Search the history of over 505 billion pages on the Internet.
Open Library
Full text of "A Select library of the Nicene and post-Nicene fathers of the Christian church"
See other formats
n
MMHM
UlilWIIIWWII
kjs;ks*)
*m.>,~.. - .m,* *?* - mr **.
.:....., . ...'...v...:, ..
WsSKi * v VfW*>M'HJ
MM
Presented to the
library of the
UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO
hy
The Estate of the late
PROFESSOR A. S. P. WOODHOUSE
Head of the
Department of English
University Colleoe
1944-1964
A SELECT LIBRARY
OF THE
NICENE AND POST-NICENE FATHERS
OF
THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH.
EDITED BY
PHILIP SCHAFF, D.D., LL.D.,
PROFESSOR IN THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, NEW YORK.
IN CONNECTION WITH A NUMBER OF PATRISTIC SCHOLARS OF EUROPE
AND AMERICA.
VOLUME III.
ST. AUGUSTIN:
ON THE HOLY TRINITY.
DOCTRINAL TREATISES.
MORAL TREATISES.
BUFFALO
THE CHRISTIAN LITERATURE COMPANY
1887
bo
M ^,,-TKr-n',,
APR 1 3 1965
^*S/TV OF VO*<^
--. .-- ..-
97465?
Copyright, 1887, by
THE CHRISTIAN LITERATURE COMPANY.
Electrotyped and Printed bv
The Publishers' Book Composition and Electrotyping Co.,
157 & 159 William St., New York.
PREFACE.
This third volume contains the most important doctrinal and moral treatises of St. Augus-
tin, and presents a pretty complete view of his dogmatics and ethics.
The most weighty of the doctrinal treatises is that on the Holy Trinity. The Latin original
[De Trinitate contra Arianos libri quindecini), is contained in the 8th volume of the Benedic-
tine edition. It is the most elaborate, and probably also the ablest and profoundest patris-
tic discussion of this central doctrine of the Christian religion, unless we except the Orations
against the A nans, by Athanasius, " the Father of Orthodoxy," who devoted his life to the
defense of the Divinity of Christ. Augustin, owing to his defective knowledge of Greek,
wrote his work independently of the previous treatises of the Eastern Church on that subject.
He bestowed more time and care upon it than on any other book, except the City of God.
The value of the present translation, which first appeared in Mr. Clark's edition, 1873,
has been much increased by the revision, the introductory essay, and the critical notes of a
distinguished American divine, who is in full sympathy with St. Augustin, and thoroughly
at home in the history of this dogma. I could not have intrusted it to abler hands than
those of my friend and colleague, Dr. Shedd.
The moral treatises (contained in the 6th volume of the Benedictine edition) were first
translated for the Oxford Library of the Fathers (1847). They contain much that will
instruct and interest the reader ; while some views will appear strange to those who fail to
distinguish between different ages and different types of virtue and piety. Augustin shared
with the Greek and Latin fathers the ascetic preference for voluntary celibacy and poverty.
He accepted the distinction which dates from the second century, between two kinds of
morality : a lower morality of the common people, which consists in keeping the ten com-
mandments; and a higher sanctity of the elect few, which observes, in addition, the evange-
lical counsels, so called, or the monastic virtues. He practiced this doctrine after his conver-
sion. He ought to have married the mother of his son; but in devoting himself to the
priesthood, he felt it his duty to remain unmarried, according to the prevailing spirit of the
church in his age. His teacher, Ambrose, and his older contemporary, Jerome, went still
further in the enthusiastic praise of single life. We must admire their power of self-denial and
undivided consecration, though we may dissent from their theory. 1
1 On the ascetic tendencies of the second and third centuries, and the gradual introduction of clerical celibacy (which began with
a decree of Eishop Siricius of Rome, 385), see Schaff, Church Hist., vol. ii. 367-414, and vol. iii. 242-250.
i v PREFACE.
