scire dicebat quod eos per illum scire oportebat. Denique sciebat inter perfectos quod inter paruulos nesciebat; ibi quippe ait: Sapientiam loquimur inter perfectos.

Therefore, among them he did not know that which through him they could not know. And he said that he knew only this, which it behooved them to know through him. In fine, he knew among the perfect what he did not know among the little ones; for there indeed he says: We speak wisdom among the perfect.

Eo namque genere locutionis nescire quisque dicitur quod occultat quo dicitur fossa caeca quae occulta est. Neque enim aliquo genere loquuntur scripturae quod in consuetudine humana non inueniatur quia utique hominibus loquuntur.

For by that kind of locution one is said “not to know” what he conceals, whence a blind ditch is so called, which is hidden. For the Scriptures do not speak in any manner that is not found in human usage, since assuredly they speak to human beings.

[24] Secundum formam dei dictum est: Ante omnes colles genuit me, id est ante omnes altitudines creaturarum, et: Ante luciferum genui te, id est ante omnia tempora et temporalia; secundum formam autem serui dictum est: Dominus creauit me in principio uiarum suarum. Quia secundum formam dei dixit: Ego sum ueritas, et secundum formam serui: Ego sum uia. Quia enim ipse est primogenitus a mortuis, iter fecit ecclesiae suae ad regnum dei ad uitam aeternam, cui caput est ad immortalitatem etiam corporis, ideo creatus est in principio uiarum dei in opera eius.

[24] According to the form of God it is said: Before all the hills he begot me, that is, before all the heights of creatures; and: Before the Morning Star I begot you, that is, before all times and temporal things; but according to the form of a servant it is said: The Lord created me at the beginning of his ways. For according to the form of God he said: I am the Truth, and according to the form of a servant: I am the Way. For since he is the Firstborn from the dead, he made a way for his Church to the kingdom of God, to eternal life, of which he is the head, unto immortality even of the body; therefore he was created at the beginning of the ways of God in his works.

Secundum formam enim dei principium est quod et loquitur nobis, in quo principio fecit deus caelum et terram; secundum formam autem serui: Sponsus procedens de thalamo suo. Secundum formam dei: Primogenitus omnis creaturae, et ipse est ante omnes et omnia in illo constant; secundum formam serui: Ipse est caput corporis ecclesiae. Secundum formam dei dominus gloriae.

According to the form of god, indeed, it is the Beginning that also speaks to us, in which beginning god made heaven and earth; according to the form of a servant: the Bridegroom proceeding from his chamber. According to the form of god: the Firstborn of all creation, and He himself is before all, and all things hold together in him; according to the form of a servant: He himself is the head of the body, the church. According to the form of god the lord of glory.

Vnde manifestum est quod ipse glorificet sanctos suos. Quos enim praedestinauit, ipsos et uocauit; et quos uocauit, ipsos et iustificauit; quos autem iustificauit, ipsos et glorificauit. De illo quippe dictum est quod iustificet impium; de illo dictum est quod sit iustus et iustificans.

Whence it is manifest that he himself glorifies his saints. For those whom he predestined, those he also called; and those whom he called, those he also justified; but those whom he justified, those he also glorified. Of him indeed it has been said that he justifies the impious; of him it has been said that he is just and justifying.

Si ergo quos iustificauit, ipsos et glorificauit, qui iustificat ipse et glorificat, qui est, ut dixi, dominus gloriae. Secundum formam tamen serui satagentibus discipulis de glorificatione sua respondit: Sedere ad dexteram meam aut ad sinistram non est meum dare uobis, sed quibus paratum est a patre meo.

If therefore those whom he justified, those very ones he also glorified, he who justifies himself also glorifies, who is, as I said, the Lord of glory. Yet according to the form of a servant, he answered his disciples, who were busily striving, concerning his glorification: 'To sit at my right or at my left is not mine to give to you, but to those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.'

[25] Quod autem paratum est a patre eius et ab ipso filio paratum est quia ipse et pater unum sunt. Iam enim ostendimus in hac trinitate per multos locutionum diuinarum modos etiam de singulis dici quod omnium est propter inseparabilem operationem unius eiusdemque substantia. Sicut et de spiritu sancto dicit: Cum ego iero, mittam illum ad uos.

[25] But what is prepared by his Father is also prepared by the Son himself, because he and the Father are one. For we have already shown that in this Trinity, through many modes of divine locutions, it is said even of individuals what belongs to all, on account of the inseparable operation of one and the same substance. Just as he also says of the Holy Spirit: When I shall have gone, I will send him to you.

Non dixit, 'mittemus,' sed ita quasi tantum filius eum missurus esset, non et pater; cum alio loco dicat: Haec locutus sum uobis apud uos manens; aduocatus autem ille spiritus sanctus quem mittet pater in nomine meo, ille uobis declarabit omnia. Hic rursus ita dictum est quasi non eum missurus esset et filius sed tantum pater. Sicut ergo ista ita et illud quod ait, sed quibus paratum est a patre meo; cum patre se intellegi uoluit parare sedes gloriae quibus uellet.

