Augustine: DE TRINITATE

[1] Cum homines deum quaerunt et ad intellegentiam trinitatis pro captu infirmitatis humanae animum intendunt, experti difficultates laboriosas siue in ipsa acie mentis conantis intueri inaccessibilem lucem siue in in ipsa multiplici et multimoda locutione litterarum sacrarum, ubi mihi non uidetur nisi atteri Adam ut Christi gratia glorificata dilucescat, cum ad aliquid certum discussa omni ambiguitate peruenerint facillime debent ignoscere errantibus in tanti peruestigatione secreti. Sed duo sunt quae in errore hominum difficillime tolerantur: praesumptio priusquam ueritas pateat, et cum iam patuerit praesumptae defensio falsitatis. A quibus duobus uitiis nimis inimicis inuentioni ueritatis et tractationi diuinorum sanctorumque librorum si me, ut precor et spero, deus defenderit atque muniuerit scuto bonae uoluntatis suae et gratia misericordiae suae, non ero segnis ad inquirendam substantiam dei siue per scripturam eius siue per creaturam.

[1] When human beings seek God and, toward the understanding of the Trinity, direct their mind according to the grasp of human infirmity, having experienced toilsome difficulties either in the very edge of mind striving to behold the inaccessible light, or in the very manifold and multiform locution of the sacred Scriptures—where it seems to me that nothing is done except that Adam be worn away, so that the grace of Christ, glorified, may shine forth—when they have come to something certain, all ambiguity having been sifted away, they ought most readily to pardon those who err in the investigation of so great a secret. But there are two things which, in the error of men, are most difficult to tolerate: presumption before the truth lies open, and, when it has already lain open, the defense of a presupposed falsity. From these two vices—too inimical to the discovery of truth and to the treatment of the divine and holy books—if God, as I pray and hope, shall defend and fortify me with the shield of his good will and the grace of his mercy, I shall not be slothful in inquiring into the substance of God, whether through his Scripture or through his creation.

Quae utraque nobis ad hoc proponitur intuenda ut ipse quaeratur, ipse diligatur qui et illam inspirauit et istam creauit. Nec trepidus ero ad proferendam sententiam meam in qua magis amabo inspici a rectis quam timebo morderi a peruersis. Gratanter enim suscipit oculum columbinum pulcherrima et modestissima caritas; dentem autem caninum uel euitat cautissima humilitas uel retundit solidissima ueritas.

Both of which are set before us to be looked upon to this end: that He Himself may be sought, He Himself may be loved, who both inspired that and created this. Nor shall I be timid in bringing forth my opinion, in which I shall rather love to be inspected by the upright than fear to be bitten by the perverse. For most beautiful and most modest charity gladly receives the dove-like eye; but the canine tooth either the most cautious humility avoids, or the most solid truth blunts.

Magisque optabo a quolibet reprehendi quam siue ab errante siue ab adulante laudari; nullus enim reprehensor formidandus est amatori ueritatis. Etenim aut inimicus reprehensurus est aut amicus. Si ergo inimicus insultat, ferendus est; amicus autem si errat, docendus; si docet, audiendus.

And I would rather be reprehended by anyone than be praised either by one erring or by one adulating; for no critic is to be feared by a lover of truth. For indeed either an enemy will reprehend or a friend. If therefore an enemy insults, he must be borne; but a friend, if he errs, must be taught; if he teaches, he must be listened to.

Laudator uero et errans confirmat errorem, et adulans inlicit in errorem. Emendabit ergo me iustus in misericordia et arguet me; oleum autem peccatoris non impinguabit caput meum.

But the praiser, while erring, confirms the error, and the adulator entices into error. Therefore the just man will emend me in mercy and will reprove me; but the oil of the sinner will not fatten my head.

[I 2] Quamobrem quamquam firmissime teneamus de domino nostro Iesu Christo et per scripturas disseminatam et a doctis catholicis earundem scripturarum tractatoribus demonstratam tamquam canonicam regulam quomodo intellegatur dei filius et aequalis patri secundum dei formam in qua est et minor patre secundum serui formam quam accepit, in qua forma non solum patre sed etiam spiritu sancto, neque hoc tantum sed etiam se ipso minor inuentus est, non se ipso qui fuit sed se ipso qui est quia forma serui accepta formam dei non amisit, sicut scripturarum quae in superiore libro commemorauimus testimonia docuerunt; sunt tamen quaedam in diuinis eloquiis ita posita ut ambiguum sit ad quam potius regulam referantur, utrum ad eam qua intellegimus minorem filium in assumpta creatura, an ad eam qua intellegimus non quidem minorem esse filium sed aequalem patri, tamen ab illo hunc esse deum de deo, lumen de lumine. Filium quippe dicimus deum de deo; patrem autem deum tantum, non 'de deo.' Vnde manifestum est quod filius habeat alium de quo sit et cui filius sit; pater autem non filium de quo sit habeat sed tantum cui pater sit. Omnis enim filius de patre est quod est et patri filius est; nullus autem pater de filio est quod est sed filio pater est.

[1 2] Wherefore, although we most firmly hold concerning our Lord Jesus Christ—both through the Scriptures disseminated and by learned Catholic handlers of those same Scriptures demonstrated—as a canonical rule how the Son of God is to be understood: equal to the Father according to the form of God in which he is, and less than the Father according to the form of a servant which he received; in which form he was found less not only than the Father but also than the Holy Spirit, and not this only but also less than himself—not than himself who he was, but than himself who he is—because, the form of a servant having been assumed, he did not lose the form of God, as the testimonies of the Scriptures which we have recalled in the preceding book have taught; nevertheless there are certain things in the divine oracles so placed that it is ambiguous to which rule they should rather be referred: whether to that by which we understand the Son to be lesser in the assumed creature, or to that by which we understand the Son indeed not to be lesser but equal to the Father, yet that this one is God from God, Light from Light. For we say that the Son is God from God; but that the Father is God only, not ‘from God.’ Whence it is manifest that the Son has another of whom he is and to whom he is Son; but that the Father does not have a son of whom he is, but only one to whom he is Father. For every son is from the father what he is and is son to the father; but no father is from the son what he is, but is father to the son.

[3] Quaedam itaque ita ponuntur in scripturis de patre et filio ut indicent unitatem aequalitatemque substantiae, sicuti est: ego et pater unum sumus, et: Cum in forma dei esset, non rapinam arbitratus est esse aequalis deo, et quaecumque talia sunt. Quaedam uero ita ut minorem ostendant filium propter formam serui, id est propter assumptam creaturam mutabilis humanaeque substantiae, sicuti est quod ait: Quoniam pater maior me est, et: Pater non iudicat quemquam sed omne iudicium dedit filio. Nam paulo post consequenter ait: Et potestatem dedit ei et iudicium facere, quoniam filius hominis est.

[3] Certain statements, therefore, are set down in the Scriptures about the Father and the Son in such a way as to indicate the unity and equality of substance, as is: “I and the Father are one,” and: “When he was in the form of God, he did not reckon it robbery to be equal to God,” and whatever suchlike there are. But certain others are in such a way as to show the Son as lesser on account of the form of a servant, that is, on account of the assumed creature of mutable and human substance, as is that which he says: “Because the Father is greater than I,” and: “The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son.” For a little later he accordingly says: “And he has given him authority also to do judgment, because he is the Son of Man.”

Quaedam porro ita ut nec minor nec aequalis tunc ostendatur sed tantum quod de patre sit intimetur, ut est illud: Sicut habet pater uitam in semetipso, sic dedit filio uitam habere in semetipso, et illud: Neque enim potest filius a se facere quidquam nisi quod uiderit patrem facientem. Quod si propterea dictum acceperimus quia in forma accepta ex creatura minor est filius, consequens erit ut prior pater super aquas ambulauerit aut alicuius alterius caeci nati de sputo et luto oculos aperuerit, et cetera quae filius in carne apparens inter homines fecit, ut possit ea facere qui dixit non posse filium a se facere quidquam nisi quod uiderit patrem facientem. Quia autem uel delirus ita sentiat?

Further, some things are put in such a way that neither lesser nor equal is then shown, but only that it is intimated that he is from the Father, as is this: “Just as the Father has life in himself, so he gave to the Son to have life in himself,” and this: “For neither can the Son do anything from himself unless he shall have seen the Father doing it.” But if we take this as said on the ground that in the form received from the creature the Son is lesser, it will be consequent that the Father earlier walked upon the waters, or opened the eyes of some other man born blind from spittle and clay, and the rest of the things which the Son, appearing in flesh among men, did—so that he who said that the Son is not able to do anything from himself unless he sees the Father doing it might be able to do them. For who, however, would be so delirious as to think thus?

Restat ergo ut haec ideo dicta sint quia incommutabilis est uita filii sicut patris, et tamen de patre est; et inseparabilis est operatio patris et filii, sed tamen ita operari filio de illo est de quo ipse est, id est de patre; et ita uidet filius patrem ut quo eum uidet hoc ipso sit filius. Non enim aliud illi est esse de patre, id est nasci de patre, quam uidere patrem, aut aliud uidere operantem quam pariter operari; sed ideo non a se quia non est a se, et ideo quod uiderit patrem quia de patre est. Neque enim alia similiter, sicut pictor alias tabulas pingit quemadmodum alias ab alio pictas uidit; nec eadem dissimiliter, sicut corpus easdem litteras exprimit quas animus cogitauit; sed: Quaecumque, inquit, pater facit, haec eadem et filius facit similiter.

It remains, therefore, that these things were said for this reason: because the life of the Son is immutable just as that of the Father, and yet he is from the Father; and the operation of the Father and of the Son is inseparable, but nevertheless for the Son to operate thus is from him from whom he himself is, that is, from the Father; and the Son sees the Father in such a way that by the very thing by which he sees him he is the Son. For it is not one thing for him to be from the Father, that is, to be born of the Father, and another to see the Father, nor is it another thing to see him working than to work together; but for this reason he is not from himself, because he is not from himself, and for this reason it is “what he shall have seen the Father doing,” because he is from the Father. For neither other things similarly, as a painter paints other panels in the manner in which he saw other panels painted by another; nor the same things dissimilarly, as the body expresses the same letters which the mind has conceived; but: “Whatever,” he says, “the Father does, these same things also the Son does likewise.”

Et haec eadem dixit et similiter, ac per hoc inseparabilis et par operatio est patri et filio, sed a patre est filio. Ideo non potest filius a se facere quidquam nisi quod uiderit patrem facientem. Ex hac ergo regula qua ita loquuntur scripturae ut non alium alio minorem sed tantum uelint ostendere quis de quo sit, nonnulli eum sensum conceperunt tamquam minor filius diceretur.

And he said these same things and in like manner, and through this the operation is inseparable and equal for the Father and the Son, but it is from the Father to the Son. Therefore the Son cannot do anything from himself except what he has seen the Father doing. From this rule, then, according to which the Scriptures speak thus, not that one is lesser than another, but only that they wish to show who is from whom, some have conceived that sense as though the Son were said to be lesser.

Quidam autem nostri indoctiores et in his minime eruditi, dum haec secundum formam serui conantur accipere et eos rectus intellectus non sequitur, perturbantur. Quod ne accidat, tenenda est et haec regula qua non minor filius sed quod de patre sit intimatur, quibus uerbis non inaequalitas sed natiuitas eius ostenditur.

But certain of ours more unlearned, and in these matters least erudite, while they try to receive these things according to the form of a servant and right understanding does not follow them, are perturbed. Lest this happen, this rule too must be held: that by it there is intimated not that the Son is lesser, but that he is of the Father; by which words there is shown not inequality but his nativity.

[II 4] Sunt ergo quaedam in sanctis libris, ut dicere coeperam, ita posita ut ambiguum sit quonam referenda sint, utrum ad illud quod propter assumptam creaturam minor est filius, an ad illud quod quamuis aequalis tamen quia de patre sit indicatur. Et mihi quidem uidetur si eo modo ambiguum est ut explicari discernique non possit, ex utralibet regula sine periculo posse intellegi, sicut est quod ait: Mea doctrina non est mea sed eius qui me misit. Nam et ex forma serui potest accipi sicut iam in libro superiore tractauimus, et ex forma dei in qua sic aequalis est patri ut tamen de patre sit.

[2 4] There are therefore certain things in the sacred books, as I had begun to say, so set that it is ambiguous to what they are to be referred—whether to that whereby, on account of the assumed creature, the Son is lesser, or to that whereby, although equal, yet it is indicated that He is from the Father. And indeed it seems to me that, if it is ambiguous in such a way that it cannot be explained and discerned, it can, without danger, be understood according to either rule; as is that which He says: My doctrine is not mine, but His who sent me. For this can be taken from the form of a servant, as we have already treated in the preceding book, and from the form of God, in which He is thus equal to the Father, yet is from the Father.

In dei quippe forma sicut non est aliud filius, aliud uita eius, sed ipsa uita filius est; ita non est aliud filius, aliud doctrina eius, sed ipsa doctrina filius est. Ac per hoc sicut id quod dictum est: Dedit filio uitam, non aliud intellegitur quam: 'Genuit filium qui est uita,' sic etiam cum dicitur: 'Dedit filio doctrinam,' bene intellegitur: 'Genuit filium qui est doctrina'; ut quod dictum est: Mea doctrina non est mea sed eius qui me misit, sic intellegatur ac si dictum sit: 'Ego non sum a me ipso sed ab illo qui me misit.'

Indeed, in the form of God, just as the Son is not one thing and his life another, but the Son himself is life, so the Son is not one thing and his doctrine another, but the Son himself is doctrine. And therefore, just as that which was said, He gave life to the Son, is understood as nothing other than: 'He begot the Son who is life,' so also when it is said: 'He gave doctrine to the Son,' it is well understood: 'He begot the Son who is doctrine'; so that what was said: My doctrine is not mine but his who sent me, may be understood as if it were said: 'I am not from myself but from him who sent me.'

[III 5] Nam et de spiritu sancto de quo non dictum est: Semetipsum exinaniuit formam serui accipiens, ait tamen ipse dominus: Cum autem uenerit ille spiritus ueritatis, docebit uos omnem ueritatem. Non enim loquetur a semetipso, sed quaecumque audiet loquetur, et quae uentura sunt annuntiabit uobis. Ille me clarificabit quia de meo accipiet et annuntiabit uobis.

[3 5] For also concerning the Holy Spirit, of whom it was not said: He emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, yet the Lord himself says: But when that Spirit of truth shall have come, he will teach you all truth. For he will not speak from himself, but whatever he hears he will speak, and the things that are to come he will announce to you. He will glorify me, because he will take from what is mine and will announce it to you.

Post haec uerba nisi continuo secutus dixisset: Omnia quaecumque habet pater mea sunt; propterea dixi: Quia de meo accipiet et annuntiabit uobis, crederetur fortasse ita natus de Christo spiritus sanctus quemadmodum ille de patre. De se quippe dixerat: Mea doctrina non est mea sed eius qui me misit; de spiritu autem sancto: Non enim loquetur a semetipso, sed quaecumque audiet loquetur, et: Quia de meo accipiet et annuntiabit uobis. Sed quia reddidit causam cur dixerit de meo accipiet (ait enim: Omnia quaecumque habet pater mea sunt; propterea dixi: Quia de meo accipiet), restat ut intellegatur etiam spiritus sanctus de patris habere sicut et filius.