The asceticism of the early church was a reaction against the awful sexual corruption of
surrounding heathenism, and with all its excesses it accomplished a great deal of good. It
prepared the way for Christian family life. The fathers appealed to the example of Christ,
who in this respect, as the Son of God, stood above ordinary human relations, and the
advice of St. Paul, which was given in view of "the present distress," in times of persecution.
They deemed single life better adapted to the undivided service of Christ and his church than
the married state with its unavoidable secular cares (i Cor. vii. 25 sqq.). Augustin expresses
this view when he says, on Virginity, 27 :
" Therefore go on, Saints of God. boys and girls, males and females, unmarried men and
women ; go on and persevere unto the end. Praise more sweetly the Lord, whom ye think
on more richly ; hope more happily in Him, whom ye serve more earnestly ; love more
ardently Him, whom ye please more attentively. With loins girded, and lamps burning, wait
for the Lord, when He returns from the marriage. Ye shall bring unto the marriage of the
Lamb a new song, which ye shall sing on your harps."
The Reformation has abolished the system of monasticism and clerical celibacy, and
substituted for it, as the normal condition for the clergy as well as the laity, the purity,
chastity and beauty of family life, instituted by God in Paradise and sanctioned by our
Saviour's presence at the wedding at Cana.
New York, March, 1887
CONTENTS.
PAGE
Preface. ill.
I. DOCTRINAL TREATISES OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
On the Holy Trinity. .......... 1-228
Translated by the Rev. Arthur West Haddan, B.D.
Revised and annotated, together with an introductory essay, by
the Rev. Professor W. G. T. Shedd, D.D.
The Enchiridion. .......... 237-276
Translated by Professor J. F. Shaw.
On the Catechising of the Uninstructed 2S2-314
Translated by the Rev. Professor S. D. F. S almond, D.D.
On Faith and the Creed 3 21 ~333
Translated by the Rev. Professor S. D. F. Salmond, D.D.
Concerning Faith of Things not Seen. 337-343
Translated by the Rev. C. L. Cornish, M.A.
On the Profit of Believing. 347-366
Translated by the Rev. C. L. Cornish, M.A.
On the Creed : A Sermon to Catechumens. .... 369-375
( Translated by the Rev. H. Browne, M.A.
II. MORAL TREATISES OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
Of Continence. ........... 379-393
Translated by the Rev. C. L. Cornish, M.A.
On the Good of Marriage. 397-4 J 3
Translated by the Rev. C. L. Cornish, M.A.
Of Holy Virginity. 417-438
Translated by the Rev. C. L. Cornish, M.A.
On the Good of Widowhood 441-454
Translated by the Rev. C. L. Cornish, M.A.
On Lying. . . . . . . . . . . 457-477
Translated by the Rev. H. Browne, M.A.
To Consentius : Against Lying. . 481-500
Translated by the Rev. H. Browne, M.A.
Of the Work of Monks. . 503-524
Translated by the Rev. H. Browne, M.A.
On Patience. 527-536
Translated by the Rev. H. Browne, M.A.
On Care to be had for the Dead. ... . 539~55 r
Translated by the Rev. H. Browne, M.A.
Index to On the Holy Trinity. 555559
Index to Fifteen Doctrinal and Moral Treatises. ..... 560-578
ST. AUGUSTIN:
ON THE TRINITY.
[DE TRINITATE, LIBRI XV.]
TRANSLATED BY THE
REV. ARTHUR WEST HADDAN, B.D.,
HON. CANON OF WORCESTER, AND RECTOR OF BARTON-ON-THE-HEATH, WARWICKSHIRE.
REVISED AND ANNOTATED, WITH AN INTRODUCTORY ESSAY,
BY
WILLIAM G. T. SHEDD, D.D.,
ROOSEVELT PROFESSOR OF SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY IN UNION THEOLOGICAL-
SEMINARY, NEW YORK.
INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.
By William G. T. Shedd, D.D.