He did not say, 'we will send,' but thus as if only the Son were going to send him, not the Father as well; whereas in another place he says: I have spoken these things to you while abiding with you; but the Advocate, that Holy Spirit whom the Father will send in my name, he will declare all things to you. Here again it is said as if not even the Son were going to send him, but only the Father. Therefore, just as in these, so also in that which he says, but to those for whom it has been prepared by my Father; he wished to be understood as preparing, with the Father, the seats of glory for whom he willed.

Sed dicit aliquis: 'Illic cum de spiritu sancto loqueretur, ita se missurum ait ut non negaret patrem missurum, et alio loco ita patrem ut non negaret se missurum; hic uero aperte ait: Non est meum dare, atque ita secutus a patre dixit ista praeparata.' Sed hoc est quod praestruximus secundum formam serui dictum, ut ita intellegeremus: Non est meum dare uobis, ac si diceretur: 'Non est humanae potestatis hoc dare,' ut per illud intellegatur hoc dare per quod deus et aequalis est patri. Non est meum, inquit, dare, id est non humana potestate ista do, sed quibus paratum est a patre meo; sed iam tu intellege quia si omnia quae habet pater mea sunt, et hoc utique meum est, et cum patre ista paraui.

But someone says: 'There, when he was speaking about the Holy Spirit, he said that he would send him in such a way that he did not deny that the Father would send, and in another place he said it of the Father in such a way that he did not deny that he himself would send; but here, indeed, he openly says: It is not mine to give, and thus, following, he said that these things were prepared by the Father.' But this is what we have set forth beforehand: said according to the form of a servant, so that we might understand thus: It is not mine to give to you, as if it were said: 'It is not of human power to give this,' so that by that it may be understood that this giving is by that in virtue of which he is God and equal to the Father. 'It is not mine,' he says, 'to give,' that is, I do not give these things by human power, but to those for whom it has been prepared by my Father; but now do you understand that if all things which the Father has are mine, this too is surely mine, and with the Father I have prepared these things.

[26] Nam et illud quaero quomodo dictum sit: Si quis non audit uerba mea, ego non iudicabo illum. Fortassis enim ita hoc dixit, ego non iudicabo illum, quemadmodum ibi, non est meum dare. Sed quid hic sequitur?

[26] For I also inquire how it was said: 'If anyone does not hear my words, I will not judge him.' Perhaps indeed he said this thus, 'I will not judge him,' in the same way as there, 'it is not mine to give.' But what follows here?

Non enim ueni, inquit, ut iudicem mundum, sed ut saluum faciam mundum. Deinde adiungit et dicit: Qui me spernit et non accipit uerba mea, habet qui se iudicet. Hic iam intellegeremus patrem nisi adiungeret et diceret: Verbum quod locutus sum, ipsum iudicabit illum in nouissima die.

For I did not come, he says, to judge the world, but to save the world. Then he adds and says: He who spurns me and does not receive my words has one who judges him. Here we would now understand the Father, unless he were to add and say: The Word which I have spoken, that very one will judge him on the last day.

Quid igitur iam nec filius iudicabit quia dixit: Ego non iudicabo illum, nec pater, sed uerbum quod locutus est filius? Immo audi adhuc quod sequitur: Quia ego, inquit, non ex me locutus sum, sed ille qui me misit pater, ille mandatum mihi dedit quid dicam et quid loquar; et scio quia mandatum eius uita aeterna est. Quae ego loquor, ita ut dixit mihi pater, sic loquor.

What then? Will neither the Son judge, because he said, “I will not judge him,” nor the Father, but the word which the Son has spoken? Nay rather, hear still what follows: “For I,” he says, “have not spoken from myself, but he who sent me, the Father—he gave me the mandate what I should say and what I should speak; and I know that his mandate is eternal life. The things that I speak, just as the Father said to me, thus I speak.”

Si ergo non iudicat filius sed uerbum quod locutus est filius, ideo autem iudicat uerbum quod locutus est filius quia non ex se locutus est filius, sed qui misit eum pater mandatum ei dedit quid dicat et quid loquatur. Pater utique iudicat cuius uerbum est quod locutus est filius, atque ipsum uerbum patris idem ipse est filius. Non enim aliud est mandatum patris, aliud uerbum patris; nam et uerbum hoc appellauit et mandatum.

If therefore the Son does not judge but the Word which the Son has spoken, and the Word which the Son has spoken judges for this reason: because the Son has not spoken from himself, but the Father who sent him gave him a mandate what he should say and what he should speak. The Father, to be sure, judges—whose Word it is that the Son has spoken—and the very Word of the Father is the Son himself. For the Father’s mandate is not one thing and the Father’s Word another; for he has called this both “Word” and “mandate.”

Videamus ergo ne forte quod ait, Ego non ex me locutus sum, hoc intellegi uoluerit, 'Ego non ex me natus sum.' Si enim uerbum patris loquitur, se ipsum loquitur quia ipse est uerbum patris. Plerumque enim dicit: Dedit mihi pater, in quo uult intellegi quod eum genuerit pater, ut non tamquam iam exsistenti et non habenti dederit aliquid, sed ipsum dedisse ut haberet, genuisse est ut esset. Non enim sicut creatura ita dei filius ante incarnationem et ante assumptam creaturam, unigenitus per quem facta sunt omnia, aliud est et aliud habet, sed hoc ipsum est quod est id quod habet.