After these words, unless he had immediately added: “All things whatsoever the Father has are mine; for this reason I said: Because he will receive from what is mine and will announce to you,” it might perhaps have been believed that the Holy Spirit was thus begotten from Christ just as he is from the Father. For concerning himself he had said: “My doctrine is not mine but his who sent me;” but concerning the Holy Spirit: “For he will not speak from himself, but whatever he hears he will speak,” and: “Because he will receive from what is mine and will announce to you.” But because he rendered the reason why he said “he will receive from what is mine” (for he said: “All things whatsoever the Father has are mine; for this reason I said: Because he will receive from what is mine”), it remains to be understood that the Holy Spirit also has from the Father just as the Son.

Quomodo nisi secundum id quod supra diximus: Cum autem uenerit paracletus quem ego mittam uobis a patre, spiritum ueritatis qui a patre procedit, ille testimonium perhibebit de me? Procedendo itaque a patre dicitur non loqui a semetipso; et sicut non ex eo fit ut minor sit filius quia dixit: Non potest filius a se facere quidquam nisi quod uiderit patrem facientem (non enim hoc ex forma serui dixit, sed ex forma dei, sicut iam ostendimus; haec autem uerba non indicant quod minor sit sed quod de patre sit); ita non hinc efficitur ut minor sit spiritus sanctus quia dictum est de illo: Non enim loquetur a semetipso, sed quaecumque audiet loquetur; secundum hoc enim dictum est quod de patre procedit. Cum uero et filius de patre sit et spiritus sanctus a patre procedat, cur non ambo filii dicantur nec ambo geniti, sed ille unus filius unigenitus, hic autem spiritus sanctus nec filius nec genitus, quia si genitus utique filius, alio loco, si deus donauerit et quantum donauerit disseremus.

How, unless according to that which we said above: “But when the Paraclete has come, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me”? Accordingly, by proceeding from the Father he is said not to speak from himself; and just as it does not follow that the Son is lesser because he said: “The Son cannot do anything from himself except what he sees the Father doing” (for he did not say this from the form of a servant, but from the form of God, as we have already shown; and these words indicate not that he is lesser but that he is from the Father), so neither is it thereby brought about that the Holy Spirit is lesser because it was said of him: “For he will not speak from himself, but whatever he hears he will speak”; for this was said according to the fact that he proceeds from the Father. But since both the Son is from the Father and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, why are not both called sons nor both begotten, but that one the one Son, the Only-begotten, whereas this one is the Holy Spirit, neither Son nor begotten—for if begotten, assuredly Son?—elsewhere, if God grants, and to the extent that he grants, we shall discuss.

[IV 6] Verumtamen hic euigilent si possunt qui hoc etiam sibi suffragari putauerunt quasi ad demonstrandum patrem filio maiorem, quia dixit filius: Pater, clarifica me. Ecce et spiritus sanctus clarificat eum; numquidnam et ipse maior est illo? Porro autem si propterea spiritus sanctus glorificat filium quia de filii accipiet et ideo de eius accipiet quia omnia quae habet pater ipsius sunt, manifestum est quia cum spiritus sanctus glorificat filium, pater glorificat filium. Vnde cognoscitur quod omnia quae habet pater non tantum filii sed etiam spiritus sancti sunt quia potens est spiritus sanctus glorificare filium quem glorificat pater.

[4 6] Nevertheless, let them wake up, if they can, who thought that this too supported them, as though to demonstrate the Father greater than the Son, because the Son said: Father, glorify me. Behold, even the Holy Spirit glorifies him; is he by any chance also greater than he? Furthermore, if for this reason the Holy Spirit glorifies the Son—because he will receive from the Son, and therefore will receive from him because all things that the Father has are his—it is manifest that when the Holy Spirit glorifies the Son, the Father glorifies the Son. Whence it is recognized that all things which the Father has belong not only to the Son but also to the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit is able to glorify the Son whom the Father glorifies.

Quod si ille qui glorificat eo quem glorificat maior est, sinant ut aequales sint qui se inuicem glorificant. Scriptum est autem quod et filius glorificet patrem: Ego te, inquit, glorificaui super terram. Sane caueant ne putetur spiritus sanctus maior ambobus quia glorificat filium quem glorificat pater, ipsum autem nec a patre nec a filio glorificari scriptum est.

But if he who glorifies is greater than the one whom he glorifies, let them allow that those who glorify one another are equals. Moreover, it is written that the Son also glorifies the Father: “I,” he says, “have glorified you upon the earth.” Of course, let them beware lest the Holy Spirit be thought greater than both, because he glorifies the Son whom the Father glorifies; but it is written that he himself is glorified neither by the Father nor by the Son.

[V 7] Sed in his conuicti ad illud se conuertunt ut dicant: 'Maior est qui mittit quam qui mittitur.' Proinde maior est pater filio quia filius a patre se missum assidue commemorat; maior est et spiritu sancto quia de illo dixit Iesus: Quem mittet pater in nomine meo; et spiritus sanctus utroque minor est quia et pater eum mittit, sicut commemorauimus, et filius cum dicit: Si autem abiero, mittam eum ad uos.

[5 7] But, convicted in these, they turn themselves to this, to say: 'Greater is the one who sends than the one who is sent.' Accordingly the Father is greater than the Son, because the Son assiduously commemorates that he has been sent by the Father; he is greater also than the Holy Spirit, because of him Jesus said: 'Whom the Father will send in my name;' and the Holy Spirit is lesser than both, because both the Father sends him, as we have commemorated, and the Son when he says: 'If, however, I shall have gone away, I will send him to you.'

Qua in quaestione primum quaero unde et quo missus sit filius. Ego, inquit, a patre exii et ueni in hunc mundum; ergo a patre exire et uenire in hunc mundum, hoc est mitti. Quid igitur est quod de illo idem ipse euangelista dicit: In hoc mundo erat, et mundus per ipsum factus est, et mundus eum non cognouit?, deinde coniungit: In sua propria uenit; illuc utique missus est quo uenit.

In this question I first ask whence and whither the Son was sent. “I,” he says, “went forth from the Father and came into this world;” therefore to go forth from the Father and to come into this world, this is to be sent. What then is it that the same evangelist says about him: “He was in this world, and the world was made through him, and the world did not know him?” then he conjoins: “He came unto his own;” thither assuredly he was sent whither he came.

At si in hunc mundum, et in hoc est quia exiit a patre et uenit in hunc mundum, et in hoc mundo erat, illuc ergo missus est ubi erat. Nam et illud quod scriptum est in propheta deum dicere: Caelum et terram ego inpleo, si de filio dictum est (ipsum enim nonnulli uolunt intellegi uel prophetis uel in prophetis locutum, quo missus est nisi illuc ubi erat?; ubique enim erat qui ait: Caelum et terram ego impleo. Si autem de patre dictum est, ubi esse potuit sine uerbo suo et sine sapientia sua quae pertendit a fine usque ad finem fortiter et disponit omnia suauiter?

But if into this world—and herein it is so, because he went out from the Father and came into this world—and he was in this world, therefore he was sent thither where he was. For also that which is written in the prophet, God saying: “I fill heaven and earth,” if it is said of the Son (for some wish him himself to be understood as having spoken either by the prophets or in the prophets), whither was he sent except thither where he was?; for he was everywhere who says: “I fill heaven and earth.” But if it is said of the Father, where could he have been without his Word and without his Wisdom which extends from end to end mightily and disposes all things sweetly?

Sed neque sine spiritu suo usquam esse potuit. Itaque si ubique est deus, ubique est etiam spiritus eius. Illuc ergo et spiritus sanctus missus est ubi erat.

But neither could he be anywhere without his spirit. Therefore, if God is everywhere, his spirit is everywhere also. Thither, therefore, the Holy Spirit too was sent, where he was.

Nam et ille qui non inuenit locum quo eat a facie dei et dicit: Si ascendero in caelum, tu ibi es; si descendero in infernum, ades; ubique uolens intellegi praesentem deum, prius nominauit spiritum eius. Nam sic ait: Quo abibo ab spiritu tuo? Et quo a facie tua fugiam?

For even he who did not find a place to go away from the face of God and says: ‘If I shall ascend into heaven, you are there; if I shall descend into hell, you are present;’ wishing that God be understood as present everywhere, first named his spirit. For thus he says: ‘Whither shall I go from your spirit? And whither shall I flee from your face?’

[8] Quocirca si et filius et spiritus sanctus illuc mittitur ubi erat, quaerendum est quomodo intellegatur ista missio siue filii siue spiritus sancti. Pater enim solus nusquam legitur missus. Et de filio quidem ita scribit apostolus: Cum autem uenit plenitudo temporis, misit deus filium suum factum ex muliere, factum sub lege, ut eos qui sub lege erant redimeret.

[8] Wherefore, if both the son and the holy spirit are sent there where they were, it must be asked how this mission is to be understood, whether of the son or of the holy spirit. For the father alone is nowhere read as sent. And concerning the son, indeed, the apostle writes thus: But when the plenitude of time came, god sent his son, made from a woman, made under the law, that he might redeem those who were under the law.

Misit, inquit, filium suum factum ex muliere. Quo nomine quis catholicus nesciat non eum priuationem uirginitatis sed differentiam sexus hebraeo loquendi more significare uoluisse? Cum itaque ait: Misit deus filium suum factum ex muliere, satis ostendit eo ipso missum filium quo factus est ex muliere.

He sent, he says, his Son made from a woman. By which expression what Catholic would not know that he wished to signify, not a privation of virginity, but a difference of sex, in the Hebrew manner of speaking? When therefore he says: God sent his Son made from a woman, he sufficiently shows that the Son was sent by that very thing by which he was made from a woman.

Quod ergo de deo natus est, in hoc mundo erat; quod autem de Maria natus est, in hunc mundum missus aduenit. Proinde mitti a patre sine spiritu sancto non potuit, non solum quia intellegitur pater cum eum misit, id est fecit ex femina, non utique sine spiritu suo fecisse; uerum etiam quod manifestissime atque apertissime in euangelio dicitur uirgini Mariae quaerenti ab angelo: Quomodo fiet istud? , Spiritus sanctus superuenit in te, et uirtus altissimi obumbrabit tibi; et Matthaeus dicit: Inuenta est in utero habens de spiritu sancto; quamquam et apud Esaiam prophetam ipse Christus intellegitur de aduentu suo futuro dicere: Et nunc dominus misit me, et spiritus eius.

Therefore, inasmuch as he was born of God, he was in this world; but inasmuch as he was born of Mary, he came, sent into this world. Accordingly, he could not be sent by the Father without the Holy Spirit, not only because it is understood that the Father, when he sent him, that is, made him from woman, certainly did not make without his Spirit; but also because it is said most manifestly and most openly in the Gospel to the Virgin Mary as she asked the angel: How shall this be? , The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and Matthew says: She was found to be with child in the womb from the Holy Spirit; although also in the prophet Isaiah Christ himself is understood to say of his future advent: And now the Lord has sent me, and his Spirit.

[9] Fortasse aliquis cogat ut dicamus etiam a se ipso missum esse filium quia ille Mariae conceptus et partus operatio trinitatis est qua creante omnia creantur. 'Et quomodo iam,' inquit, 'pater eum misit si ipse se misit?'

[9] Perhaps someone may compel us to say that the Son was even sent by himself, because that conception and parturition of Mary is an operation of the Trinity, by whose creating all things are created. 'And how now,' he says, 'did the Father send him, if he himself sent himself?'

Cui primum respondeo quaerens ut dicat, si potest: quomodo eum pater sanctificauit si se ipse sanctificauit? Vtrumque enim idem dominus ait: Quem pater, inquit, sanctificauit et misit in hunc mundum, uos dicitis quia blasphemat quoniam dixi: Filius dei sum; alio autem loco ait: Et pro eis sanctifico me ipsum. Item quaero quomodo eum pater tradidit si ipse se tradidit.

To whom I first reply, asking that he say, if he can: how did the Father sanctify him if he sanctified himself? For the same Lord says both: “Whom the Father,” he says, “sanctified and sent into this world, you say that he blasphemes because I said: I am the Son of God”; but in another place he says: “And for them I sanctify myself.” Likewise I ask how the Father handed him over if he handed himself over.

Vtrumque enim dicit apostolus Paulus: Qui filio, inquit, proprio non pepercit, sed pronobis omnibus tradidit eum. Alibi autem de ipso saluatore ait: Qui me dilexit et tradidit se ipsum pro me. Credo respondebit si haec probe sapit quia una uoluntas est patris et filii et inseparabilis operatio. Sic ergo intellegat illam incarnationem et ex uirgine natiuitatem in qua filius intellegitur missus una eademque operatione patris et filii inseparabiliter esse factam, non utique inde separato spiritu sancto de quo aperte dicitur: Inuenta est in utero habens de spiritu sancto.

For both, indeed, the apostle Paul says: ‘He who did not spare his own Son, but delivered him up for us all.’ Elsewhere, however, he says of the Savior himself: ‘Who loved me and delivered himself up for me.’ I believe he will answer, if he has good sense in these matters, that there is one will of the Father and the Son and an inseparable operation. Thus, then, let him understand that that Incarnation and the nativity from a Virgin, in which the Son is understood to have been sent, was brought about by the one and selfsame operation of the Father and the Son, inseparably—assuredly with the Holy Spirit not separated from it—of whom it is said openly: ‘She was found in the womb having from the Holy Spirit.’

Nam etiam si ita quaeramus, enodatius fortassis quod dicimus apparebit. Quomodo misit deus filium suum? Iussit ut ueniret, atque ille iubenti obtemperans uenit?

For even if we inquire thus, perhaps what we say will appear more elucidated. How did God send his Son? Did he command that he come, and did he, obeying the one commanding, come?

An rogauit? An tantummodo admonuit? Sed quodlibet horum sit, uerbo utique factum est; dei autem uerbum ipse est dei filius.

Or did he ask? Or did he only admonish? But whichever of these it may be, by a word assuredly it was done; moreover, the word of god is himself the son of god.

Quapropter cum eum pater uerbo misit, a patre et uerbo eius factum est ut mitteretur. Ergo a patre et filio missus est idem filius quia uerbum patris est ipse filius. Quis enim se tam sacrilega induat opinione ut putet temporale uerbum a patre factum esse ut aeternus filius mitteretur et in carne appareret ex tempore?

Wherefore, when the Father sent him by the Word, it was effected by the Father and by his Word that he should be sent. Therefore the same Son was sent by the Father and the Son, because the Word of the Father is the Son himself. For who would array himself in so sacrilegious an opinion as to think that a temporal word was made by the Father in order that the eternal Son might be sent and appear in flesh in time?

Sed utique in ipso dei uerbo quod erat in principio apud deum et deus erat, in ipsa scilicet sapientia dei sine tempore erat quo tempore illam in carne apparere oporteret. Itaque cum sine ullo initio temporis in principio esset uerbum, et uerbum esset apud deum, et deus esset uerbum; sine ullo tempore in ipso uerbo erat quo tempore uerbum caro fieret et habitaret in nobis. Quae plenitudo temporis cum uenisset, misit deus filium suum factum ex muliere, id est factum in tempore ut incarnatum uerbum hominibus appareret; quod in ipso uerbo sine tempore erat in quo tempore fieret.

But assuredly in the very Word of God, which was in the beginning with God and was God—namely, in the very Wisdom of God—there was, without time, the time at which it ought to appear in flesh. And so, since without any beginning of time the Word was in the beginning, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God; without any time, in the very Word there was the time at which the Word would become flesh and dwell among us. When the fullness of time had come, God sent His Son made from a woman, that is, made in time so that the incarnate Word might appear to human beings; that which, in the very Word, was without time—namely, the time at which it would come to be.

Ordo quippe temporum in aeterna dei sapientia sine tempore est. Cum itaque hoc a patre et filio factum esset ut in carne filius appareret, congruenter dictus est missus ille qui in ea carne apparuit, misisse autem ille qui in ea non apparuit. Quoniam illa quae coram corporeis oculis foris geruntur ab interiore apparatu naturae spiritalis exsistunt, propterea conuenienter missa dicuntur.