The doctrine of the Divine Unity is a truth of natural religion; the doctrine of the
Trinity is a truth of revealed religion. The various systems of natural theism present
arguments for the Divine existence, unity, and attributes, but proceed no further. They
do not assert and endeavor to demonstrate that the Supreme Being is three persons in one
essence. It is because this doctrine is not discoverable by human reason, that the Christian
church has been somewhat shy of attempts to construct it analytically; or even to defend it
upon grounds of reason. The keen Dr. South expresses the common sentiment, when he
remarks that " as he that denies this fundamental article of the Christian religion may lose
his soul, so he that much strives to understand it may lose his wits." Yet all the truths of
revelation, like those of natural religion, have in them the element of reason, and are
capable of a rational defense. At the very least their self-consistence can be shown, and
objections to them can be answered. And this is a rational process. For one of the
surest characteristics of reason is, freedom from self contradiction, and consonance with
acknowledged truths in other provinces of human inquiry and belief.
It is a remarkable fact, that the earlier forms of Trinitarianism are among the most
metaphysical and speculative of any in dogmatic history. The controversy with the Arian
and the* Semi-Arian, brought out a statement and defense of the truth, not only upon
scriptural but ontological grounds. Such a powerful dialectician as Athanasius, while
thoroughly and intensely scriptural while starting from the text of scripture, and subjecting
it to a rigorous exegesis did not hesitate to pursue the Arian and Semi-Arian dialectics to its
most recondite fallacy in its subtlest recesses. If any one doubts this, let him read the four
Orations of Athanasius, and his defence of the Nicene Decrees. In some sections of Chris-
tendom, it has been contended that the doctrine of the Trinity should be received without any
attempt at all to establish its rationality and intrinsic necessity. In this case, the tenets of
eternal generation and procession have been regarded as going beyond the Scripture data,
and if not positively rejected, have been thought to hinder rather than assist faith in three
divine persons and one God. But the history of opinions shows that such sections of the
church have not proved to be the strongest defenders of the Scripture statement, nor the
most successful in keeping clear of the Sabellian, Arian, or even Socinian departure from it.
Those churches which have followed Scripture most implicitly, and have most feared
human speculation, are the very churches which have inserted into their creeds the most
highly analytic statement that has yet been made of the doctrine of the Trinity. The
Nicene Trinitarianism is incorporated into nearly all the symbols of modern Christendom;
and this specifies, particularly, the tenets of eternal generation and procession with their
corollaries. The English Church, to whose great divines, Hooker, Bull, Waterland, and
Pearson, scientific Trinitarianism owes a very lucid and careful statement, has added the
Athanasian creed to the Nicene. The Presbyterian churches, distinguished for the close-
ness of their adherence to the simple Scripture, yet call upon their membership to confess,
THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
that "in the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and
eternity; God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. The Father is of none,
neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy
Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son." '
The treatise of Augustin upon the Trinity, which is here made accessible to the English
reader, is one of the ablest produced in the patristic age. The author devoted nearly thirty
years of his matured life to its composition (a. d. 400 to 428). He was continually touch-
ing and retouching it, and would have delayed its publication longer than he did, had a
copy not been obtained surreptitiously and published. He seems to have derived little as-
sistance from others; for although the great Greek Trinitarians Athanasius, the two Gre-
gories, and Basil had published their treatises, yet he informs us that his knowledge of
Greek, though sufficient for understanding the exegetical and practical writings of his breth-
ren of the Greek Church, was not adequate to the best use of their dialectical and metaphy-
sical compositions. 2 Accordingly, there is no trace in this work of the writings of the Greek
Trinitarians, though a substantial agreement with them. The only Trinitarian author to
whom he alludes is Hilary a highly acute and abstruse Trinitarian.