Let us see, then, lest perchance when he says, I did not speak from myself, he wished this to be understood, ‘I was not born from myself.’ For if he speaks the Father’s word, he speaks himself, because he himself is the Father’s Word. For he often says: The Father gave to me, in which he wishes it to be understood that the Father begot him, so that he did not give something to one already existing and not having, but his very giving—that he might have—is his begetting—that he might be. For not as a creature is the Son of God before the Incarnation and before the assumed creature, the Only-begotten through whom all things were made, one thing and has another; but what he is, this very thing is what he has.

Quod illo loco manifestius dicitur si quis ad capiendum sit idoneus ubi ait: Sicut habet pater uitam in semetipso, ita dedit filio habere uitam in semetipso. Neque enim iam exsistenti et uitam non habenti dedit ut haberet uitam in semetipso, cum eo ipso quod est uita sit. Hoc est ergo, dedit filio habere uitam in semetipso, genuit filium esse incommutabilem uitam, quod est uita aeterna.

Which is said in that place more manifestly, if anyone be idoneous to grasp it, where he says: “Just as the Father has life in himself, so he gave to the Son to have life in himself.” For he did not give to one already existing and not having life that he should have life in himself, since by that very thing which he is—Life—he is. This, therefore, is “he gave to the Son to have life in himself”: he begot the Son to be incommutable Life, which is eternal life.

Cum ergo uerbum dei sit filius dei, et filius dei sit uerus deus et uita aeterna sicut in epistula sua dicit Iohannes, etiam hic quid aliud agnoscimus cum dicit dominus: Verbum quod locutus sum, ipsum iudicabit eum in nouissima die? Et ipsum uerbum patris uerbum esse dicit et mandatum patris ipsumque mandatum uitam aeternam. Et scio, inquit, quia mandatum eius uita aeterna est.

Since therefore the Word of God is the Son of God, and the Son of God is true God and eternal life, as John says in his Epistle, even here what else do we acknowledge when the Lord says: “The word that I have spoken, that very one will judge him on the last day”? And he says that the very Word is the Father’s Word, and the commandment of the Father—and the commandment itself—is eternal life. “And I know,” he says, “that his commandment is eternal life.”

[27] Quaero itaque quomodo intellegamus: Ego non iudicabo, sed uerbum quod locutus sum iudicabit, quod ex consequentibus apparet ita dictum ac si diceret: 'Ego non iudicabo, sed uerbum patris iudicabit.' Verbum autem patris est ipse filius dei. Siccine intellegendum est: 'Ego non iudcabo, sed ego iudicabo'? Quomodo istud potest esse uerum nisi ita: 'Ego' scilicet 'non iudicabo ex potestate humana quia filius hominis sum, sed ego iudicabo ex potestate uerbi quoniam filius dei sum.' Aut si contraria et repugnantia uidentur 'Ego non iudicabo, sed ego iudicabo,' quid illic dicemus ubi ait: Mea doctrina non est mea? Quomodo mea, quomodo non mea?

[27] I inquire therefore how we should understand: 'I will not judge, but the word which I have spoken will judge,' which from what follows appears to have been said thus, as if he were saying: 'I will not judge, but the Word of the Father will judge.' But the Word of the Father is the Son of God himself. Is it thus to be understood: 'I will not judge, but I will judge'? How can that be true except thus: 'I,' to wit, 'will not judge by human power because I am the Son of Man, but I will judge by the power of the Word because I am the Son of God.' Or if 'I will not judge, but I will judge' seems contrary and repugnant, what shall we say there where he says: My doctrine is not mine? How mine, how not mine?

non enim dixit: 'Ista doctrina non est mea,' sed: Mea doctrina non est mea; quam dixit suam, eandem dixit non suam. Quomodo istud uerum est nisi secundum aliud suam dixerit, secundum aliud non suam; secundum formam dei, suam; secundum formam serui, non suam? Cum enim dicit: Non est mea sed eius qui me misit, ad ipsum uerbum nos facit recurrere.

for he did not say: 'That doctrine is not mine,' but: My doctrine is not mine; what he called his own, the same he called not his own. How is that true unless in one respect he called it his own, in another respect not his own; according to the form of God, his own; according to the form of a servant, not his own? For when he says: It is not mine but his who sent me, he makes us recur to the very Word.

Doctrina enim patris est uerbum patris, qui est unicus filius.

For the doctrine of the Father is the word of the Father, who is the only Son.

Quid sibi et illud uult: Qui in me credit, non in me credit? Quomodo in ipsum, quomodo non in ipsum? Quomodo tam contrarium sibique aduersum potest intellegi — Qui in me credit, inquit, non in me credit sed in eum qui me misit — nisi ita intellegas: 'Qui in me credit, non in hoc quod uidet credit,' ne sit spes nostra in creatura, sed in illo qui suscepit creaturam in qua humanis oculis appareret ac sic ad se aequalem patri contemplandum per fidem corda mundaret?

What does that also mean: He who believes in me, does not believe in me? How in himself, how not in himself? How can so contrary and self-opposed a thing be understood — 'He who believes in me,' he says, 'does not believe in me but in him who sent me' — unless you understand it thus: 'He who believes in me, does not believe in this which he sees,' lest our hope be in a creature, but in him who assumed the creature in which he might appear to human eyes, and thus might cleanse hearts by faith for the contemplation of himself, equal to the Father?