For indeed the order of times is without time in the eternal sapience of God. When therefore this had been brought about by the Father and the Son, that the Son should appear in flesh, congruently he who appeared in that flesh is said to have been sent, but he who did not appear in it is said to have sent. Since the things which are carried on outside before bodily eyes arise from the inner apparatus of the spiritual nature, for that reason they are fittingly said to be “sent.”

Forma porro illa suscepti hominis filii persona est, non etiam patris. Quapropter pater inuisibilis una cum filio secum inuisibili eundem filium uisibilem faciendo misisse eum dictus est; qui si eo modo uisibilis fieret ut cum patre inuisibilis esse desisteret, id est si substantia inuisibilis uerbi in creaturam uisibilem mutata et transiens uerteretur, ita missus a patre intellegeretur filius ut tantum missus non etiam cum patre mittens inueniretur. Cum uero sic accepta est forma serui ut maneret incommutabilis forma dei, manifestum est quod a patre et filio non apparentibus factum sit quod appareret in filio, id est ab inuisibili patre cum inuisibili filio idem ipse filius uisibilis mitteretur.

Moreover, that form of the assumed man is the person of the Son, not also of the Father. Wherefore the invisible Father, together with the Son invisible with him, by making the same Son visible, is said to have sent him; who, if he were to become visible in such a way as to cease to be invisible together with the Father—that is, if the invisible substance of the Word, changed by passing over into a visible creature, were turned—then the Son would be understood as sent by the Father in such wise that he would be found only as one sent, not also as sending together with the Father. But since the form of a servant was assumed in such a way that the unchangeable form of God remained, it is manifest that by the Father and the Son not appearing there was effected that which would appear in the Son, that is, that by the invisible Father together with the invisible Son the very same Son should be sent as visible.

Cur ergo ait: Et a me ipso non ueni? Iam hoc secundum formam serui dictum est, secundum quam dictum est: ego non iudico quemquam.

Why therefore does he say: And I did not come from myself? This already was said according to the form of a servant, according to which it was said: I do not judge anyone.

[10] Si ergo missus dicitur in quantum apparuit foris in creatura corporali qui intus in natura spiritali oculis mortalium semper occultus est, iam in promptu est intellegere etiam de spiritu sancto cur missus et ipse dicatur. Facta est enim quaedam creaturae species ex tempore in qua uisibiliter ostenderetur spiritus sanctus, siue cum super ipsum dominum corporali specie uelut columba descendit, siue cum decem diebus peractis post eius ascensionem die pentecostes factus est subito de caelo sonus quasi ferretur flatus uehemens, et uisae sunt illis linguae diuisae sicut ignis qui et insedit super unumquemque eorum. Haec operatio uisibiliter expressa et oculis oblata mortalibus missio spiritus sancti dicta est; non ut appareret eius ipsa substantia qua et ipse inuisibilis et incommutabilis est sicut pater et filius, sed ut exterioribus uisis hominum corda commota a temporali manifestatione uenientis ad occultam aeternitatem semper praesentis conuerterentur.

[10] If, therefore, he is said to be sent insofar as he appeared outwardly in a bodily creature, he who inwardly in spiritual nature is always hidden from mortal eyes, it is now easy to understand also concerning the Holy Spirit why he too is said to be sent. For a certain species of creature was made in time in which the Holy Spirit might be shown visibly, whether when, upon the Lord himself, he descended in a corporeal form as a dove, or when, with ten days completed after his ascension, on the day of Pentecost there was suddenly made from heaven a sound as though a violent blast were being borne, and there appeared to them tongues divided like fire, which also sat upon each one of them. This operation, expressed visibly and offered to mortal eyes, was called the sending of the Holy Spirit; not so that his very substance might appear, by which he too is invisible and incommutable like the Father and the Son, but so that by outward sights the hearts of men, stirred by the temporal manifestation of the One who comes, might be converted to the hidden eternity of the One always present.

[VI 11] Ideo autem nusquam scriptum est quod deus pater maior sit spiritu sancto, uel spiritus sanctus minor deo patre, quia non sic est assumpta creatura in qua appareret spiritus sanctus sicut assumptus est filius hominis in qua forma ipsius uerbi dei persona praesentaretur; non ut haberet uerbum dei sicut alii sancti sapientes, sed prae participibus suis; non utique quod amplius habebat uerbum ut esset quam ceteri excellentiore sapientia, sed quod ipsum uerbum erat. Aliud est enim uerbum in carne, aliud uerbum caro; id est aliud est uerbum in homine, aliud uerbum homo. Caro enim pro homine posita est in eo quod ait: Verbum caro factum est, sicut et illud: Et uidebit omnis caro salutare dei.

[6 11] Therefore it is written nowhere that God the Father is greater than the Holy Spirit, or that the Holy Spirit is lesser than God the Father, because the creature in which the Holy Spirit might appear was not assumed in the way the Son of Man was assumed, in which form the person of the very Word of God was made present; not so that he might have the Word of God as other holy wise men do, but beyond his partakers; not, to be sure, that he possessed the Word more, so as to be, than the others by a more excellent wisdom, but that he was the Word itself. For the Word in flesh is one thing, the Word flesh another; that is, the Word in man is one thing, the Word man another. For flesh is put for “man” in that which he says: “The Word was made flesh,” just as in that: “And all flesh shall see the salvation of God.”

Non enim sine anima uel sine mente, sed ita omnis caro ac si diceretur 'omnis homo.' Non ergo sic est assumpta creatura in qua appareret spiritus sanctus sicut assumpta est caro illa et humana illa forma est uirgine Maria.

For it is not without soul or without mind, but “all flesh” is thus as if “every man” were said. Therefore the creature in which the Holy Spirit appeared was not assumed in the same way as that flesh and that human form were assumed from the Virgin Mary.

Neque enim columbam beatificauit spiritus, uel illum flatum uel illum ignem sibique et personae suae in unitatem habitumque coniunxit in aeternum; aut uero mutabilis et conuertibilis est natura spiritus sancti ut non haec ex creatura fierent, sed ipse in illud atque illud mutabiliter uerteretur sicut aqua in glaciem. Sed apparuerunt ista sicut opportune apparere debuerunt creatura seruiente creatori et ad nutum eius incommutabiliter in se ipso permanentis ad eum significandum et demonstrandum, sicut significari et demonstrari mortalibus oportebat, mutata atque conuersa. Proinde quamquam illa columba spiritus dicta sit, et de illo igne cum diceretur: Visae sunt illis, inquit, linguae diuisae uelut ignis qui et insedit super unumquemque eorum, et coeperunt linguis loqui quemadmodum spiritus dabat eis pronuntiare, ut ostenderet per illum ignem spiritum demonstratum sicut per columbam; non tamen ita possumus dicere spiritum sanctum et deum et columbam aut et deum et ignem, sicut dicimus filium et deum et hominem nec sicut dicimus filium agnum dei, non solum Iohanne baptista dicente: Ecce agnus dei, sed etiam Iohanne euangelista uidente agnum occisum in apocalypsi.

For neither did the Spirit beatify the dove, or that breath, or that fire, and join them to himself and to his own person into a unity and a settled habit forever; nor, indeed, is the nature of the Holy Spirit mutable and convertible, so that these would not be made from a creature, but he himself would be turned mutably into this and that, like water into ice. Rather, these things appeared as they ought opportunely to appear, the creature serving the Creator and, at his nod, he remaining incommutably in himself, for the signifying and demonstrating of him, as it was fitting to be signified and demonstrated to mortals, the creature having been changed and converted. Accordingly, although that dove was called “the Spirit,” and concerning that fire when it was said: “There were seen by them,” he says, “tongues divided as if of fire, which also sat upon each one of them, and they began to speak with tongues, as the Spirit gave them to pronounce,” so that by that fire the Spirit might be shown just as by the dove; nevertheless we cannot so say “the Holy Spirit both God and dove,” or “both God and fire,” as we say “the Son both God and man,” nor as we say “the Son the Lamb of God”—not only with John the Baptist saying, “Behold the Lamb of God,” but also with John the Evangelist seeing a lamb slain in the Apocalypse.

Illa quippe uisio prophetica non est exhibita oculis corporeis per formas corporeas sed in spiritu per spiritales imagines corporum.

That prophetic vision indeed was not exhibited to bodily eyes through corporeal forms, but in spirit through spiritual images of bodies.

Columbam uero illam et ignem oculis uiderunt quicumque uiderunt, quamquam de igne disceptari potest utrum oculis an spiritu uisus sit propter uerba sic posita; non enim ait: 'Viderunt linguas diuisas uelut ignem,' sed: Visae sunt eis. Non autem sub eadem significatione solemus dicere: 'Visum est mihi,' qua dicimus: 'Vidi.' Et in illis quidem spiritalibus uisis imaginum corporalium solet dici et 'Visum est mihi' et Vidi, in istis uero quae per expressam corporalem speciem oculis demonstrantur non solet dici 'Visum est mihi' sed Vidi. De illo ergo igne potest esse quaestio quomodo uisus sit, utrum intus in spiritu tamquam foris, an uere foris coram oculis carnis; de illa uero columba quae dicta est corporali specie descendisse nullus umquam debitauit quod oculis uisa sit.

But that dove and that fire were seen with the eyes by whoever saw them, although about the fire it can be disputed whether it was seen with the eyes or with the spirit on account of the words set thus; for he does not say: 'Viderunt linguas divisas velut ignem,' but: Visae sunt eis. Nor do we use to say 'Visum est mihi' with the same signification as we say 'Vidi.' And indeed in those spiritual visions of corporeal images it is customary to say both 'Visum est mihi' and Vidi, but in those which are shown to the eyes through an explicit corporeal form it is not customary to say 'Visum est mihi' but Vidi. Therefore concerning that fire there can be a question how it was seen, whether inwardly in the spirit as if outwardly, or truly outwardly before the eyes of flesh; but concerning that dove which is said to have descended in a bodily form no one has ever doubted that it was seen with the eyes.

Nec sicut dicimus filium petram (scriptum est enim: Petra autem erat Christus), ita possumus dicere spiritum columbam uel ignem. Illa enim petra iam erat in creatura et per actionis modum connuncupata est nomine Christi quem significabat, sicut lapis ille quem Iacob positum ad caput etiam unctione ad significandum dominum assumpsit; sicut Isaac Christus erat cum ad se immolandum ligna portabat. Accessit istis actio quaedam significatiua iam exsistentibus; non autem sicut illa columba et ignis ad haec tantummodo significanda repente exstiterunt.

Nor, just as we say the Son is the rock (for it is written: “But the Rock was Christ”), can we likewise say the Spirit is a dove or fire. For that rock already was in creation and, by a mode of action, was designated with the name of Christ whom it signified, just as that stone which Jacob, having placed at his head, also took up with an anointing for signifying the Lord; just as Isaac was Christ when he was carrying the wood for himself to be immolated. To these, a certain significative action was added upon things already existing; but not so as with that dove and fire, which suddenly came to be for the sole purpose of signifying these things.

Magis ista similia mihi uidentur flammae illi quae in rubo apparuit Moysi, et illi columnae quam populus in heremo sequebatur, et fulguribus ac tonitribus quae fiebat cum lex daretur in monte. Ad hoc enim rerum illarum corporalis exstitit species ut aliquid significaret atque praeteriret.

These things seem to me more similar to that flame which appeared in the bush to Moses, and to that column which the people followed in the desert, and to the lightnings and thunders which occurred when the law was given on the mountain. For to this end the corporeal species of those things existed: that it might signify something and pass away.

[VII 12] Propter has ergo corporales formas quae ad eum significandum et sicut humanis sensibus oportebat demonstrandum temporaliter exstiterunt missus dicitur etiam spiritus sanctus; non tamen minor patre dictus est sicut filius propter formam serui, quia illa forma serui inhaesit ad unitatem personae, illae uero species corporales ad demonstrandum quod opus fuit ad tempus apparuerunt et esse postea destiterunt.

[7 12] Therefore, on account of these corporeal forms which came into existence temporally to signify him and, as was fitting for human senses, to be demonstrated, the Holy Spirit also is said to have been sent; yet he was not said to be lesser than the Father as the Son was on account of the form of a servant, because that form of a servant adhered to the unity of the person, whereas those corporeal species appeared for a time to demonstrate what was needful and afterward ceased to be.

Cur ergo non et pater dicitur missus per illas species corporales, ignem rubi et columnas nubis uel ignis et fulgura in monte et si qua talia tunc apparuerunt, cum eum coram locutum patribus teste scriptura didicimus, si per illos creaturae modos et formas corporaliter expressas et humanis aspectibus praesentatas ipse demonstrabatur? Si autem filius per ea demonstrabatur, cur tanto post dicitur missus cum ex femina factus est, sicut dicit apostolus: Cum autem uenit plenitudo temporis, misit deus filium suum factum ex muliere, quandoquidem et antea mittebatur cum per illas creaturae mutabiles formas patribus apparebat? Aut si non recte posset dici missus nisi cum uerbum caro factum est, cur missus dicitur spiritus sanctus cuius nulla talis incorporatio facta est?

Why, then, is not the Father also said to be sent through those corporeal species—the fire of the bramble and the pillars of cloud or of fire and the lightnings on the mountain and whatever such things then appeared—since we have learned, with Scripture as witness, that he spoke in person to the fathers, if by those modes of creature and forms expressed corporeally and presented to human sight he himself was being shown? But if the Son was being shown by them, why is he said to have been sent so much later when he was made from a woman, as the Apostle says: But when the fullness of time came, God sent his Son, made from a woman; seeing that even before he was being sent when, through those changeable forms of creature, he was appearing to the fathers? Or if it could not rightly be said “sent” except when the Word was made flesh, why is the Holy Spirit said to be sent, for whom no such incorporation was made?

Si uero per illa uisibilia quae in lege et prophetis commendantur nec pater nec filius sed spiritus sanctus ostendebatur, cur etiam ipse nunc dicitur missus cum illis modis et antea mitteretur?

If indeed through those visible things which are commended in the Law and the Prophets neither the Father nor the Son but the Holy Spirit was being shown, why is even he now said to be sent, when by those modes he also was being sent before?

[13] In huius perplexitate quaestionis primum domino adiuuante quaerendum est utrum pater an filius an spiritus sanctus; an aliquando pater, aliquando filius, aliquando spiritus sanctus; an sine ulla distinctione personarum sicut dicitur deus unus et solus, id est ipsa trinitas, per illas creaturae formas patribus apparuerit. Deinde quodlibet horum inuentum uisumue fuerit, utrum ad hoc opus tantummodo creatura formata sit in qua deus sicut tunc oportuisse iudicauit humanis ostenderetur aspectibus, an angeli qui iam erant ita mittebantur ut ex persona dei loquerentur assumentes corporalem speciem de creatura corporea in usum ministrii sui sicut cuique opus esset, aut ipsum corpus suum cui non subduntur sed subditum regunt in species quas uellent adcommodatas atque aptas actionibus suis mutantes atque uertentes secundum attributam sibi a creatore potentiam. Postremo uidebimus id quod quaerere institueramus, utrum filius an spiritus sanctus et antea mittebantur, et si mittebantur, quid inter illam missionem et eam quam in euangelio legimus distet; an missus non sit aliquis eorum nisi cum uel filius factus esset ex Maria uirgine uel cum spiritus sanctus uisibili specie siue in columba siue in igneis linguis apparuit.