In his general position, Augustin agrees with the Nicene creed; but laying more em-
phasis upon the consubstantiality of the persons, and definitely asserting the procession of
the Spirit from the Father and Son. Some dogmatic historians seem to imply that he diff-
ered materially from the Nicene doctrine on the point of subordination. Hagenbach (Smith's
Ed. 95) asserts that "Augustin completely purified the dogma of the Trinity from the
older vestiges of subordination;" and adds that "such vestiges are unquestionably to be
found in the most orthodox Fathers, not only in the East but also in the West." He cites
Hilary and Athanasius as examples, and quotes the remark of Gieseler, that ' ' the idea of
a subordination lies at the basis of such declarations." Neander (II. 470, Note 2) says
that Augustin " kept at a distance everything that bordered on subordinationism. " These
statements are certainly too sweeping and unqualified. There are three kinds of subordi-
nation: the filial or trinitarian; the theanthropic; and the Arian. The first is taught, and
the second implied, in the Nicene creed. The last is denied and excluded. Accordingly,
dogmatic historians like Petavius, Bull, Waterland, and Pearson, contend that the Nicene
creed, in affirming the filial, but denying the Arian subordination; in teaching subordina-
tion as to person and relationship, but denying it as to essence; enunciates a revealed truth,
and that this is endorsed by all the Trinitarian fathers, Eastern and Western. And there
certainly can be no doubt that Augustin held this view. He maintains, over and over
again, that Sonship as a relationship is second and subordinate to Fatherhood; that while a
Divine Father and a Divine Son must necessarily be of the very same nature and grade of
being, like a human father and a human son, yet the latter issues from the former, not the
former from the latter. Augustus's phraseology on this point is as positive as that of
Athanasius, and in some respects even more bold and capable of misinterpretation. He
denominates the Father the "beginning" (principium) of the Son, and the Father and Son
the "beginning" (principium) of the Holy Spirit. "The Father is the beginning of the
whole divinity, or if it is better so expressed, deity." IV. xx. 29. " In their mutual rela-
tion to one another in the Trinity itself, if the begetter is a beginning (principium) in rela-
1 Westminster Confession, II. iii.
2 That Augustin had considerable acquaintance with Greek is proved by his many references and citations throughout his writings.
In this work, see XII. vii. n; XII. x iv. 22 ; XIII. x. 14; XIV. i. 1; XV. ix. 15. His statement in III. i. 1, is, that he was " not sff
familiar with the Greek tongue (Greece lingua non sit nobis tantus hab-itus), as to be able to read and understand the books that
treat of such [metaphysical] topics." In V. viii. lo^he remarks that he does not comprehend the distinction which the Greek Trinita-
rians make between ovaia and VTrdoraais; which shows that he had not read the work of Gregory of Nyssa, in which it is defined
with great clearness. One may have a good knowledge of a language for general purposes, and yet be unfamiliar with its philosophi-
cal nomenclature.
INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.
tion to that which he begets, the Father is a beginning in relation to the Son, because he
begets Him." V. xiv. 15. Since the Holy Spirit proceeds from both Father and Son,
" the Father and Son are a beginning (principium) of the Holy Spirit, not two beginnings."
V. xiv. 15. Compare also V. xiii.; X. iv. ; and annotations pp. Augustin em-
ploys this term " beginning" only in relation to the person, not to the essence. There is no
"beginning," or source, when the essence itself is spoken of. Consequently, the "subor-
dination" (implied in a " beginning" by generation and spiration) is not the Arian subordi-
nation, as to essence, but the trinitarian subordination, as to person and relation. 1
Augustin starts with the assumption that man was made in the image of the triune God,
the God of revelation; not in the image of the God of natural religion, or the untriune deity
of the nations. Consequently, it is to be expected that a trinitarian analogue can be found
in his mental constitution. If man is God's image, he will show traces of it in every re-
spect. All acknowledge that the Divine unity, and all the communicable attributes, have
their finite correspondants in the unity and attributes of the human mind. But the Latin
father goes further than this. This, in his view, is not the whole of the Divine image.