Ideoque ad patrem referens intentionem credentium et dicens: Non in me credit sed in eum qui me misit, non utique se a patre, id est ab illo qui eum misit, uoluit separari, sed ut sic in eum crederetur quomodo in patrem cui aequalis est. Quod aperte alio loco dicit: Credite in deum et in me credite; id est sicut creditis in deum, sic et in me quia ego et pater unus deus. Sicuti ergo hic tamquam abstulit a se fidem hominum et in patrem transtulit dicendo: Non in me credit sed in eum qui me misit, a quo tamen se non utique separauit; sic etiam quod ait: Non est meum dare, sed quibus paratum est a patre meo, puto clarere secundum quid utrumque accipiendum sit.

And therefore, referring to the Father the intention of the believers and saying: 'He who believes in me does not believe in me but in him who sent me,' he assuredly did not wish to be separated from the Father, that is, from the one who sent him, but that he might be believed in thus as in the Father, to whom he is equal. Which he openly says in another place: 'Believe in God and believe in me'; that is, as you believe in God, so also in me, because I and the Father are one God. Accordingly, therefore, just as here he, as it were, removed from himself the faith of men and transferred it to the Father by saying: 'He does not believe in me but in him who sent me,' from whom nevertheless he assuredly did not separate himself; so also in that which he says: 'It is not mine to give, but to those for whom it has been prepared by my Father,' I think it is clear in what respect each is to be taken.

Tale est enim et illud: Ego non iudicabo, cum ipse iudicaturus sit uiuos et mortuos; sed quia non ex potestate humana, propterea recurrens ad deitatem sursum erigit corda hominum propter quae subleuanda descendit.

For such, too, is that saying: I will not judge, though he himself is about to judge the living and the dead; but because it is not from human power, therefore, by recurring to the Deity he lifts up the hearts of men on high, for the sake of which being uplifted he descended.

[XIII 28] Nisi tamen idem ipse esset filius hominis propter formam serui quam accepit qui est filius dei propter dei formam in qua est, non diceret apostolus Paulus de principibus huius saeculi: Si enim cognouissent, numquam dominum gloriae crucifixissent. Ex forma enim serui crucifixus est, et tamen dominus gloriae crucifixus est. Talis enim erat illa susceptio quae deum hominem faceret et hominem deum.

[13 28] Unless, however, he himself were the Son of Man on account of the form of a servant which he received, who is the Son of God on account of the form of God in which he is, the Apostle Paul would not say about the princes of this age: For if they had known, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory. For from the form of a servant he was crucified, and yet the Lord of glory was crucified. For such was that assumption which would make God man and man God.

Quid tamen propter quid et quid secundum quid dicatur, adiuuante domino prudens et diligens et pius lector intellegit. Nam ecce diximus quia secundum id quod deus est glorificat suos, secundum hoc utique quod dominus gloriae est; et tamen dominus gloriae crucifixus est, quia recte dicitur et deus crucifixus, non ex uirtute diuinitatis sed ex infirmitate carnis; sicut dicimus quia secundum id quod deus est iudicat, hoc est ex potestate diuina non ex humana, et tamen ipse homo iudicaturus est sicut dominus gloriae crucifixus est. Ita enim aperte dicit: Cum uenerit filius hominis in gloria sua et omnes angeli cum eo, tunc congregabuntur ante eum omnes gentes, et cetera quae de futuro iudicio usque ad ultimam sententiam in eo loco praedicantur.

What nevertheless on account of what, and what according to what, is said, the prudent and diligent and pious reader, with the Lord helping, understands. For behold, we have said that according to that in which he is God he glorifies his own, according, to be sure, to this: that he is the lord of glory; and yet the lord of glory was crucified, because it is rightly said that God also was crucified, not out of the virtue of divinity but out of the infirmity of the flesh; just as we say that according to that in which he is God he judges, that is, out of divine power not out of human, and yet he himself as man is to judge, just as the lord of glory was crucified. For thus he says openly: When the Son of Man shall have come in his glory and all the angels with him, then all the nations will be gathered before him, and the rest which about the future judgment up to the ultimate sentence are proclaimed in that place.

Et iudaei quippe, qui in malitia perseuerantes in illo iudicio puniendi sunt, sicut alibi scriptum est: Videbunt in quem pupugerunt.

And indeed the Jews, who persevering in malice are to be punished in that judgment, as it is written elsewhere: They shall see him whom they pierced.

Cum enim et boni et mali uisuri sint iudicem uiuorum et mortuorum, procul dubio eum uidere mali non poterunt nisi secund

For since both the good and the evil are going to see the judge of the living and the dead, beyond doubt the evil will not be able to see him except according

formam qua filius hominis est, sed tamen in claritate in qua iudicabit, non in humilitate in qua iudicatus est. Ceterum illam dei formam in qua aequalis est patri procul dubio impii non uidebunt. Non enim sunt mundicordes: Beati enim mundicordes quoniam ipsi deum uidebunt.

form in which the Son of Man is, yet nevertheless in the clarity in which he will judge, not in the humility in which he was judged. Moreover, that form of God in which he is equal to the Father, without doubt the impious will not see. For they are not pure of heart: For blessed are the pure of heart, since they themselves will see God.