[13] In the perplexity of this question, first, with the Lord assisting, it must be asked whether it was the Father or the Son or the Holy Spirit; or sometimes the Father, sometimes the Son, sometimes the Holy Spirit; or, without any distinction of persons, as God is said to be one and sole, that is, the Trinity itself, that appeared to the fathers through those forms of creature. Then, whichever of these shall have been found or seemed likely, whether for this work only a creature was formed in which God, as he judged ought then, would be shown to human eyes; or whether angels who already existed were thus being sent, so that they spoke from the persona of God, assuming a corporeal appearance from corporeal creation for the use of their ministry, as each might have need; or whether their own body itself, to which they are not subjected but which, being subjected, they rule, they were changing and turning into whatever shapes they wished, accommodated and fitted to their actions, according to the power attributed to them by the Creator. Finally, we shall consider what we had set out to inquire: whether the Son or the Holy Spirit also were being sent before, and, if they were being sent, what differs between that mission and the one which we read in the Gospel; or whether none of them is said to have been sent except when either the Son was made from Mary the Virgin, or when the Holy Spirit appeared in visible form, whether in a dove or in fiery tongues.

[VIII 14] Omittamus igitur eos qui nimis carnaliter naturam uerbi dei atque sapientiam quae in se ipsa manens innouat omnia, quem unicum filius dei dicimus, non solum mutabilem uerum etiam uisibilem esse putauerunt. Hi enim multum crassum cor diuinis rebus inquirendis audacius quam religiosius attulerunt. Anima quippe cum sit substantia spiritalis, cumque etiam ipsa facta sit nec per alium fieri potuerit nisi per quem facta sunt omnia et sine quo factum est nihil, quamuis sit mutabilis, non est tamen uisibilis.

[VIII 14] Let us therefore omit those who too carnally thought the nature of the Word of God and the Wisdom which, remaining in itself, innovates all things—whom we call the Only Son of God—to be not only mutable but even visible. For these men brought a very gross heart to the inquiry of divine matters, more audaciously than religiously. For the soul, since it is a spiritual substance, and since it too has been made and could have been made by none other than by Him through whom all things were made and without whom nothing was made, although it is mutable, nevertheless is not visible.

Quod illi de uerbo ipso atque ipsa dei sapientia per quam facta est anima crediderunt, cum sit illa non inuisibilis tantum, quod et anima est, sed etiam incommutabilis, quod anima non est. Eadem quippe incommutabilitas eius commemorata est ut diceretur: In se ipsa manens innouat omnia. Et isti quidem ruinam erroris sui diuinarum scripturarum testimoniis quasi fulcire conantes adhibent Pauli apostoli sententiam, et quod dictum est de uno solo deo in quo ipsa trinitas intellegitur, tantum de patre, non et de filio et de spiritu sancto dictum accipiunt: Regi autem saeculorum immortali, inuisibili, soli deo honor et gloria in saecula saeculorum; et illud alterum: Beatus et solus potens, rex regum et dominus dominantium, qui solus habet immortalitatem et lucem habitat inaccessibilem; quem nemo hominum uidit nec uidere potest.

What they believed concerning the Word itself and the very wisdom of God, through which the soul was made, whereas that is not only invisible, which the soul also is, but also immutable, which the soul is not. For that same immutability of it was commemorated so that it was said: Remaining in itself, it innovates all things. And these men indeed, attempting as it were to shore up the ruin of their error by the testimonies of the divine Scriptures, bring forward the sentence of the Apostle Paul, and what has been said of the one only God, in whom the Trinity itself is understood, they receive as said only of the Father, not also of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: But to the King of the ages, immortal, invisible, the only God, honor and glory unto the ages of ages; and that other: The Blessed and only Potentate, King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone has immortality and inhabits inaccessible light; whom no one of men has seen nor can see.

Haec quemadmodum intellegenda sint iam satis nos disseruisse arbitror.

I judge that we have already sufficiently discussed how these things are to be understood.

[IX 15] Verum illi qui ista non de filio nec de spiritu sancto sed tantum de patre accipi uolunt, dicunt uisibilem filium non per carnem de uirgine assumptam sed etiam antea per se ipsum. 'Nam ipse,' inquiunt, 'apparuit oculis patrum.' Quibus si dixeris: 'Quomodo ergo uisibilis per se ipsum filius, ita et mortalis per se ipsum, ut constet uobis quod tantummodo de patre uultis intellegi quod dictum est: Qui solus habet immortalitatem? Nam si propter carnem susceptam mortalis est filius, propter hanc sinite ut sit et uisibilis.' Respondent nec propter hanc se mortalem filium dicere, sed sicut et ante uisibilem ita et ante mortalem.

[9 15] But those who wish to take these things not of the Son nor of the Holy Spirit but only of the Father say that the Son was visible not through the flesh assumed from the Virgin, but even before, by himself. 'For he himself,' they say, 'appeared to the eyes of the fathers.' To whom if you should say: 'How then, if the Son is visible by himself, is he also mortal by himself, so that it may be consistent for you that you wish what was said—Who alone has immortality—to be understood only of the Father? For if because of the assumed flesh the Son is mortal, on account of this allow him also to be visible.' They reply that they do not say the Son is mortal on account of this, but that just as he was visible before, so also before mortal.

Nam si propter carnem filium dicunt esse mortalem, iam non pater sine filio solus habet immortalitatem quia et uerbum eius per quod omnia facta sunt habet immortalitatem. Neque enim quia carnem assumpsit mortalem ideo amisit immortalitatem suam quandoquidem nec animae humanae hoc accidere potuit ut cum corpore moreretur dicente ipso domino: Nolite timere eos qui corpus occidunt, animam autem non possunt occidere. Aut uero etiam spiritus sanctus carnem assumpsit (de quo utique sine dubio turbabuntur). Si propter carnem mortalis est filius, quomodo accipiant patrem tantummodo sine filio et sine spiritu sancto habere immortalitatem quandoquidem spiritus sanctus non assumpsit carnem?

For if, on account of the flesh, they say the Son is mortal, then the Father no longer alone without the Son has immortality, because even his Word, through which all things were made, has immortality. For neither because he assumed mortal flesh did he therefore lose his immortality, since not even to a human soul could this befall—that it should die together with the body—the Lord himself saying: “Do not fear those who kill the body, but the soul they cannot kill.” Or indeed did even the Holy Spirit assume flesh (about which, to be sure, they will without doubt be troubled)? If on account of the flesh the Son is mortal, how do they take it that the Father alone, without the Son and without the Holy Spirit, has immortality, since the Holy Spirit did not assume flesh?

Qui si non habet immortalitatem, non ergo propter carnem mortalis est filius; si autem habet spiritus sanctus immortalitatem, non patre tantummodo dictum est quia solus habet immortalitatem.

Who, if he does not have immortality, then the Son is not mortal on account of the flesh; but if the Holy Spirit has immortality, it was not said of the Father only that he alone has immortality.

Quocirca ita se arbitrantur et ante incarnationem per se ipsum mortalem filium posse conuincere quia ipsa mutabilitas non inconuenienter mortalitas dicitur, secundum quam et anima dicitur mori, non quia in corpus uel in aliquam alteram substantiam mutatur et uertitur, sed in ipsa sua substantia quidquid alio modo nunc est ac fuit, secundum id quod destitit esse quod erat mortale deprehenditur. 'Quia itaque,' inquiunt, 'antequam natus esset filius dei de uirgine Maria, ipse apparuit patribus nostris non in una eademque specie sed multiformiter, aliter atque aliter, et uisibilis est per se ipsum quia nondum carne assumpta substantia eius conspicua mortalibus oculis fuit, et mortalis in quantum mutabilis. Ita et spiritus sanctus qui alias columba, alias ignis apparuit.

Therefore they thus suppose that even before the Incarnation they can prove the Son to be mortal by himself, because mutability itself is not inappropriately called mortality, according to which the soul too is said to die—not because it is changed and turned into a body or into any other substance, but in its very own substance whatever now is in another way than it was, insofar as it ceased to be what it was, is found to be mortal. ‘Because therefore,’ they say, ‘before the Son of God was born of the virgin Mary, he himself appeared to our fathers not in one and the same species but multiformly, in one way and another; and he is visible by himself because, with flesh not yet assumed, his substance was conspicuous to mortal eyes, and mortal inasmuch as changeable. So also the Holy Spirit, who at one time appeared as a dove, at another as fire.’

Vnde non trinitati,' aiunt, 'sed singulariter et proprie patri tantummodo conuenit quod dictum est: Immortali, inuisibili, soli deo, et: Qui solus habet immortalitatem et lucem habitat inaccessibilem; quem nemo hominum uidit nec uidere potest.'

Whence, they say, this does not pertain to the Trinity, but singularly and properly to the Father alone: what has been said, ‘to the immortal, invisible, only God,’ and: ‘who alone has immortality and inhabits inaccessible light; whom no human has seen nor can see.’

[16] Omissis ergo istis qui nec animae substantiam inuisibilem nosse potuerunt, unde longe remotum ab eis erat ut nossent unius et solius dei, id est patris et filii et spiritus sancti, non solum inuisibilem uerum et incommutabilem permanere substantiam ac per hoc in uera et sincera immortalitate consistere; nos qui numquam apparuisse corporeis oculis deum nec patrem nec filium nec spiritum sanctum dicimus nisi per subiectam suae potestati corpoream creaturam, in pace catholica pacifico studio requiramus parati corrigi si fraterne ac recte reprehendimur, parati etiamsi ab inimico uera tamen dicente mordemur, utrum indiscrete deus apparuerit patribus nostris antequam Christus ueniret in carne, an aliqua ex trinitate persona, an singillatim quasi per uices.

[16] Therefore, omitting those who were not able even to know the invisible substance of the soul—whence it was far from them to know that the one and only God, that is, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, remains not only an invisible but also an immutable substance, and thereby consists in true and sincere immortality—let us, who say that God—neither the Father nor the Son nor the Holy Spirit—has ever appeared to bodily eyes except through a corporeal creature subject to His power, in Catholic peace and with peaceful zeal inquire, ready to be corrected if we are reprehended in a brotherly and right way, ready even if we are stung by an enemy yet speaking truth, whether God appeared indiscriminately to our fathers before Christ came in the flesh, or some Person of the Trinity, or individually, as it were, by turns.

[X 17] Ac primum in eo quod in genesi scriptum est locutum deum cum homine quem de limo finxerat, si excepta figurata significatione ut rei gestae fides etiam ad litteram teneatur ista tractamus, in specie hominis uidetur deus cum homine tunc locutus. Non quidem expresse hoc in libro positum est, sed circumstantia lectionis id resonat maxime illo quod scriptum est uocem dei audisse Adam deambulantis in paradiso ad uesperam et abscondisse se in medio ligni quod erat in paradiso, deoque dicenti: Adam, ubi es? respondisse: Audiui uocem tuam et abscondi me a facie tua quoniam nudus sum. Quomodo enim possit ad litteram intellegi talis dei deambulatio et conlocutio nisi in specie humana non uideo.

[10 17] And first, in that which in Genesis it is written that God spoke with the man whom he had fashioned from clay, if, the figurative signification excepted, so that the credence of the thing done may be held even to the letter, we treat these matters, God seems then to have spoken with the man in the species (form) of a man. Not indeed is this set down expressly in the book, but the circumstance of the reading resonates this, most of all by that which is written, that Adam heard the voice of God deambulating in paradise toward evening and hid himself in the midst of the tree that was in paradise; and when God said, “Adam, where are you?” he answered, “I heard your voice and I hid myself from your face because I am naked.” For how such a walking-about of God and conversation can be understood to the letter unless in human form, I do not see.

Neque enim dici potest uocem solam factam ubi deambulasse dictus est deus, aut eum qui deambulabat in loco non fuisse uisibilem cum et Adam dicat quod se absconderit a facie dei. Quis erat ergo ille? Vtrum pater an filius an spiritus sanctus?

For neither can it be said that only a voice was produced where God is said to have walked about, or that the one who was walking about in the place was not visible, since Adam too says that he hid himself from the face of God. Who, then, was he? Whether the Father or the Son or the Holy Spirit?

An omnino deus indiscrete ipsa trinitas in forma hominis homini loquebatur? Contextio quidem ipsa scripturae nusquam transire sentitur a persona ad personam; sed ille uidetur loqui ad primum hominem qui dicebat: Fiat lux, et: Fiat firmamentum, et cetera per illos singulos dies, quem deum patrem solemus accipere dicentem ut fiat quidquid facere uoluit. Omnia enim per uerbum suum fecit, quod uerbum eius unicum filium eius secundum rectam fidei regulam nouimus.

Or was God altogether—indiscriminately, the Trinity itself—speaking to man in the form of a man? The very contexture of the Scripture is felt nowhere to pass from person to person; rather, he seems to be the one speaking to the first man who was saying: Let there be light, and: Let there be a firmament, and the rest through those several days—whom we are accustomed to take as God the Father, saying that there be whatever he willed to make. For he made all things through his Word, which Word, according to the right rule of faith, we know to be his only-begotten Son.

Si ergo deus pater locutus est ad primum hominem et ipse deambulabat in paradiso ad uesperam et ab eius facie se in medio ligni paradisi peccator absconderat, cur non iam ipse intellegatur apparuisse Abrahae et Moysi et quibus uoluit quemadmodum uoluit per subiectam sibi commutabilem atque uisibilem creaturam, cum ipse in se ipso atque in substantia sua qua est incommutabilis atque inuisibilis maneat? Sed fieri potuit ut a persona ad personam occulte scriptura transiret, et cum patrem dixisse narrasset: Fiat lux, et cetera quae per uerbum fecisse commemoratur, iam filium indicaret loqui ad primum hominem non aperte hoc explicans sed eis qui possent intellegendum intimans.

If therefore God the Father spoke to the first man, and he himself was walking in paradise toward evening, and the sinner had hidden himself from his face in the midst of the trees of paradise, why should he not already be understood to have appeared to Abraham and to Moses and to whom he willed, as he willed, through a creature subject to himself, changeable and visible, while he himself remains in himself and in his substance, wherein he is incommutable and invisible? But it could have come to pass that Scripture passed covertly from person to person; and when it had related that the Father said, “Let there be light,” and the rest which he is remembered to have made through the Word, it was now indicating the Son to be speaking to the first man, not explaining this openly, but intimating it to be understood by those who could.

[18] Qui ergo habet uires quibus hoc secretum possit mentis acie penetrare ut ei liquido appareat uel posse etiam patrem uel non posse nisi filium et spiritum sanctum per creaturam uisibilem humanis oculis apparere pergat in haec scrutanda, si potest, etiam uerbis enuntianda atque tractanda; res tamen quantum ad hoc scripturae testimonium attinet ubi deus cum homine locutus est, quantum existimo, occulta est quia etiam utrum soleret Adam corporeis oculis deum uidere non euidenter apparet, cum praesertim magna sit quaestio cuiusmodi oculi eis aperti fuerint quando uetitum cibum gustauerunt; hi enim antequam gustassent clausi erant. Illud tantum non temere dixerim si paradisum corporalem quendam locum illa scriptura insinuat, deambulare ibi deum nisi in aliqua corporea forma nullo modo potuisse. Nam et solas uoces factas quas audiret homo nec aliquam formam uideret dici potest; nec quia scriptum est: Abscondit se Adam a facie dei, continuo sequitur ut soleret eius faciem uidere.