When God says, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness" (Gen. i. 26), Au-
gustin understands these words to be spoken by the Trinity, and of the Trinity by and of
the true God, the God of revelation: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, one God. He de-
nies that this is merely the pluralis excellentice, and that the meaning of these words would
be expressed by a change of the plural to the singular, and to the reading, " Let me make
man in my image, after my likeness." " For if the Father alone had made man without
the Son, it would not have been written, 'Let us make man in our image, after our like-
ness/" City of God XVI. vi. ; Trinity I. vii. 14. In Augustin's opinion, the Old Tes-
tament declaration that God is a unity, does not exclude the New Testament declaration
that he is a trinity. " For" says he, " that which is written, ' Hear O Israel: the Lord our
God is one Lord ' ought certainly not to be understood as if the Son were excepted, or the
Holy Spirit were excepted; which one Lord our God we rightly call our Father, as regene-
rating us by his grace." Trinity V. xi. 12. How far Moses understood the full meaning
of the Divine communication and instruction, is one thing. Who it really and actually was
that made the communication to him, is another. Even if we assume, though with insuffic-
ient reason for so doing, that Moses himself had no intimation of the Trinity, it does not
follow that it was not the Trinity that inspired him, and all the Hebrew prophets. The
apostle Peter teaches that the Old Testament inspiration was a Trinitarian inspiration, when
he says that "the prophets who prophesied of the grace that should come, searched what
the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand of the suffer-
ings of Christ, and the glory that should follow." (1 Pet. i. 10, n).
In asserting, however, that an image of the Trinity exists in man's nature, Augustin
is careful to observe that it is utterly imperfect and inadequate. He has no thought or ex-
pectation of clearing up the mystery by any analogy whatever. He often gives expression
to his sense of the inscrutability and incomprehensibility of the Supreme Being, in language
of the most lowly and awe-struck adoration. " I pray to our Lord God himself, of whom
we ought always to think, and yet of whom we are not able to think worthily, and whom no
speech is sufficient to declare, that He will grant me both help for understanding and ex-
plaining that which I design, and pardon if in anything I offend." V. i. 1. ' O Lord the
one God, God the Trinity, whatever I have said in these books that is of Thine, may they
acknowledge who are Thine; if anything of my own, may it be pardoned both by Thee and
by those who are Thine. Amen." XV. xxviii.
*
1 For an analysis of Augustin's Trinitarianism, see Bauv : Dreieinigkeitslehre I. 828-885 ; Gangauf : Des A ugustinus speculative
Lehre von Gott dem Dreieinigcn; Schaff: History, iii. 684 sq.
6 THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
Augustin's method in this work is (i.) The exegetical; (2.) The rational. He first
deduces the doctrine of the Trinity from Scripture, by a careful collation and combination
of the texts, and then defends it against objections, and illustrates it by the analogies which
he finds in nature generally, and in the human mind particularly. The Scripture argument
is contained in the first seven books; the rational in the last eight. The first part is, of
course, the most valuable of the two. Though the reader may not be able to agree with
Augustin in his interpretation of some Scripture passages, particularly some which he cites
from the Old Testament, he will certainly be impressed by the depth, acumen, and accuracy
with which the Latin father reaches and exhausts the meaning of the acknowledged trinitarian
texts. Augustin lived in an age when the Scriptures and the Greek and Roman classics
were nearly all that the student had, upon which to expend his intellectual force. There
was considerable metaphysics, it is true, but no physics, and little mathematics. There was
consequently a more undivided and exclusive attention bestowed upon revealed religion as
embodied in the Scriptures, and upon ethics and natural religion as contained in the classics,
than has ever been bestowed by any subsequent period in Christendom. One result was
that scripture was expounded by scripture; things spiritual by things spiritual. This appears
in the exegetical part of this treatise. Augustin reasons out of the Scriptures; not out of
metaphysics or physics.
The second, or speculative division of the work, is that which will be most foreign to
the thinking of some trinitarians. In it they will find what seems to them to be a philoso-
phy, rather than an interpretation of the word of God. We shall, therefore, in this intro-
ductory essay, specify some of the advantages, as it seems to us, of the general method of
defending and illustrating the doctrine of the Trinity employed by Augustin and the pat-
ristic Trinitarians.
1. Fuller justice is done to Scripture by this method. Revelation denominates the
first trinitarian person the Father, the second the Son, the third the Spirit. These terms
are literal, not metaphorical; because the relations denoted by them are eternally
in the essence. Scripture clearly teaches that the Father is such from eternity.