Et ipsa uisio est facie ad faciem, quae summum praemium promittitur iustis; et ipsa fiet cum tradet regnum deo et patri, in quo et suae formae uisionem uult intellegi, subiecta deo uniuersa creatura et ipsa in qua filius dei filius hominis factus est, quia secundum hanc et ipse filius tunc subiectus illi erit qui ei subiecit omnia ut sit deus omnia in omnibus. Alioquin si filius dei iudex in forma in qua aequalis est patri etiam impiis cum iudicaturus est apparebit, quid est quod pro magno dilectori suo pollicetur dicens: Et ego diligam eum et ostendam me ipsum illi? Quapropter filius hominis iudicaturus est, nec tamen ex humana potestate sed ex ea qua filius dei est; et rursus filius dei iudicaturus est, nec tamen in ea forma apparens in qua deus est aequalis patri, sed in ea qua filius hominis est.

And that very vision is face to face, which is promised as the highest premium to the just; and it itself will come to pass when he shall hand over the kingdom to God and Father, in which he also wishes the vision of his own form to be understood, with the whole creature subjected to God, and that very one in which the Son of God was made Son of Man, because according to this even the Son himself will then be subjected to him who subjected all things to him, that God may be all in all. Otherwise, if the Son of God as judge, in the form in which he is equal to the Father, will appear even to the impious when he is about to judge, what is that which he promises as something great to his lover, saying: And I will love him and I will show myself to him? Wherefore the Son of Man is going to judge, yet not from human power but from that by which he is Son of God; and in turn the Son of God is going to judge, yet not appearing in that form in which as God he is equal to the Father, but in that in which he is Son of Man.

[29] Itaque utrumque dici potest, et: 'Filius hominis iudicabit,' et : 'Non filius hominis iudicabit,' quia filius hominis iudicabit ut uerum sit quod ait: Cum uenerit filius hominis, tunc congregabuntur ante eum omnes gentes; et non filius hominis iudicabit ut uerum sit quod ait: Ego non iudicabo, et: Ego non quaero gloriam meam; est qui quaerat et iudicet. Nam secundum id quod in iudicio non forma dei sed forma filii hominis apparebit, nec ipse pater iudicabit. Secundum hoc enim dictum est: Pater non iudicat quemquam sed omne iudicium dedit filio.

[29] And so both can be said, both: 'The Son of Man will judge,' and : 'Not the Son of Man will judge,' because the Son of Man will judge, so that what he says may be true: 'When the Son of Man shall have come, then all nations will be gathered before him'; and not the Son of Man will judge, so that what he says may be true: 'I do not judge,' and: 'I do not seek my glory; there is one who seeks and judges.' For insofar as in the judgment there will appear not the form of God but the form of the Son of Man, not even the Father himself will judge. According to this, indeed, it was said: 'The Father judges no one but has given all judgment to the Son.'

Quod utrum ex illa locutione dictum sit quam supra commemorauimus ubi ait: Sic dedit filio habere uitam in semetipso, ut significaret quia sic genuit filium, an ex illa qua loquitur apostolus dicens: Propter quod eum suscitauit et donauit ei nomen quod est super omne nomen. — Hoc enim de filio hominis dictum est secundum quem dei filius suscitatus est a mortuis. Ille quippe in forma dei aequalis est patri, ex quo se exinaniuit formam serui accipiens; in ipsa forma serui et agit et patitur et accipit, quae consequenter contexit apostolus: Humiliauit se factus obediens usque ad mortem, mortem autem crucis; propter quod eum exaltauit et donauit ei nomen quod est super omne nomen, ut in nomine Iesu omne genu flectatur caelestium et terrestrium et infernorum, et omnis lingua confiteatur quia dominus Iesus in gloria est dei patris.

Whether this is said from that locution which we recalled above, where he says: “Thus he gave to the Son to have life in himself,” so as to signify that thus he begot the Son, or from that wherein the apostle speaks, saying: “Wherefore he raised him and conferred on him the name which is above every name.” — For this was said of the Son of Man, according to whom the Son of God was raised from the dead. He indeed in the form of God is equal to the Father, whence he emptied himself, taking the form of a servant; and in that very form of a servant he both acts and suffers and receives, which the apostle consequently sets forth: “He humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, and death of the cross; wherefore he exalted him and conferred on him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend of the heavenly and the earthly and the infernal, and every tongue should confess that the Lord Jesus is in the glory of God the Father.”

— Vtrum ergo secundum illam an secundum istam locutionem dictum sit: Omne iudicium dedit filio, satis hinc apparet quia se secundum illud diceretur secundum quod dictum est: Dedit filio habere uitam in semetipso, non utique diceretur: Pater non iudicat quemquam. Secundum hoc enim quod aequalem pater genuit filium iudicat cum illo. Secundum hoc ergo dictum est quod in iudicio non forma dei sed forma filii hominis apparebit.

— Whether therefore it was said according to that or according to this locution, “He gave all judgment to the Son,” is clear enough from this: for if it were being said according to that in accordance with which it was said, “He gave to the Son to have life in himself,” it would certainly not be said, “The Father judges no one.” For according to this, in that the Father begot the Son equal, he judges with him. According to this, therefore, it was said that in the judgment there will appear not the form of God but the form of the Son of Man.