[18] Therefore, whoever has the powers by which he can penetrate this secret with the keenness of mind, so that it appears to him clearly either that even the Father is able, or that none is able except the Son and the Holy Spirit, to appear to human eyes through a visible creatura—let him proceed to scrutinize these things, if he can, even to enunciate and handle them in words; yet the matter, so far as this testimony of Scripture is concerned where God spoke with man, is, as I suppose, hidden, because it does not plainly appear even whether Adam was wont to see God with bodily eyes, especially since there is a great question what sort of eyes were opened to them when they tasted the forbidden food; for these, before they had tasted, were closed. This at least I would not say rashly: if that Scripture intimates paradise to be some bodily place, God could in no way have walked about there unless in some bodily form. For it can also be said that only voices were produced for the man to hear, and that he saw no form; nor, because it is written: Adam hid himself from the face of God, does it straightway follow that he was wont to see His face.

Quid si enim non quidem uidere ipse poterat sed uideri ipse metuebat ab eo cuius uocem audierat et deambulantis praesentiam senserat? Nam et Cain dixit deo: A facie tua abscondam me, nec ideo fateri cogimur eum solere cernere faciem dei corporeis oculis in qualibet forma uisibili, quamuis de facinore suo uocem interrogantis secumque loquentis audisset.

What if indeed he himself could not see, but he himself feared to be seen by him whose voice he had heard and had sensed the presence of One walking about? For Cain also said to God: From your face I shall hide myself; nor therefore are we compelled to confess that he was accustomed to discern the face of God with corporeal eyes in any visible form, although, concerning his crime, he had heard the voice of One questioning and speaking with him.

Cuiusmodi autem loquela tunc deus exterioribus hominum auribus insonaret maxime ad primum hominem loquens, et inuenire difficile est et non hoc isto sermone suscepimus. Verumtamen si solae uoces et sonitus fiebant quibus quaedam sensibilis praesentia dei primis illis hominibus praeberetur, cur ibi personam dei patris non intellegam nescio quandoquidem persona eius ostenditur et in ea uoce cum Iesus in monte coram tribus discipulis praefulgens apparuit et in illa ubi super baptizatum columba descendit et in illa ubi ad patrem de sua glorificatione clamauit eique responsum est: Et clarificaui et iterum clarificabo; non quia fieri potuit uox sine opere filii et spiritus sancti (trinitas quippe inseparabiliter operatur), sed quia ea uox facta est quae solius personam patris ostenderet, sicut humanam illam formam ex uirgine Maria trinitas operata est sed solius filii persona est, uisibilem namque filii solius personam inuisibilis trinitas operata est. Nec nos aliquid prohibet illas uoces factas ad Adam non solum a trinitate factas intellegere sed etiam personam demonstrantes eiusdem trinitatis accipere.

Of what kind of utterance then God at that time resounded to the exterior ears of men, especially speaking to the first man, is both difficult to discover, and we have not undertaken this in this discourse. Nevertheless, if there were only voices and sounds being made by which a certain sensible presence of God was afforded to those first men, why I should not understand there the person of God the Father I do not know, since his person is shown both in that voice when Jesus on the mountain appeared shining before three disciples, and in that voice where upon the baptized one a dove descended, and in that where he cried to the Father concerning his glorification and it was answered to him: “I have glorified, and I will glorify again”; not because a voice could come to be without the working of the Son and the Holy Spirit (for the Trinity works inseparably), but because that voice was made which would show the person of the Father alone, just as that human form from the Virgin Mary the Trinity wrought, but it is the person of the Son alone; for the invisible Trinity wrought the visible person of the Son alone. Nor does anything forbid us to understand those voices made to Adam as made not only by the Trinity, but also to take them as demonstrating the person of that same Trinity.

Ibi enim cogimur non nisi patris accipere ubi dictum est: Hic est filius meus dilectus; neque enim Iesus etiam spiritus sancti filius aut etiam suus filius credi aut intellegi potest. Et ubi sonuit: et clarificaui et iterum clarificabo, non nisi patris personam fatemur; responsio quippe est ad illam domini uocem qua dixerat: Pater, clarifica filium tuum, quod non potuit dicere nisi deo patri tantum non et spiritu sancto cuius non est filius. Hic autem ubi scriptum est: Et dixit dominus deus ad Adam, cur non ipsa trinitas intellegatur, nihil dici potest.

There, indeed, we are compelled to receive it as of the Father alone where it was said: “This is my beloved Son”; for neither can Jesus be believed or understood to be also the Son of the Holy Spirit, or even his own son. And where there sounded: “I have glorified and I will glorify again,” we confess the person of the Father only; for it is a response to that voice of the Lord in which he had said: “Father, glorify your Son,” which he could say only to God the Father alone, and not to the Holy Spirit, of whom he is not the Son. But here, where it is written: “And the Lord God said to Adam,” nothing can be said as to why the Trinity itself should not be understood.

[19] Similiter etiam quod scriptum est: Et dixit dominus ad Abraham: Exi de terra tua et de Cognatione tua et de domo patris tui, non est apertum utrum sola uox facta sit ad aures Abrahae an et oculis eius aliquid apparuerit. Paulo post autem aliquanto apertius dictum est: Et uisus est dominus Abrahae et dixit illi: semini tuo dabo terram hanc. Sed nec ibi expressum est in qua specie uisus ei sit dominus, aut utrum pater an filius an spiritus sanctus ei uisus sit.

[19] Similarly also as that which is written: And the lord said to Abraham: Go out from your land and from your Kindred and from your father’s house, it is not clear whether only a voice was made to Abraham’s ears or whether also something appeared to his eyes. But a little later it was said somewhat more openly: And the lord appeared to Abraham and said to him: To your seed I will give this land. But neither there is it expressed in what form the lord was seen by him, or whether the father or the son or the holy spirit was seen by him.

Nisi forte ideo putant filium uisum esse Abrahae quia non scriptum est: 'Visus est ei deus,' sed: Visus est ei dominus; tamquam enim proprie uidetur filius dominus uocari dicente apostolo: Nam et si sunt qui dicuntur dii siue in caelo siue in terra sicuti sunt dii multi et domini multi, sed nobis unus deum pater ex quo omnia et nos in ipso, et unus dominus Iesus Christus per quem omnia et nos per ipsum. Sed cum et deus pater multis locis inueniatur dominus dictus sicut est illud: Dominus dixit ad me: Filius meus es tu; ego hodie genui te, et illud: Dixit dominus domino meo: Sede ad dexteram meam; cum etiam spiritus sanctus dominus dictus inueniatur ubi apostolus ait: Dominus autem spiritus est, et ne quisquam arbitraretur filium significatum et ideo dictum spiritum propter incorpoream substantiam, secutus contexuit: Vbi autem spiritus domini, ibi libertas; spiritum autem domini spiritum sanctum esse nemo dubitauerit. Neque hic ergo euidenter apparet utrum aliqua ex trinitate persona an deus ipse trinitas, de quo uno deo dictum est: Dominum deum tuum adorabis et illi soli seruies, uisus fuerit Abrahae.

Unless perhaps for this reason they think the Son was seen by Abraham, because it is not written: ‘God was seen by him,’ but: The lord was seen by him; as though the Son is properly seen to be called lord, the apostle saying: For even if there are those who are called gods either in heaven or on earth, just as there are many gods and many lords, yet 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. But since god the Father is also found in many places to be called lord, as in this: The lord said to me: You are my son; today I have begotten you, and in that: The lord said to my lord: Sit at my right hand; since the holy spirit also is found to be called lord where the apostle says: Now the lord is spirit, and lest anyone should suppose that the Son was signified and therefore ‘spirit’ was said on account of an incorporeal substance, he went on to weave together: But where the spirit of the lord is, there is liberty; and that the spirit of the lord is the holy spirit no one has doubted. Therefore neither here does it appear evidently whether some person of the trinity, or God himself the Trinity—of whom, the one God, it was said: You shall adore the lord your god, and him alone shall you serve—was seen by Abraham.

Sub ilice autem Mambre tres uiros uidit quibus et inuitatis hospitioque susceptis et epulantibus ministrauit. Sic tamen scriptura illam rem gestam narrare coepit ut non dicat: 'Visi sunt ei tres uiri,' sed: Visus est ei dominus. Atque inde consequenter exponens quomodo ei sit uisus dominus attexit narrationem de tribus uiris quos Abraham per pluralem numerum inuitat ut hospitio suscipiat; et postea singulariter sicut unum alloquitur, et sicut unus ei de Sara filium pollicetur, quem dominum dicit scriptura sicut in eiusdem narrationis exordio: Visus est, inquit, dominus Abrahae.

Under the oak of Mamre, however, he saw three men, whom also, having invited and received with hospitality, and while they were feasting, he served. Yet Scripture began to narrate that enacted matter in such a way that it does not say, “Three men were seen by him,” but: “The Lord was seen by him.” And then, proceeding accordingly, explaining how the Lord was seen by him, it appends the narration about the three men whom Abraham, in the plural number, invites to receive hospitality; and afterward, in the singular, he addresses as one, and as one promises to him a son from Sarah, whom Scripture calls “Lord,” just as at the beginning of the same narration: “The Lord,” it says, “was seen to Abraham.”

Inuitat ergo et pedes lauat et deducit abeuntes tamquam homines; loquitur autem tamquam cum domino deo siue cum ei promittitur filius siue cum ei Sodomae imminens interitus indicatur.

Therefore he invites, and washes their feet, and escorts the departing as if they were men; he speaks, however, as if with the Lord God, whether when a son is promised to him or when the imminent destruction of Sodom is indicated to him.

[XI 20] Non paruam neque transitoriam considerationem postulat iste scripturae locus. Si enim uir unus uisus fuisset, iam illi qui dicunt et priusquam de uirgine nasceretur per suam substantiam uisibilem filium, quid aliud quam ipsum esse clamarent? Quoniam 'De patre,' inquiunt, 'dictum est: Inuisibili soli deo.' Et tamen possem adhuc quaerere quomodo ante susceptam carnem habitu est inuentus ut homo, quandoquidem pedes ei loti sunt et humanis epulis epulatuus est.

[11 20] This locus of Scripture demands not a small nor a transitory consideration. For if one man had been seen, then those who say that even before he was born from the Virgin the Son was visible by his own substance—what else would they cry out but that it was he himself? Because, they say, 'Of the Father it was said: To the only invisible God.' And yet I could still inquire how, before flesh was assumed, he was found in habit as a man, since his feet were washed and he banqueted at human banquets.

Quomodo istud fieri poterat cum adhuc in forma dei esset, non rapinam arbitratus esse aequalis deo? Numquid enim iam semetipsum exinanierat formam serui accipiens, in similitudine hominum factus et habitu inuentus ut homo, cum hoc quando fecerit per partum uirginis nouerimus? quomodo igitur antequam hoc fecisset ut uir unus apparuit Abrahae?

How could that have come to pass when he was still in the form of God, not reckoning it a robbery to be equal to God? For had he already emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, made in the likeness of men and in habit found as a man, when we know that he did this through birth from the Virgin? How, therefore, before he had done this, did he appear to Abraham as one man?

An illa forma uera non erat? Possem ista quaerere si unus uir apparuisset Abrahae idemque dei filius crederetur. Cum uero tres uisi sunt nec quisquam in eis uel forma uel aetate uel potestate maior ceteris dictus est, cur non hic accipiamus uisibiliter insinuatam per creaturam uisibilem trinitatis aequalitatem atque in tribus personis unam eandemque substantiam?

Or was that form not true? I could inquire into these things if one man had appeared to Abraham and the same were believed to be the Son of God. But since three were seen, and no one among them was said to be greater than the others either in form or in age or in power, why should we not here take that the equality of the Trinity was visibly insinuated through a visible creature, and that in three persons there is one and the same substance?

[21] Nam ne quisquam putaret sic intimatum unum in tribus fuisse maiorem et eum dominum dei filium intellegendum, duos autem illos angelos eius quia cum tres uisi sunt, uni domino illic loquitur Abraham, sancta scriptura futuris talibus cogitationibus atque opinionibus contradicendo non praetermisit occurrere quando paulo post duos angelos dicit uenisse ad Loth in quibus et ille uir iustus qui de Sodomorum incendio meruit liberati ad unum dominum loquitur. Sic enim sequitur scriptura dicens: Abiit autem dominus postquam cessauit loquens ad Abraham, et Abraham reuersus est ad locum suum.

[21] For, lest anyone should think that thus it was intimated that one among the three was greater and that he was to be understood as the Lord, the Son of God, but that the other two were His angels—because, although three were seen, Abraham there speaks to one Lord—holy Scripture did not omit to forestall such thoughts and opinions to arise in the future by contradicting them, when a little later it says that two angels came to Lot, among whom even that just man, who merited to be delivered from the conflagration of the Sodomites, speaks to one Lord. For thus Scripture follows, saying: But the Lord departed after He ceased speaking to Abraham, and Abraham returned to his place.

[XII] Venerunt autem duo angeli in Sodomis uespere. Hic attentius considerandum est quod ostendere institui. Cum tribus certe loquebatur Abraham et eum dominum singulariter appelauit.

[12] But two angels came into Sodom in the evening. Here what I have set out to show must be considered more attentively. For Abraham was certainly speaking with three, and he singularly addressed him as Lord.

'Forte,' inquit aliquis, 'unum ex tribus agnoscebat dominum, alios autem duos angelos eius.' Quid sibi ergo uult quod consequenter dicit scriptura: Abiit autem dominus postquam cessauit loquens ad Abraham, et Abraham reuersus est ad locum suum. Venerunt autem duo angeli in Sodomis uespere? An forte ille unus abscesserat qui dominus cognoscebatur in tribus, et duos angelos qui cum illo erant ad consumendam Sodoma miserat?

'Perhaps,' says someone, 'he recognized one of the three as the Lord, but the other two as his angels.' What then does it mean that Scripture subsequently says: But the Lord departed after he ceased speaking to Abraham, and Abraham returned to his place. And the two angels came to Sodom in the evening? Or perhaps had that one withdrawn who was recognized as Lord among the three, and had he sent the two angels who were with him to consume Sodom?

Ergo sequentia uideamus. Venerunt, inquit, duo angeli in Sodomis uespere. Loth autem sedebat ad portam Sodomorum.

Therefore let us look at what follows. There came, he says, two angels into Sodom toward evening. But Lot was sitting at the gate of Sodom.

Et cum uidisset eos Loth, surrexit in obuiam illis et adorauit in faciem super terram et dixit: Ecce, domini, diuertite in domum pueri uestri. Hic manifestum est et duos angelos fuisse et in hospitium pluraliter inuitatos et honorifice appellatos dominos cum fortasse homines putarentur.

And when Lot saw them, he rose to meet them and prostrated himself on his face upon the ground and said: Behold, my lords, turn aside into the house of your servant. Here it is manifest both that they were two angels and that they were invited to hospitality in the plural, and that they were honorifically called lords, although perhaps they were thought to be men.

[22] Sed rursus mouet quia nisi angeli dei cognoscerentur, non adoraret Loth in faciem super terram. Cur ergo tamquam tali humanitate indigentibus et hospitium praebetur et uictus? Sed quodlibet hic lateat, illud nunc quod suscepimus exsequamur.

[22] But again it troubles, because unless the angels of God were recognized, Lot would not adore upon his face upon the earth. Why therefore, as though they were in need of such humanity, are both hospitality offered and victuals? But whatever may lie hidden here, let us now carry out that which we have undertaken.

Duo apparent; angeli ambo dicuntur; pluraliter inuitantur tamquam cum duobus pluraliter loquitur donec exeatur a Sodomis. Deinde sequitur scriptura et dicit: Et factum est postquam eduxerunt eos foras et dixerunt: Saluans salua animam tuam; ne respexeris retro neque stes in hac uniuersa regine; in montem uade et ibi saluaberis ne forte comprehendaris. Dixit autem Loth ad eos: Rogo, domine, quoniam inuenit puer tuus ante te miseraicordiam?