Consequently, " paternity " (implied in the name Father) can no more be ascribed
to the first person of the Godhead in a figurative sense, than eternity can be. For
a person that is a father must be so in relation to a son. No son, no father, Conse-
quently, an eternal Father implies an eternal Son. And the same reasoning holds true of the
relation of the Father and Son to the Spirit. The terms Father, Son, and Spirit, in the bap-
tismal formula and the apostolic benediction, must designate primary and eternal distinc-
tions. The rite that initiates into the kingdom of God, certainly would not be administered
in three names that denote only assumed and temporal relations of God; nor would bless-
ings for time and eternity be invoked from God under such secondary names.
Hence, these trinal names given to God in the baptismal formula and the apostolic bene-
diction, actually force upon the trinitarian theologian, the ideas of paternity, generation, .
filiation, spiration, and procession. He cannot reflect upon the implication of these names
without forming these ideas, and finding himself necessitated to concede their literal valid-
ity and objective reality. He cannot say that the first person is the Father, and then deny
that he "begets." He cannot say that the second person is the Son, and then deny that he
is "begotten." He cannot say that the third person is the Spirit, and then deny that he
'proceeds" by "spiration" (spiritus quia spiratus) from the Father and Son. When
therefore Augustin, like the primitive fathers generally, endeavors to illustrate this eternal,
necessary, and constitutional energizing and activity {opera ad intra) in the Divine Essence,
whereby the Son issues from the Father and the Spirit from Father and Son, by the eman-
ation of sunbeam from sun, light from light, river from fountain, thought from mind, word
INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.
from thought when the ternaries from nature and the human mind are introduced to eluci-
date the Trinity nothing more is done than when by other well-known and commonly
adopted analogies the Divine unity, or omniscence, or omnipresence, is sought to be illus-
trated. There is no analogy taken from the finite that will clear up the mystery of the in-
finite whether it be the mystery of the eternity of God, or that of his trinity. But, at the
same time, by the use of these analogies the mind is kept close up to the Biblical term or
statement, and is not allowed to content itself with only a half-way understanding of it. Such
a method brings thoroughness and clearness into the interpretation of the Word of God.
2. A second advantage in this method is, that it shows the doctrine of the Trinity to be
inseparable from that of the Unity of God. The Deistical conception of the Divine unity
is wholly different from the Christian. The former is that of natural religion, formed by
the unassisted human mind in its reflection upon the Supreme Being. The latter is that of
revealed religion, given to the human mind by inspiration. The Deistical unity is mere
singleness. The Christian unity is a trinality. The former is a unit. The latter a true
unity, and union. The former is meagre, having few contents. The latter is a pleni-
.tnde what St. Paul denominates " the fullness of the Godhead " {rdiipui(iazr i <i6e6TrjTo<s).
Coloss. i. 9.
It follows, consequently, that the Divine unity cannot be discussed by itself without
reference to trinality, as the Deist and the Socinian endeavor to do. 1 Trinality belongs as
necessarily and intrinsically to the Divine unity as eternity does to the Divine essence.
"If," says Athanasius (Oration I. 17) "there was not a Blessed Trinity from eternity, but
only a unity existed first, which at length became a Trinity, it follows that the Holy Trinity
must have been at one time imperfect, and at another time entire: imperfect until the Son
came to be created, as the Arians maintain, and then entire afterwards." If we follow the
teachings of Revelation, and adopt the revealed idea of God, we may not discuss mere and
simple unity, nor mere and simple trinality; but we must discuss unity in trinality, and
trinality in unity. We may not think of a monad which originally, and in the order either
of nature or of time, is not trinal, but becomes so. The instant there is a monad, there
is a triad; the instant there is a unity, there are Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The
Christian Trinity is not that of Sabellius: namely, an original untrinal monad that subse-
quently, in the order of nature if not of time, becomes a triad; whereby four factors are
introduced into the problem. God is not one and three, but one in three. There is no pri-
mary monad, as such, and without trinality, to which the three distinctions are secondary
adjuncts. The monad, or essence, never exists in and by itself as untrinalized, as in the
Sabellian scheme. It exists only" as in the three Persons; only as trinalized. The Essence,
consequently, is not prior to the Persons, either in the order of nature or of time, nor sub-
sequent to them, but simultaneously and eternally in and with them.