Non quia non iudicabit qui dedit omne iudicium filio, cum de illo dicat filius: Est qui quaerat et iudicet; sed ita dictum est: Pater non iudicat quemquam sed omne iudicium dedit filio ac si diceretur: 'Patrem nemo uidebit in iudicio uiuorum et mortuorum, sed omnes filium,' quia et filius hominis est ut possit et ab impiis uideri cum et illi uidebunt in quem pupugerunt.

Not because he who gave all judgment to the Son will not judge, since of him the Son says: There is one who seeks and judges; but it was thus said: The Father judges no one but has given all judgment to the Son, as if it were being said: 'No one will see the Father in the judgment of the living and the dead, but all [will see] the Son,' because he is also the Son of Man, so that he can even be seen by the impious, since even they will see him whom they pierced.

[30] Quod ne conicere potius quam aperte demonstrare uideamur, proferimus eiusdem domini certam manifestamque sententiam qua ostendamus ipsam fuisse causam ut diceret: Pater non iudicat quemquam sed omne iudicium dedit filio, quia iudex forma filii hominis apparebit, quae forma non est patris sed filii, nec ea filii in qua aequalis est patri sed in qua minor est patre, ut sit in iudicio conspicuus et bonis et malis. Paulo post enim dicit: Amen dico uobis quia qui uerbum meum audit et credit ei qui me misit, habet uitam aeternam, et in iudicium non ueniet sed transiet de morte in uitam. Haec uita aeterna est illa uisio quae non pertinet ad malos.

[30] Lest we seem to conjecture rather than to demonstrate openly, we bring forward a sure and manifest sentence of the same Lord, by which we may show that this itself was the cause that he said: The Father judges no one but has given all judgment to the Son, because the judge will appear in the form of the Son of Man, which form is not the Father’s but the Son’s, nor is it that of the Son in which he is equal to the Father but that in which he is lesser than the Father, so that in the judgment he may be visible to both the good and the bad. For a little after he says: Amen, I say to you, that he who hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life, and will not come into judgment but will pass from death into life. This eternal life is that vision which does not pertain to the wicked.

Deinde sequitur: Amen, amen dico uobis quia ueniet hora et nunc est cum mortui audient uocem filii dei, et qui audierint uiuent. Et hoc proprium est piorum qui sic audiunt de incarnatione eius ut credant quia filius dei est, id est sic eum propter se factum accipiunt minorem patre in forma serui ut credant quia aequalis est patri in forma dei. Et ideo sequitur et hoc ipsum commendans dicit: Sicut enim habet pater uitam in semetipso, ita dedit et filio uitam habere in semetipso.

Then there follows: Amen, amen I say to you, that an hour will come and now is when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. And this is proper to the pious, who so hear about his incarnation that they believe that he is the Son of God, that is, they thus receive him, as to himself made, lesser than the Father in the form of a servant, so that they believe that he is equal to the Father in the form of God. And therefore it follows, and commending this very thing he says: For as the Father has life in himself, so he also gave to the Son to have life in himself.

Deinde uenit ad uisionem suae claritatis in qua uenturus est ad iudicium, quae uisio communis erit et impiis et iustis. Sequitur enim et dicit: Et potestatem dedit ei et iudicium facere quoniam filius hominis est.

Then he comes to the vision of his own brightness in which he is going to come to judgment, which vision will be common both to the impious and to the just. For it follows and says: And he gave to him the power also to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man.

Puto nihil esse manifestius. Nam quia filius dei est et aequalis est patri, non accipit hanc potestatem iudicii faciendi sed habet illam cum patre in occulto; accipit autem illam ut boni et mali eum uideant iudicantem quia filius hominis est. Visio quippe filii hominis exhibebitur et malis; nam uisio formae dei non nisi mundis corde, quia ipsi deum uidebunt; id est solis piis quorum dilectioni hoc ipsum promittit quia ostendet se ipsum illis.

I think nothing is more manifest. For because he is the Son of God and is equal to the Father, he does not receive this power of making judgment but has it with the Father in secret; however, he receives it so that both the good and the bad may see him judging, because he is the Son of Man. For indeed the vision of the Son of Man will be exhibited even to the wicked; but the vision of the form of God will be only to the pure in heart, because they themselves shall see God; that is, to the pious alone, to whose love he promises this very thing, that he will show himself to them.

Et ideo uide quid sequitur: Nolite mirari hoc, inquit. Quid nos prohibet mirari nisi illud quod reuera miratur omnis qui non intellegit ut ideo diceret patre dedisse ei potestatem et iudicium facere quoniam filius hominis est, cum magis quasi hoc exspectaretur ut diceret, 'quoniam filius dei est'? Sed quia filium dei secundum id quod in forma dei aequalis est patri uidere iniqui non possunt, oportet autem ut iudicem uiuorum et mortuorum cum coram iudicabuntur et iusti uideant et iniqui. Nolite, inquit, hoc mirari, quoniam ueniet hora in qua omnes qui in monumentis sunt audient uocem eius; et prodient qui bona gesserunt in resurrectionem uitae; qui mala gesserunt in resurrectionem iudicii.