Two appear; both are called angels; they are invited in the plural, as though he speaks in the plural with two, until he goes out from Sodom. Then the Scripture follows and says: And it came to pass after they led them out outside and said: Saving, save your soul; do not look back nor stand in this whole region; go to the mountain and there you will be saved, lest perhaps you be overtaken. But Lot said to them: I beg, lord, since your servant has found before you mercy?

An et hic hoc: Dixit ad eos: Rogo, domine, si iam ille discesserat qui dominus erat et angelos miserat? Cur dicitur, Rogo, domine, et non, 'Rogo, domini'? Aut si unum ex eis uoluit appellare, cur ait scriptura: Dixit autem Loth ad eos: Rogo, domine quoniam inuenit puer tuus ante te misericordiam? An et hic intellegimus in plurali numero personas duas, cum autem idem duo tamquam unus conpellantur, unius substantiae unum dominum deum?

Or is it thus here too: He said to them, I beg, lord—if by then he had departed who was the Lord and had sent the angels? Why is it said, I beg, lord, and not, ‘I beg, lords’? Or if he wished to address one of them, why does Scripture say: But Lot said to them, I beg, lord, since your servant has found mercy before you? Or do we understand here as well two persons in the plural number, but when these same two are addressed as though one, one Lord God of one substance?

Sed quas duas personas hic intellegimus? Patris et filii, an patris et spiritus sancti, an filii et spiritus sancti? Hoc forte congruentibus quod ultimum dixi.

But which two persons do we understand here? Of the Father and the Son, or of the Father and the Holy Spirit, or of the Son and the Holy Spirit? This perhaps, with things being congruent, is what I said last.

Missos enim se dixerunt, quod de filio et de spiritu sancto dicimus. Nam patrem missum nusquam scripturarum nobis occurrit.

For they declared themselves sent, which we say of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. For the Father as sent occurs to us nowhere in the Scriptures.

[XIII 23] Moyses autem quando ad populum Israhel ex Aegypto educendum missus est, sic ei dominum apparuisse scriptum est: Pascebat, inquit, oues Iethro soceri sui sacerdotis Madian, et egit oues in desertum et uenit in montem dei Choreb. Apparuit autem illi angelus domini in flamma ignis de rubo. Et uidit quia in rubo arderet ignis, rubus uero non comburebatur.

[13 23] But when Moses was sent to lead out the people of Israel from Egypt, it is written that the Lord thus appeared to him: “He was pasturing,” it says, “the sheep of Jethro his father-in-law, priest of Midian, and he drove the sheep into the desert and came to the mountain of God, Horeb. However, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire out of a bush. And he saw that in the bush the fire was burning, but the bush was not being consumed.”

Et ait Moyses: Ibo et uidebo uisum istud quod tam magnum uidi. quoniam non comburitur rubus. Cum ergo uidit dominus quia uenit uidere, clamauit eum dominus de rubo dicens: Ego sum deus patris tui, deus Abraham et deus Isaac et deus Iacob.

And Moses said: I will go and see this vision which I have seen so great. because the bush is not being consumed. Then when the Lord saw that he came to see, the Lord called to him from the bush, saying: I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.

Et hic primo angelus domini dictus est deinde deus.

And here first he was called the angel of the Lord, then God.

Numquid ergo angelus est deus Abraham et deus Isaac et deus Iacob? Potest ergo recte intellegi ipse saluator de quo dicit apostolus: Quorum patres et ex quibus Christus secundum carnem, qui est super omnia deus benedictus in saecula. Qui ergo super omnia est deus benedictus in saecula non absurde etiam hic ipse intellegitur deus Abraham et deus Isaac et deus Iacob.

Is then the angel the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob? It can therefore be rightly understood [to be] the Savior himself, of whom the Apostle says: “whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed unto the ages.” Therefore he who is over all, God blessed unto the ages, is not absurdly understood here also to be himself the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.

Sed cur prius angelus domini dictus est cum de rubo in flamma ignis apparuit? Vtrum quia unus ex multis angelis erat sed per dispensationem personam domini sui gerebat, an assumptum erat aliquid creaturae quod ad praesens negotium uisibiliter appareret et unde uoces sensibiliter ederentur quibus praesentia domini per subiectam creaturam corporeis etiam sensibus hominis sicut oportebat exhiberetur? Si enim unus ex angelis erat, quis facileaffirmare possit utrum ei filii persona nuntianda imposita fuerit an spiritus sancti an dei patris an ipsius omnino trinitatis qui est unus et solus deus, ut diceret: Ego sum deus Abraham et deus Isaac et deus Iacob?

But why was he first called the angel of the Lord when he appeared from the bush in a flame of fire? Was it because he was one out of the many angels, yet by dispensation was bearing the person of his Lord; or had something of the creature been assumed which might appear visibly for the present business, and whence voices would be emitted sensibly, by which the presence of the Lord through the subjected creature would be exhibited also to the bodily senses of man, as was fitting? For if he was one of the angels, who could easily affirm whether there had been imposed upon him the person of the Son to be announced, or of the Holy Spirit, or of God the Father, or of the Trinity itself in its entirety, who is the one and sole God, so that he would say: “I am the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob?”

Neque enim possumus dicere deum Abraham et deum Isaac et deum Iacob filium dei esse et patrem non esse. Aut spiritum sanctum aut ipsam trinitatem quam credimus et intellegimus unum deum audebit aliquis negare deum Abraham et deum Isaac et deum Iacob? Ille enim non est illorum patrum deus qui non est deus.

For neither can we say that the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob is the Son of God and not the Father. Or will anyone dare to deny that the Holy Spirit or the very Trinity, whom we believe and understand to be one God, is the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob? For he who is not God is not the God of those fathers.

Porro si non solum pater deus est sicut omnes etiam haeretici concedunt, sed etiam filius quod uelint nolint coguntur fateri dicente apostolo: Qui est super omnia deus benedictus in saecula, et spiritus sanctus dicente ipso apostolo: Clarificate ergo deum in corpore uestro cum supra diceret: Nescitis quia corpora uestra templum in uobis spiritus sancti est quem habetis a deo?, et hi tres unus deus sicut catholica sanitas credit, non satis elucet quam in trinitate personam, et utrum aliquam an ipsius trinitatis gerebat ille angelus, si unus ex ceteris angelis erat.

Furthermore, if not only the Father is God, as even all heretics grant, but also the Son—which, whether they will or not, they are forced to confess, the Apostle saying: ‘Who is over all, God blessed forever’—and the Holy Spirit, the same Apostle saying: ‘Therefore glorify God in your body,’ when above he had said: ‘Do you not know that your bodies are a temple in you of the Holy Spirit, whom you have from God?’; and these three are one God, as Catholic soundness believes, it does not sufficiently come to light which person in the Trinity, and whether some particular one or that of the Trinity itself, that angel was bearing (i.e., representing), if he was one of the other angels.

Si autem in usum rei praesentis assumpta creatura est quae humanis et oculis appareret et auribus insonaret et appellaretur et angelus domini et dominus et deus, non potest hic deus pater intellegi, sed aut filius aut spiritus sanctus, quamquam spiritum sanctum alicubi angelum dictum non recolam. Sed ex opere possit intellegi; dictum enim de illo est: Quae uentura sunt annuntiabit uobis, et utique angelus graece, latine nuntius interpretatur. De domino autem Iesu Christo euidentissime legimus apud prophetam quod magni consilii angelus dictus sit, cum et spiritus sanctus et dei filius sit deus et dominus angelorum.

If, however, a creature has been assumed for the use of the present matter, which would appear to human eyes and would sound in human ears, and would be called both the angel of the Lord and Lord and God, this God cannot be understood to be the Father, but either the Son or the Holy Spirit—although I do not recall the Holy Spirit being called an angel anywhere. But it can be understood from the function; for it was said of him: “He will announce to you the things to come,” and assuredly “angel” in Greek is interpreted “messenger” in Latin. But concerning the Lord Jesus Christ we read most manifestly in the prophet that he is called the angel of great counsel, since both the Holy Spirit and the Son of God are God and Lord of the angels.

[XIV 24] Item in exitu de Aegypto filiorum Israhel scriptum est: Deus autem praeibat illos, die quidem in columna nubis et ostendebat illis uiam, nocte autem in columna ignis; et non deficiebat columna nubis die et columna ignis nocte ante populum. Quis et hic dubitet per subiectam creaturam eandemque corpoream non per suam substantiam deum oculis apparuisse mortalium? Sed utrum patrem an filium an spiritum sanctum an ipsam trinitatem unum deum similiter non apparet.

[14 24] Likewise, in the Exodus from Egypt of the sons of Israel it is written: But God was going before them, by day in a pillar of cloud and was showing them the way, but by night in a pillar of fire; and the pillar of cloud by day and the pillar of fire by night did not fail before the people. Who would here doubt that through a subject creature, and the same being corporeal, not through his own substance, God appeared to the eyes of mortals? But whether it was the Father or the Son or the Holy Spirit or the trinity itself, one God, likewise does not appear.

Nec ibi hoc distinguitur, quantum existimo, ubi scriptum est: Et maiestas domini apparuit in nube, et locutus est dominus ad Moysen dicens: Exaudiui murmur filiorum Israhel, et cetera.

Nor is this distinguished there, as far as I suppose, where it is written: And the majesty of the lord appeared in a cloud, and the lord spoke to Moses, saying: I have heard the murmur of the sons of Israel, and so forth.

[XV 25] Iam uero de nubibus et uocibus et fulguribus et tuba et fumo in monte Sina cum diceretur: Sina autem mons fumabat totus propterea quod descendisset deus in eum in igne, et ascendebat fumus tamquam fumus fornacis. Et mente confusus est omnis populus uehementer; fiebant autem uoces tubae prodeuntes fortiter ualde. Moyses loquebatur et deus respondebat ei uoce.

[15 25] Now indeed, concerning the clouds and the voices and the lightnings and the trumpet and the smoke on Mount Sinai, when it was said: "But Mount Sinai was smoking wholly because God had descended upon it in fire, and the smoke was going up like the smoke of a furnace. And the whole people was confounded in mind vehemently; moreover there were voices of the trumpet going forth very strongly. Moses was speaking and God was answering him with a voice."

Et paulo post data lege in decem praeceptis consequenter dicitur: Et omnis populus uidebat uoces et lampadas et uoces tubae et montem fumantem. Et paulo post: Et stabat, inquit, omnis populus a longe. Moyses autem intrauit in nebulam ubi erat deus, et dixit dominus ad Moysen, et cetera.

And a little after, the law having been given in ten precepts, it is consequently said: And all the people saw the voices and the torches and the voices of the trumpet and the smoking mountain. And a little after: And, he says, all the people stood at a distance. But Moses entered into the cloud where God was, and the Lord spoke to Moses, and so forth.

Quid hinc dicam nisi quod nemo tam uecors est qui credat fumum, ignem, nubes et nebulam et si qua huiusmodi uerbi et sapientiae dei quod est Christus uel spiritus sancti esse substantiam? Nam de patre deo nec arriani hoc umquam ausi sunt dicere. Ergo creatura seruiente creatori facta sunt illa omnia et humanis sensibus pro dispensatione congrua praesentata, nisi forte quia dictum est: Moyses autem intrauit in nebulam ubi erat deus, hoc arbitrabitur carnalis cogitatio, a populo quidem nebulam uisam, intra nebulam uero Moysen oculis carneis uidisse filium dei quem delirantes haeretici in sua substantia uisum uolunt.

Quid shall I say from this except that no one is so witless as to believe that smoke, fire, clouds and mist, and whatever things of this sort, are the substance of the Word and Wisdom of god, which is christ, or of the holy spirit? For concerning the father god not even the arians have ever dared to say this. Therefore, with the creature serving the creator, all those things were made and presented to human senses with a fitting dispensation; unless perhaps because it has been said: ‘But Moses entered into the cloud where god was,’ carnal thinking will suppose this: that a cloud was indeed seen by the people, but that within the cloud Moses with fleshly eyes saw the son of god, whom delirious heretics wish to have been seen in his own substance.

Sane uiderit eum Moyses oculis carneis si oculis carneis potest uideri non modo spaientia dei quod est Christus, sed uel ipsa cuiuslibet hominis et qualiscumque sapientis. Aut quia scriptum est de senioribus Israhel quia uiderunt locum ubi steterat deus Israhel et quia sub pedibus eius tamquam opus lapidis sapphiri et tamquam aspectus firmamenti caeli, propterea credendum est uerbum et sapientiam dei per suam substantiam in spatio loci terreni stetisse, quae pertendit a fine usque in finem fortiter et disponit omnia suauiter, et ita esse mutabile uerbum dei per quod facta sunt omnia ut modo se contrahat modo distendat? Mundet dominus a talibus cogitationibus corda fidelium suorum.

Indeed, let Moses have seen him with carnal eyes, if with carnal eyes there can be seen not only the sapience of God, which is Christ, but even the very sapience of any human being and of any wise man whatsoever. Or because it is written concerning the elders of Israel that they saw the place where the God of Israel had stood, and that under his feet there was as it were the work of a sapphire stone and as it were the appearance of the firmament of heaven, for that reason is it to be believed that the word and sapience of God, by its own substance, stood within the spatial locus of an earthly place, which extends from end unto end mightily and disposes all things sweetly, and that the word of God through which all things were made is so mutable as now to contract itself, now to distend itself? May the Lord cleanse from such thoughts the hearts of his faithful.

Sed per subiectam, ut saepe diximus, creaturam exhibentur haec omnia uisibilia et sensibilia ad significandum inuisibilem atque intellegibilem deum, non solum patrem sed et filium et spiritum sanctum, ex quo omnia, per quem omnia, in quo omnia; quamuis inuisibilia dei a creatura mundi per ea quae facta sunt intellecta conspiciantur, sempiterna quoque uirtus eius ac diuinitas.

But through the subjected, as we have often said, creation, all these visible and sensible things are exhibited to signify the invisible and intelligible God, not only the Father but also the Son and the Holy Spirit, from whom all things, through whom all things, in whom all things; although the invisible things of God, from the creation of the world, are beheld through the things that have been made, being understood—his sempiternal power also and divinity.

[26] Sed quod attinet ad id quod nunc suscepimus nec in monte Sina uideo quemadmodum appareat per illa omnia quae mortalium sensibus terribiliter ostendebantur utrum deus trinitas an pater an filius an spiritus sanctus proprie loquebatur. Verumtamen si quid hinc sine affirmandi temeritate modeste atque cunctanter coniectare conceditur, si una ex trinitate persona potest intellegi, cur non spiritum sanctum potius intellegimus quando et tabulis lapideis lex ipsa quae ibi data est digito dei scripta dicitur, quo nomine spiritum sanctum in euangelio significari nouimus.

[26] But as regards that which we have now undertaken, neither on Mount Sinai do I see how it appears, through all those things which were shown in a fearsome manner to the senses of mortals, whether God—Trinity, or the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit—was properly the one speaking. Nevertheless, if anything here is permitted to be conjectured modestly and with deliberation, without the rashness of affirming, if one person of the Trinity can be understood, why do we not rather understand the Holy Spirit, since even the Law itself, which was given there on tablets of stone, is said to have been written by the finger of God—by which name we know the Holy Spirit to be signified in the Gospel.