And therefore see what follows: Do not marvel at this, he says. What forbids us to marvel, if not that very thing at which truly everyone who does not understand marvels—namely, that he said the Father had given him authority and to do judgment because he is the Son of Man, when rather this would, as it were, be expected, that he should say, "because he is the Son of God"? But because the Son of God, according to that whereby in the form of God he is equal to the Father, cannot be seen by the iniquitous, yet it is necessary that, when they are judged before him, both the just and the iniquitous see the judge of the living and the dead. Do not, he says, marvel at this, for an hour will come in which all who are in the monuments will hear his voice; and they who have done good things will come forth into the resurrection of life; they who have done evil things into the resurrection of judgment.

Ad hoc ergo oportebat ut ideo acciperet illam potestatem quia filius hominis est ut resurgentes omnes uiderent eum in forma in qua uideri ab omnibus potest, sed alii ad damnationem, alii ad uitam aeternam. Quae est autem uita aeterna nisi illa uisio quae non conceditur impiis? Vt cognoscant te, inquit, unum uerum deum et quem misisti Iesum Christum.

To this end, therefore, it was necessary that he should for this reason receive that power, because he is the Son of Man, so that all, rising again, might see him in the form in which he can be seen by all—yet some unto damnation, others unto eternal life. And what, moreover, is eternal life except that vision which is not conceded to the impious? “That they may know you,” he says, “the one true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.”

Quomodo et ipsum Iesum Christum nisi quemadmodum unum uerum deum qui ostendet se ipsum illis, non quomodo se ostendet etiam puniendis in forma filii hominis?

How will even Jesus Christ himself be [seen], except as the one true God who will show himself to them—not as he will show himself also to those to-be-punished in the form of the Son of Man?

[31] Secundum illam uisionem bonus est secundum quam uisionem deus apparet mundis corde, quoniam: Quam bonus deus Israhel rectis corde! Quando autem iudicem uidebunt mali, non eis uidebitur bonus quia non ad eum gaudebunt corde, sed tunc se plangent omnes tribus terrae in numero utique malorum omnium et infidelium. Propter hoc etiam illi, qui eum dixerat magistrum bonum quaerens ab eo consilium consequendae uitae aeternae, respondit: Quid me interrogas de bono?

[31] According to that vision he is good, according to which vision God appears to the pure in heart, since: How good is God to Israel, to the upright in heart! But when the wicked see the judge, he will not seem good to them, because they will not rejoice in him in heart; rather then all the tribes of the earth will mourn themselves, in the number, to be sure, of all the wicked and the unbelieving. For this reason even to that man who had called him “good teacher,” seeking from him counsel for attaining eternal life, he replied: Why do you ask me about the good?

Nemo bonus nisi unus deus; cum et hominem alio loco dicat bonum ipse dominus: Bonus homo, inquit, de bono thesauro cordis sui profert bona, et malus homo de malo thesauro cordis sui profert mala. Sed quia ille uitam aeternam quaerebat, uita autem aeterna est in illa contemplatione qua non ad poenam uidetur deus sed ad gaudium sempiternum, et non intellegebat cum quo loquebatur quia tantummodo eum filium hominis arbitrabatur: Quid me interrogas, inquit, de bono? Id est: 'Istam formam quam uides, quid interrogas de bono, et uocas me secundum quod uides magistrum bonum?

No one is good except one—God; although elsewhere the Lord himself calls a man good: “The good man,” he says, “from the good treasure of his heart brings forth good things, and the evil man from the evil treasure of his heart brings forth evil things.” But because that man was seeking eternal life—and eternal life is in that contemplation whereby God is seen not to punishment but to sempiternal joy—and he did not understand with whom he was speaking, since he supposed him to be only the Son of Man: “Why do you ask me,” he says, “about the good?” That is: “This form which you see—why do you ask about the good, and do you call me, according as you see, a good teacher?”

Haec forma filii hominis est; haec forma accepta est; haec forma apparebit in iudicio non tantum iustis sed et impiis, et huius formae uisio non erit in bonum eis qui male agunt. Est autem uisio formae meae in qua cum essem non rapinam arbitratus sum esse aequalis deo, sed ut hanc acciperem me ipsum exinaniui.' Ille ergo unus deus pater et filius et spiritus sanctus qui non apparebit nisi ad gaudium quod non auferetur a iustis, cui gaudio futuro suspirat qui dicit: Vnam petii a domino, hanc requiram, ut inhabitem in domo domini per omnes dies uitae meae, ut contempler delectationem domini; unus ergo deus ipse est solus bonus ad hoc, quia nemo eum uidet ad luctum et planctum sed tantum ad salutem et laetitiam ueram. 'Secundum illam formam si me intellegis, bonus sum; si autem secundum hanc solam, quid me interrogas de bono si inter illos eris qui uidebunt in quem pupugerunt, et ipsa uisio malum eis erit quia poenalis erit?'

This is the form of the Son of Man; this is the assumed form; this form will appear in the judgment not only to the just but also to the impious, and the vision of this form will not be for good to those who do evil. But there is the vision of my form, in which, when I was, I did not consider it a rapine to be equal to God, but in order to receive this one I emptied myself.' He therefore is the one God—Father and Son and Holy Spirit—who will not appear except unto the joy that will not be taken away from the just, for which future joy he sighs who says: One thing I have asked from the Lord, this will I seek, that I may dwell in the house of the Lord all the days of my life, that I may contemplate the delectation of the Lord; therefore the one God himself alone is good for this, because no one sees him unto mourning and wailing but only unto salvation and true gladness. 'According to that form, if you understand me, I am good; but if according to this one alone, why do you ask me about the good, if you will be among those who shall see him whom they pierced, and the vision itself will be an evil to them because it will be penal?'