Et quinquaginta dies numerantur ab occisione agni et celebratione paschae usque ad diem quo haec fieri coepta sunt in monte Sina, sicut post domini passionem ab eius resurrectione quinquaginta dies numerantur et uenit promissus a filio dei spiritus sanctus. Et in ipso eius aduentu, quem in apostolorum actibus legimus, per diuisionem linguarum ignis apparuit qui et insedit super unumquemque eorum, quod exodo congruit ubi scriptum est: Sina autem mons fumabt totus propterea quod descendisset in eum deus in igne, et aliquanto post: Aspectus, inquit, maiestatis domini tamquam ignis ardens super uerticem montis coram filiis Israhel. Aut si haec ideo facta sunt quia nec pater nec filius illic eo modo praesentari poterant sine spiritu sancto quo ipsam legem scribi oportebat, deum quidem non per substantiam suam quae inuisibilis et incommutabilis manet sed per illam speciem creaturae illic apparuisse cognoscimus.

Et fifty days are counted from the slaughter of the lamb and the celebration of Passover up to the day on which these things began to be done on Mount Sinai, just as after the Lord’s Passion from his Resurrection fifty days are counted, and the Holy Spirit promised by the Son of God came. And at his very Advent, which we read in the Acts of the Apostles, by a division of tongues fire appeared, which also sat upon each one of them—something that accords with Exodus, where it is written: “But Mount Sinai was all smoking because God had descended upon it in fire,” and, a little later: “The appearance, he says, of the majesty of the Lord was like a burning fire upon the summit of the mountain before the sons of Israel.” Or if these things were therefore done because neither the Father nor the Son could there be present in that mode without the Holy Spirit, in which it was fitting that the Law itself be written, we recognize that God indeed appeared there not by his substance, which remains invisible and immutable, but through that form of a creature.

Sed aliquam ex trinitate personam signo quodam proprio, quantum ad mei sensus capacitatem pertinet, non uidemus.

But we do not see any person of the Trinity by any proper sign, insofar as it pertains to the capacity of my sense.

[XVI 27] Est etiam quo plerique moueri solent quia scriptum est: Et locutus est dominus ad Moysen facie ad faciem sicut quis loquitur ad amicum suum, cum paulo post dicat idem Moyses: Si ergo inueni gratiam ante te, ostende mihi temetipsum manifeste ut uideam te, ut sim inueniens gratiam ante te et ut sciam quia populus tuus est gens haec, et paulo post iterum: Dixitque Moyses ad dominum: Ostende mihi maiestatem tuam. Quid est hoc quod in omnibus quae supra fiebant deus uideri per suam substantiam putabatur, unde a miseris creditus est non per creaturam sed per se ipsum uisibilis filius dei, et quod intrauerat in nebulam Moyses ad hoc intrasse uidebatur ut oculis quidem populi ostenderetur caligo nebulosa, ille autem intus uerba dei tamquam eius faciem contemplatus audiret? Et quomodo dictum est: Locutus est dominus ad Moysen facie ad faciem sicut quis loquitur ad amicum suum?

[16 27] There is also that by which most are wont to be moved, because it is written: And the Lord spoke to Moses face to face, as one speaks to his friend; whereas a little after the same Moses says: If then I have found favor before you, show me yourself manifestly that I may see you, that I may be one finding favor before you and that I may know that this people is your nation; and a little after again: And Moses said to the Lord: Show me your majesty. What is this—that in all the things which were being done above God was thought to be seen by his own substance, whence by the miserable he has been believed to be the Son of God visible not through a creature but through himself—and that Moses had entered into the cloud and seemed to have entered for this purpose, that to the eyes of the people a nebulous darkness might be displayed, but he within might hear the words of God as though, contemplating his face? And how was it said: The Lord spoke to Moses face to face, as one speaks to his friend?

Ecce idem dicit: Si inueni gratiam in conspectu tuo, ostende mihi temetipsum manifeste.

Behold, the same says: If I have found grace in your sight, show me your very self manifestly.

Nouerat uitque quod corporaliter uidebat, et ueram uisionem dei spiritaliter requirebat. Locutio quippe illa quae fiebat in uocibus sic modificabatur tamquam esset amici loquentis ad amicum. Sed deum patrem quis corporeis oculis uidet?

He knew indeed what he was seeing corporeally, and he was seeking the true vision of God spiritually. For that locution which was being made in voices was thus modulated as if it were of a friend speaking to a friend. But who sees God the Father with corporeal eyes?

Et quod in principio erat uerbum et uerbum erat apud deum et deus erat uerbum per quod facta sunt omnia, quis corporeis oculis uidet? Et spiritum sapientiae quis corporeis oculis uidet? Quid est autem: Ostende mihi temetipsum manifeste ut uideam te, nisi ostende mihi substantiam tuam?

And the one who in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word, through whom all things were made—who sees him with corporeal eyes? And the Spirit of wisdom, who sees with corporeal eyes? But what is this: Show me yourself manifestly that I may see you, if not: show me your substance?

Hoc autem si non dixisset Moyses, utcumque ferendi essent stulti qui putant per ea quae supra gesta uel dicta sunt substantiam dei oculis eius fuisse conspicuam; cum uero hic apertissime demonstretur nec desideranti hoc fuisse concessum, quis audeat dicere per similes formas quae huic quoque uisibiliter apparuerant non creaturam deo seruientem sed hoc ipsum quod deus est cuiusquam oculis apparuisse mortalium?

But if Moses had not said this, the fools who think that through the things which were above done or said the substance of God was visible to his eyes would be somehow bearable; but since here it is shown most openly that this was not granted even to the one desiring it, who would dare to say that through similar forms which had also appeared to him visibly, there appeared to the eyes of any mortals not a creature serving God, but this very thing which God is?

[28] Et hic quidem quod postea dominus dicit ad Moysen: Non poteris uidere faciem meam et uiuere; non enim uidebit homo faciem meam et uiuet. Et ait dominus: Ecce locus penes me, et stabis super petram statim ut transiet mea maiestas, et ponam te in spelunca petrae. Et tegam manu mea super te donec transeam, et auferam manum, et tunc uidebis posteriora mea; nam facies mea non apparebit tibi.

[28] And here indeed what the Lord later says to Moses: You will not be able to see my face and live; for man will not see my face and live. And the Lord said: Behold, there is a place with me, and you shall stand upon the rock as soon as my majesty passes by, and I will place you in the cave of the rock. And I will cover you with my hand over you until I pass by, and I will take away my hand, and then you will see my back parts; for my face will not appear to you.

[XVII] Non incongruenter ex persona domini nostri Iesu Christi praefiguratum solet intellegi ut posteriora eius accipiantur caro eius in qua de uirgine natus est et mortuus et resurrexit, siue propter postremitatem mortalitatis posteriora dicta sint, siue quod eam prope in fine saeculi, hoc est posterius, suscipere dignatus est. Facies autem eius illa dei forma in qua non rapinam arbitratus esse aequalis deo patri, quod nemo utique potest uidere et uiuere; siue quia post hanc uitam in qua peregrinamur a domino et ubi corpus quod corrumpitur aggrauat animam, uidebimus facie ad faciem sicut dicit apostolus. De hac enim uita in psalmis dicitur: Verumtamen uniuersa uanitas omnis homo uiuens, et iterum: Quoniam non iustificabitur in conspectu tuo omnis uiuens.

[17] Not incongruously it is wont to be understood, from the person of our Lord Jesus Christ, as prefigured, that his “back parts” are taken to be his flesh, in which he was born of a virgin and died and rose again—whether because, on account of the lateness of mortality, they are called “back parts,” or because he deigned to assume it near the end of the age, that is, later. But his face is that form of God in which he did not consider it robbery to be equal to God the Father—which indeed no one can see and live; or because after this life, in which we sojourn as pilgrims away from the Lord, and where the body that is corrupted weighs down the soul, we shall see face to face, as the Apostle says. For of this life it is said in the Psalms: “Nevertheless, every living man is altogether vanity,” and again: “For in your sight no living man shall be justified.”

In qua uita etiam secundum Iohannem nondum apparuit quod erimus. Scimus, inquit, quia cum apparuerit, similes ei erimus quoniam uidebimus eum sicuti est; quod utique post hanc uitam intellegi uoluit cum mortis debitum soluerimus et resurrectionis promissum receperimus — siue quod etiam nunc in quantum dei sapientiam per quam facta sunt omnia spiritaliter intellegimus, in tantum carnalibus affectibus morimur ut mortuum nobis hunc mundum deputantes nos quoque ipsi huic mundo moriamur et dicamus quod ait apostolus: Mundus mihi crucifixus est et ego mundo. De hac enim morte item dicit: Si autem mortui estis cum Christo, quid adhuc uelut uiuentes de hoc mundo decernitis?

In which life also, according to John, it has not yet appeared what we shall be. “We know,” he says, “that when he shall have appeared, we shall be similar to him, because we shall see him just as he is”; which indeed he willed to be understood after this life, when we shall have paid the debt of death and received the promise of resurrection — or else because even now, inasmuch as we spiritually understand the wisdom of God through which all things were made, so far do we die to carnal affections, that, reckoning this world dead to us, we ourselves also die to this world and say what the apostle says: “The world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.” Of this death likewise he says: “If, however, you have died with Christ, why do you still, as living in this world, decree?”

— Non ergo immerito nemo poterit faciem, id est ipsam manifestationem sapientiae dei, uidere et uiuere.

— Therefore, not without reason, no one will be able to see the face, that is, the very manifestation of the wisdom of God, and live.

Ipsa est enim species cui contemplandae suspirat omnis qui affectat diligere deum ex toto corde et ex tota anima et ex tota mente; ad quam contemplandam etiam proximum quantum potest aedificat qui diligit et proximum sicut se ipsum, in quibus duobus praeceptis tota lex pendet et prophetae. Quod significatur etiam in ipso Moyse. Nam cum dixisset propter dilectionem dei qua praecipue flagrabat: Si inueni gratiam in conspectu tuo, ostende mihi temetipsum manifeste ut sim inueniens gratiam ante te, continuo propter dilectionem etiam proximi subiecit atque ait: Et ut sciam quia populus tuus est gens haec.

For it is the very form, for the contemplation of which every one who strives to love God with all his heart and with all his soul and with all his mind sighs; toward the contemplation of which he also edifies his neighbor as much as he can, who loves both God and his neighbor as himself, upon which two precepts the whole law and the prophets hang. This is signified also in Moses himself. For when, on account of the love of God with which he was especially aflame, he had said: If I have found grace in your sight, show me your very self manifestly, that I may be one finding grace before you, immediately, on account of love of neighbor as well, he subjoined and said: And that I may know that this nation is your people.

Illa est ergo species quae rapit omnem animam rationalem desiderio sui tanto ardentiorem quanto mundiorem et tanto mundiorem quanto ad spiritalia resurgentem, tanto autem ad spiritalia resurgentem quanto a carnalibus morientem. Sed dum peregrinamur a domino et per fidem ambulamus non per speciem, posteriora Christi, hoc est carnem, per ipsam fidem uidere debemus, id est in solido fidei fundamento stantes quod significat petra, et eam de tali tutissima specula intuentes, in catholica scilicet ecclesia de qua dictum est: Et super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam. Tanto enim certius diligimus quam uidere desideramus faciem Christi quanto in posterioribus eius agnoscimus quantum nos prior dilexerit Christus.

That is therefore the form which seizes every rational soul with desire for itself, the more ardent the purer, and the purer the more rising again to spiritual things, and the more rising to spiritual things the more dying to carnal things. But while we are peregrinating away from the Lord and walk by faith, not by sight, we ought through faith itself to see the back parts of Christ, that is, the flesh—standing upon the solid foundation of faith, which the rock signifies, and beholding it from such a most secure watchtower, namely in the Catholic Church of which it was said: And upon this rock I will build my church. For by so much the more surely do we love than we desire to see the face of Christ, as in his back parts we recognize how much Christ has first loved us.

[29] Sed in ipsa carne fides resurrectionis eius saluos facit atque iustificat. Si enim credideris, inquit, in corde tuo quia deus illum suscitauit a mortuis, saluus eris; et iterum: Qui traditus est, inquit, propter delicta nostra et resurrexit propter iustificationem nostram. Ideoque meritum fidei nostrae resurrectio corporis domini est.

[29] But in that very flesh the faith of his resurrection saves and justifies. For if you believe, he says, in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved; and again: He was delivered up, he says, for our offenses and rose again for our justification. Therefore the merit of our faith is the resurrection of the body of the Lord.

Nam mortuam esse illam carnem in cruce passionis etiam inimici eius credunt, sed resurrexisse non credunt. Quod firmissime nos credentes tamquam de petrae soliditate contuemur, unde certa spe adoptionem exspectamus redemptionem corporis nostri quia hoc in membris Christi speramus quae nos ipsi sumus quod perfectum esse in ipso tamquam in capite nostro fidei sanitate cognoscimus. Inde non uult nisi cum transierit uideri posteriora sua ut in eius resurrectionem credatur.

For even his enemies believe that that flesh died on the cross of the Passion, but they do not believe that it has risen. This we, believing most firmly, contemplate as from the solidity of a rock; whence with certain hope we await adoption, the redemption of our body, because we hope for this in the members of Christ—which we ourselves are—which we recognize to have been perfected in him as in our head, by the soundness of faith. Hence he does not will his back parts to be seen except when he has passed by, so that his resurrection may be believed.

Pascha enim hebraeum uerbum dicitur quod transitum interpretamur. Vnde et Iohannes euangelista dicit: Ante diem autem festum paschae sciens Iesus quia uenit eius hora ut transeat de hoc mundo ad patrem.

For Pascha is said to be a Hebrew word, which we interpret as “passing over.” Whence also John the Evangelist says: But before the day of the feast of the Pasch, Jesus, knowing that his hour had come that he might pass from this world to the Father.

[30] Hoc autem qui credunt nec tamen in catholica sed in schismate aliquo aut in haeresi credunt non de loco qui est penes eum uident posteriora domini. Quid enim sibi uult quod ait dominus: Ecce locus est penes me, et stabit super petram? Quis locus terrenus est penes dominum nisi hoc est penes eum quod eum spiritaliter attingit?

[30] But those who believe this, and yet not in the Catholic (Church) but in some schism or heresy, believe not from the place which is with him, they do not see the Lord’s back parts. For what does it mean that the Lord says: “Behold, there is a place with me, and he shall stand upon the rock”? What earthly place is “with the Lord,” unless this is “with him”: that which touches him spiritually?

Nam quis locus non est penes dominum qui attingit a fine usque in finem fortiter et disponit omnia suauiter, et cuius dictum est caelum sedes et terra scabellum pedum eius, et qui dixit: Quam domum aedificabitis mihi? Aut quis locus quietis meae? Nonne manus mea fecit haec omnia?

For what place is not with the Lord, who reaches from end to end mightily and disposes all things sweetly, and of whom it is said, “heaven is a throne and the earth a footstool of his feet,” and who said: What house will you build for me? Or what place is of my rest? Is it not my hand that has made all these things?

Sed uidelicet intellegitur locus penes eum in quo statur super petram ipsa ecclesia catholica ubi salubriter uidet pascha domini, id est transitum domini, et posteriora eius, id est corpus eius, qui credit in resurrectionem eius. Et stabit, inquit, super petram statim ut transiet mea maiestas. Re uera enim statim ut transiit maiestas domini in clarificatione domini qua resurgens ascendit ad patrem solidati summus super petram.

S but manifestly the place is understood to be “with him” in which one stands upon the rock—the Catholic Church herself—where one sees salutarily the Pascha of the Lord, that is, the transit of the Lord, and his posteriora, that is, his body, who believes in his resurrection. And “he shall stand,” he says, “upon the rock, immediately as my majesty passes by.” For in truth, immediately as the majesty of the Lord passed by in the glorification of the Lord, whereby, rising again, he ascended to the Father, we have been made solid upon the rock.