Ex ista sententia dixisse dominum: Quid me interrogas de bono? Nemo bonus nisi unus deus, his documentis quae commemoraui probabile est, quia uisio illa dei qua contemplabimur incommutabilem atque humanis oculis inuisibilem dei substantiam quae solis sanctis promittitur — quam dicit apostolus Paulus facie ad faciem; et de qua dicit apostolus Iohannes: Similes ei erimus quoniam uidebimus eum sicuti est; et de qua dicitur: Vnam petii a domino, ut contempler delectationem domini; et de qua dicit ipse dominus: Et ego diligam eum et ostendam me ipsum illi; et propter quam solam fide corda mundamus ut simus beati mundicordes quoniam ipsi deum uidebunt; et si qua alia de ista uisione dicta sunt quae copiosissime sparsa per omnes scripturas inuenit quisquis ad eam quaerendam oculum amoris intendit — sola est summum bonum nostrum cuius adipsiscendi causa praecipimur agere quidquid recte agimus. Visio uero illa filii hominis quae praenuntiata est cum congregabuntur ante eum omnes gentes et dicenti ei: Domine, quando te uidimus esurientem et sitientem?

From this sense it is probable that the Lord said, “Why do you question me about the good? No one is good except the one God,” by the testimonies which I have recalled, because that vision of God by which we shall contemplate the unchangeable and to human eyes invisible substance of God, which is promised to the saints alone — which the Apostle Paul calls “face to face”; and about which the Apostle John says: “We shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is”; and about which it is said: “One thing I have asked of the Lord, that I may contemplate the delectation of the Lord”; and about which the Lord himself says: “And I will love him and will show myself to him”; and for the sake of which alone by faith we cleanse our hearts, that we may be the blessed pure-in-heart, because they shall see God; and if any other things have been said about this vision, which whoever directs the eye of love to seeking it finds most copiously scattered through all the Scriptures — this alone is our highest good, for the sake of attaining which we are enjoined to do whatever we do rightly. But that vision of the Son of Man which has been foretold, when all the nations shall be gathered before him and saying to him: “Lord, when did we see you hungry and thirsty?”

et cetera, nec bonum erit impiis qui mittentur in ignem aeternum, nec summum bonum erit iustis. Adhuc enim uocat eos ad regnum quod eis paratum est ab initio mundi. Sicut enim illis dicet: Ite in ignem aeternum, sic istis: Venite, benedicti patris mei, possidete paratum uobis regnum.

and so on, neither will it be good for the impious who will be sent into the eternal fire, nor will it be the highest good for the just. For he still calls them to the kingdom which has been prepared for them from the beginning of the world. For just as he will say to those: Go into the eternal fire, so to these: Come, blessed of my Father, take possession of the kingdom prepared for you.

Et sicut ibunt illi in ambustionem aeternam, sic iusti in uitam aeternam. Quid est autem uita aeterna nisi ut cognoscant te, inquit, unum uerum deum et quem misisti Iesum Christum: Sed iam in ea claritate de qua dicit patri: quam habui apud te priusquam mundus fieret. Tunc enim tradet regnum deo et patri ut intret seruus bonus in gaudium domini sui, et abscondat eos quos possidet deus in abscondito uultus sui a conturbatione hominum, eorum scilicet qui tunc conturbabuntur audientes illam sententiam.

And just as those will go into eternal burning, so the just into eternal life. But what is eternal life, he says, “except that they may know you, the one true God, and Jesus Christ whom you sent”? But now in that glory of which he says to the Father: “which I had with you before the world was made.” For then he will hand over the kingdom to God and the Father, so that the good servant may enter into the joy of his Lord, and may hide those whom God possesses in the hidden place of his face from the perturbation of men—namely, of those who will then be perturbed on hearing that sentence.

A quo auditu malo iustus non timebit si modo protegatur in tabernaculo, id est in fide recta catholicae ecclesiae, a contradictione linguarum, id est a calumniis haereticorum.

At the hearing of this evil the just man will not fear, if only he be protected in the tabernacle, that is, in the right faith of the catholic church, from the contradiction of tongues, that is, from the calumnies of heretics.

Si uero est alius intellectus uerborum domini quibus ait: Quid me interrogas de bono? Nemo bonus nisi unus deus, dum tamen non ideo credatur maioris bonitatis esse patris quam filii substantia secundum quam uerbum est per quod facta sunt omnia nihilque abhorret a sana doctrina, securi utamur non uno tantum sed quotquot reperiri potuerint. Tanto enim fortius conuincuntur haeretici quanto plures exitus patent ad eorum laqueos euitandos.

If indeed there is another understanding of the Lord’s words in which he says: “Why do you ask me about the good? No one is good except one God,” provided, however, that it is not therefore believed that the Father’s substance is of greater goodness than the Son’s—according to which he is the Word through whom all things were made—and that it in no way is at variance with sound doctrine, let us, securely, make use not of only one interpretation but of as many as can be found. For heretics are refuted so much the more strongly, the more exits stand open for avoiding their snares.

Sed ea quae adhuc consideranda sunt ab alio iam petamus exordio.

But the things which are still to be considered, let us now take up from another exordium.