Et ipse Petrus tunc solidatus est ut cum fiducia praedicaret quem priusquam esset solidatus ter timore negauerat, iam quidem praedestinatione positus in specula petrae sed adhuc manu domini sibi superposita ne uideret. Posteriora enim eius uisurus erat et nondum ille transierat uitque a morte ad uitam; nondum resurrectione clarificatus erat.

And Peter himself was then solidified, so that with confidence he might preach him whom, before he had been solidified, he had three times denied out of fear, already indeed by predestination set on the watchtower of the rock, but with the Lord’s hand still placed over him lest he see. For he was going to see his back parts, and he had not yet passed from death to life; he had not yet been glorified by the resurrection.

[31] Nam et quo sequitur in exodo et dicit: Tegam manu mea super te donec transeam, et auferam manum et tunc uidebis posteriora mea. Multi israhelitae quorum tunc erat figura Moyses post resurrectionem domini crediderunt in eum tamquam iam uidentes posteriora eius remota manu eius ab oculis suis. Vnde et Esaiae talem prophetiam euangelista commemorat: Incrassa cor populi huius et aures eorum oppila et oculos eorum graua.

[31] For also in what follows in Exodus he says: I will cover with my hand over you until I pass by, and I will remove my hand and then you will see my back parts. Many Israelites, of whom Moses was then the figure, after the Lord’s resurrection believed in him as now seeing his hinder parts, his hand removed from their eyes. Whence also the evangelist commemorates such a prophecy of Isaiah: Make fat the heart of this people, and stop up their ears, and make heavy their eyes.

Denique in psalmo non absurde intellegitur ex eorum persona dici: Quoniam die ac nocte grauata est super me manus tua; die fortasse cum manifesta miracula faceret nec ab eis agnosceretur; nocte autem cum in passione moreretur quando certius putauerunt sicut quemlibet hominem peremptum et exstinctum. Sed quoniam cum transisset ut eius posteriora uiderentur praedicante sibi apostolo Petro quia oportebat Christum pati et resurgere, compuncti sunt dolore poenitentiae ut fieret in baptizatis quo in capite psalmi eius dicitur: Beati quorum remissae sunt iniquitates et quorum tecta sunt peccata. Propterea cum dictum esset: Grauata est super me manus tua, tamquam domino transeunte ut iam remoueret manum et uiderentur posteriora eius, sequitur uox dolentis et confitentis et ex fide resurrectionis domini peccatorum remissionem accipientis: Conuersus sum, inquit, in aerumna dum confringeretur spina.

Finally, in the psalm it is not absurdly understood to be said from their person: “Because day and night your hand has been made heavy upon me”; by day perhaps when he was doing manifest miracles and was not acknowledged by them; by night, however, when in the Passion he was dying, when they more surely supposed him to have been slain and extinguished like any man. But since, when he had passed by so that his back parts might be seen, with the Apostle Peter preaching to them that it was necessary for Christ to suffer and to rise again, they were pierced with the pain of penitence, so that there might come to be in the baptized that which at the head of that psalm is said: “Blessed are they whose iniquities have been remitted and whose sins have been covered.” Therefore, when it had been said, “Your hand has been made heavy upon me,” as though the Lord were passing by so that he was now removing his hand and his back parts were being seen, there follows the voice of one grieving and confessing and, from faith in the resurrection of the Lord, receiving the remission of sins: “I was turned in affliction while the thorn was being broken.”

Peccatum meum cognoui et iniustitiam meam non operui. Dixi: Pronuntiabo aduersum me iniustitiam meam domino, et tu dimisisti impietatem cordis mei. Neque enim tanto carnis nubilo debemus inuolui ut putemus faciem quidem esse domini inuisibilem, dorsum uero uisibile, quandoquidem in forma serui utrumque uisibiliter apparuit; in forma autem dei absit ut tale aliquid cogitetur.

I acknowledged my sin and I did not cover my injustice. I said: I will proclaim against myself my injustice to the lord, and you forgave the impiety of my heart. For neither ought we to be enveloped by so great a cloudiness of flesh as to suppose that the face of the lord is indeed invisible, but the back visible, since in the form of a servant both appeared visibly; but in the form of God, far be it that anything of the sort be thought.

Absit ut uerbum dei et sapientia dei ex una parte habeat faciem, ex alia dorsum sicut corpus humanum, aut omnino ulla specie uel motione siue loco siue tempore commutetur.

Far be it that the Word of God and the Wisdom of God should on one side have a face and on the other a back like a human body, or be changed at all by any species or by motion, whether by place or by time.

[32] Quapropter si in illis uocibus quae fiebant in exodo et illis omnibus corporalibus demonstrationibus dominus Iesus Christus ostendebatur, aut alias Christus sicut loci huius consideratio persuadet, alias spiritus sanctus sicut ea quae supra diximus admonent, non hoc efficitur ut deus pater numquam tali aliqua specie patribus uisus sit. Multa enim talia uisa facta sunt illis temporibus non euidenter nominato et designato in eis uel patre uel filio uel spiritu sancto, sed tamen per quasdam ualde probabiles significationes nonnullis indiciis exsistentibus ut nimis temerarium sit dicere deum patrem numquam patribus aut prophetis per aliquas uisibiles formas apparuisse. Hanc enim opinionem illi pepererunt qui non potuerunt in unitate trinitatis intellegere quod dictum est: Regi autem saeculorum immortali, inuisibili soli deo, et: Quem nemo hominum uidit nec uidere potest — quod de ipsa substantia summa summequdiuina et incommutabili ubi et pater et filius et spiritus sanctus unus et solus deus per sanam fidem intellegitur.

[32] Wherefore, if in those voices that were made in the exodus and in all those corporal demonstrations the Lord Jesus Christ was being shown—at times Christ, as the consideration of this passage persuades, at times the Holy Spirit, as the things said above admonish—this does not result in God the Father never having been seen by the fathers in some such appearance. For many such sights were made in those times, with neither the Father nor the Son nor the Holy Spirit evidently named and designated in them, yet through certain very probable significations, with some indications existing, so that it is far too rash to say that God the Father never appeared to the fathers or the prophets through some visible forms. For this opinion was engendered by those who could not, in the unity of the Trinity, understand what was said: “Now to the King of the ages, immortal, invisible, the only God,” and: “Whom no human being has seen nor can see” — which, by sound faith, is understood of the very substance supreme and supremely divine and unchangeable, wherein the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are one and the only God.

Visiones autem illae per creaturam commutabilem deo incommutabili subditam factae sunt, non proprie sicuti est, sed significatiue sicut pro rerum causis et temporibus oportuit ostendentes deum.

But those visions were made through a changeable creature subjected to the unchangeable God, not properly as He is, but significatively, as was fitting according to the causes of things and the times, showing God.

[XVIII 33] Quamquam nescio quemadmodum isti intellegant quod Danieli apparuerit antiquus dierum a quo filius hominis quod propter nos esse dignatus est accepisse intellegitur regunum, ab illo scilicet qui ei dicit in psalmis: Filius meus es tu; ego hodie genui te; postula a me, et dabo tibi gentes haereditatem tuam, et qui omnia subiecit sub pedibus eius. Si ergo Danieli et pater dans regnum et filius accipiens apparuerunt in specie corporali, quomodo isti dicunt patrem numquam uisum esse prophetis et ideo solum debere intellegi inuisibilem, quem nemo hominum uidit nec uidere potest?

[18 33] Although I do not know how these people understand that to Daniel the Ancient of Days appeared, from whom the Son of Man — which he deigned to be on our account — is understood to have received the kingdom, namely from him who says to him in the Psalms: You are my Son; I today have begotten you; ask of me, and I will give you the nations as your inheritance, and he who has subjected all things under his feet. If therefore to Daniel both the Father giving the kingdom and the Son receiving appeared in bodily form, how do these people say that the Father has never been seen by the prophets and therefore alone ought to be understood as invisible, whom no human has seen nor can see?

Ita enim narrauit Daniel: Aspiciebam, inquit, donec throni positi sunt, et uetustus dierum sedebat. Et indumentum eius quasi nix album, et capillus capitis eius quasi lana munda; thronus eius flamma ignis, rotae eius ignis flagrans, et flumen ignis trahebat in conspectu eius. Et mille milia deseruiebant ei, et dena milia denum milium assistebant ei. Et iudicium conlocauit, et libri aperti sunt, et cetera.

Thus indeed Daniel narrated: I was looking, he says, until thrones were set, and the Ancient of Days was sitting. And his vestment was like snow, white, and the hair of his head like clean wool; his throne a flame of fire, its wheels burning fire, and a river of fire was streaming before his face. And a thousand thousands were serving him, and ten thousand times ten thousand were standing by him. And he set the judgment, and the books were opened, and the rest.

Et paulo post: Aspiciebam, inquit, in uisu noctis; et ecce cum caeli nubibus quasi filius hominis ueniens erat, et usque ad ueterem dierum peruenit et oblatus est ei. Et ipsi datus est principatus et honor et regnum; et omnes populi, tribus, linguae ipsi seruient. Potestas eius potestas aeterna quae non praeteribit, et regunum eius non corrumpetur. Ecce pater dans et filius accipiens regnum sempiternum, et sunt ambo in conspectu prophetantis uisibili specie.

And a little after: “I was gazing,” he says, “in a vision of the night; and behold, with the clouds of heaven there was, as it were, a son of man coming, and he came up to the Ancient of Days and was presented to him. And to him there was given dominion and honor and kingdom; and all peoples, tribes, and languages shall serve him. His power is an eternal power which will not pass away, and his kingdom will not be destroyed.” Behold the Father giving and the Son receiving the everlasting kingdom, and both are in the sight of the one prophesying in a visible form.

Non ergo inconuenienter creditur etiam deus pater eo modo solere apparere mortalibus.

Therefore it is not unfittingly believed that God the Father also is accustomed in that manner to appear to mortals.

[34] Nisi forte aliquid dicet ideo non esse uisibilem patrem quia in conspectu somniantis apparuit, ideo autem filium uisibilem et spiritum sanctum quia Moyses illa omnia uigilans uiderit. Quasi uero uerbum et sapientiam dei uiderit Moyses carnalibus oculis, aut uideri spiritus uel humanus potest qui carnem istam uiuificat uel ipse corporeus qui uentus dicitur, quanto minus ille spiritus dei qui omnium hominum et angelorum mentes ineffabili excellentia diuinae substantiae supergreditur; aut quisquam tali praecipitetur errore ut audeant dicere filium et spiritum sanctum etiam uigilantibus hominibus esse uisibilem, patrem autem non nisi somniantibus. Quomodo ergo de patre solo accipiunt: Quem nemo hominum uidit nec uidere potest?

[34] Unless perhaps someone will say that for this reason the Father is not visible, because He appeared in the sight of one dreaming, but that the Son is visible and the Holy Spirit because Moses saw all those things while awake. As though Moses saw the Word and Wisdom of God with carnal eyes, or a spirit can be seen—whether the human one which quickens this flesh, or that bodily one which is called wind—how much less that Spirit of God who surpasses the minds of all men and angels by the ineffable excellence of the divine substance; or could anyone be precipitated into such an error as to dare to say that the Son and the Holy Spirit are visible even to men who are awake, but the Father not except to those who are dreaming. How then do they take, of the Father alone: “Whom no man has seen nor can see?”

An cum dormiunt homines, tunc non sunt homines? Aut qui formare similitudinem corporis potest ad se significandum per uisa somniantium non potest formare ipsam corpoream creaturam ad se significandum oculis uigilantium, cum eius ipsa substantia qua est ipse quod est nulla corporis similitudine dormienti, nulla corporea specie uigilanti possit ostendi, sed non solum patris uerum etiam filii et spiritus sancti? Et certe qui uigilantium uisis mouentur ut non patrem sed tantum filium uel spiritum sanctum credant corporalibus hominum apparuisse conspectibus, ut omittam tantam latitudinem sanctarum paginarum et tam multiplicem earum intellegentiam unde nemo sani capitis affirmare debet nusquam personam patris per aliquam speciem corporalem uigilantium oculis demonstratam; sed ut hoc, ut dixi, omittam, quid dicunt de patre nostro Abraham cui certe uigilanti et ministranti, cum scriptura praemisisset dicens: Visus est dominus Abrahae, non unus aut duo sed tres apparuerunt uiri quorum nullus excelsius aliis eminuisse dictus est, nullus honoratius effulsisse, nullus imperiosius egisse?

Or when human beings sleep, then are they not human beings? Or he who can form a similitude of a body to signify himself through the visions of those dreaming, cannot form the very corporeal creature to signify himself to the eyes of those awake, since his very substance, whereby he is himself what he is, can be shown by no likeness of body to one sleeping, by no corporeal species to one awake—and this not of the Father only but also of the Son and of the Holy Spirit? And certainly those who are moved by the visions of the waking, so as to believe that not the Father but only the Son or the Holy Spirit has appeared to the bodily conspects of men—to say nothing of so great a latitude of the sacred pages and so manifold an intelligence of them, whence no one of sane head ought to affirm that nowhere has the person of the Father been demonstrated to the eyes of the waking by some corporeal species; but, that I may, as I said, pass this over—what do they say of our father Abraham, to whom assuredly, while awake and ministering, when Scripture had premised, saying: “The Lord was seen by Abraham,” not one or two but three men appeared, of whom none is said to have stood out more exalted than the others, none to have shone more honorably, none to have acted more imperiously?

[35] Quapropter quoniam in illa tripertita nostra distributione primum quaerere instituimus utrum pater an filius an spiritus sanctus; an aliquando pater, aliquando filius, aliquando spiritus sanctus; an sine ulla distinctione personarum sicut dicitur deus unus et solus, id est ipsa trinitas, per illas creaturae formas patribus apparuerit; interrogatis quae potuimus quantum sufficere uisum est sanctarum scripturarum locis, nihil aliud, quantum existimo, diuinorum sacrementorum modesta et cauta consideratio persuadet nisi ut temere non dicamus quaenam ex trinitate persona cuilibet patrum uel prophetarum in aliquo corpore uel similitudine corporis apparuerit nisi cum continentia lectionis aliqua probabilia circumponit indicia. Ipsa enim natura uel substantia uel essentia uel quolibet alio nomine appelandum est idipsum quod deus est, quidquid illud est, corporaliter uideri non potest. Per subiectam uero creaturam non solum filium uel spiritum sanctum sed etiam patrem corporali specie siue similitudine mortalibus sensibus significationem sui dare potuisse credendum est.

[35] Wherefore, since in that tripartite distribution of ours we set out first to inquire whether the Father or the Son or the Holy Spirit; or sometimes the Father, sometimes the Son, sometimes the Holy Spirit; or, without any distinction of persons, as God is said to be one and sole, that is, the Trinity itself, appeared to the fathers through those forms of creature; having consulted, as seemed sufficient, as many places of the holy Scriptures as we were able, nothing else, as I reckon, does a modest and cautious consideration of the divine sacraments persuade, except that we should not rashly say which person of the Trinity appeared to any of the fathers or prophets in some body or likeness of a body, unless the context of the reading supplies some probable indications. For the very nature or substance or essence, or by whatever other name that very thing which God is must be called—whatever it is—cannot be seen corporeally. But through a subject creature it is to be believed that not only the Son or the Holy Spirit, but also the Father, was able to give to mortal senses, by a corporeal species or similitude, a signification of himself.

Quae cum ita sint, ne immoderatius progrediatur secundi huius uoluminis longitudo, ea quae restant in consequentibus uideamus.

Since these things are thus, lest the length of this second volume proceed immoderately, let us see the things that remain in the subsequent sections.