The Primitive church took this ground with confidence. Unity and trinality were in-
separable in their view. The term God meant for them the Trinity. A " theologian," in
their nomenclature, was a trinitarian. They called the Apostle John 6 OeoAop^, because
he was enlightened by the Holy Spirit to make fuller disclosures, in the preface to his Gos-
pel, concerning the deity of the Logos and the doctrine of the Trinity, than were the other
evangelists. And they gave the same epithet to Gregory Nazianzum, because of the acumen
and insight of his trinitarian treatises. This work of Augustin adopts the same position,
and defends it with an ability second to none.
3. A third advantage of this method of illustrating the doctrine of the Trinity is, that
it goes to show that the personality of God depends upon the trinality of the Divine Essence
-
i The Mohammedan conception of the Divine Unity, also, is deistic. In energetically rejecting the doctrine of the Trinity, the Mo-
hammedan is the Oriental Unitarian.
8 THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
that if there are no interior distinctions in the Infinite Being, he cannot be self-contem-
plative, self-cognitive, or self-communing. _
This is an important and valuable feature of the method in question, when viewed in
its bearing upon the modern assertion that an Infinite Being cannot be personal. This
treatise of Augustin does not develope the problem upon this point, but it leads to it. In
illustrating the Trinity by the ternaries in nature, and especially in the human mind, he
aims only^to show that trinality of a certain kind does not conflict with unity of a certain
kind. Memory, understanding, and will are three faculties, yet one soul. Augustin is con-
tent with elucidating the Divine unity by such illustrations. The elucidation of the Divine
personality by them, was not attempted in his day nor in the Medieval and Reformation
churches. The conflict with pantheism forced this point upon the attention of the Modern
church.
At the same time, these Christian fathers who took the problem of the Trinity into the
centre of the Divine essence, and endeavored to show its necessary grounds there, prepared
the way for showing, by the same method, that trinality is not only consistent with person-
ality, but is actually indispensable to it. In a brief essay like this, only the briefest hints
can be indicated.
If God is personal, he is self-conscious. Self-consciousness is, (i), the power which a
rational spirit, or mind, has of making itself its own object; and, (2), of knowing that it
has done so. If the first step is taken, and not the second, there is no self-consciousness.
For the subject would not know that the object is the self. And the second step cannot be
taken, if the first has not been. These two acts of a rational spirit, or mind, involve three
distinctions in it, or three modes of it. The whole mind as a subject contemplates the very
same whole mind as an object. Here are two distinctions, or modes of one mind. And
the very same whole mind perceives that the contemplating subject and the contemplated
object are one and the same essence or being. Here are three modes of one mind, each
distinct from the others, yet all three going to make up the one self-conscious spirit. Un-
less there were these three distinctions, there would be no self-knowledge. Mere single-
ness, a mere subject without an object, is incompatible with self-consciousness.
In denying distinctions in the Divine Essence, while asserting its personality, Deism,
with Socinianism and Mohammedanism, contends that God can be self-knowing and self-
communing as a single subject without an object. The controversy, consequently, is as
much between the deist and the psychologist, as it is between him and the trinitarian. It
is as much a question whether his view of personality and self-consciousness is correct, as
whether his interpretation of Scripture is. For the dispute involves the necessary condi-
tions of personality. If a true psychology does not require trinality in a spiritual essence
in order to its own self-contemplation, and self-knowledge, and self-communion, then the
deist is correct; but if it does, then he is in error. That the study of self-consciousness in
modern metaphysics has favored trinitarianism, is unquestionable. Even the spurious trin-
itarianism which has grown up in the schools of the later pantheism goes to show, that a
trinal constitution is requisite in an essence, in order to explain self-consciousness, and that
absolute singleness, or the absence of all interior distinctions, renders the problem insoluble. 1
But the authority of Scripture is higher than that of psychology, and settles the matter.
Revelation unquestionably discloses a deity who is " blessed forever;" whose blessedness
is independent of the universe which he has made from nonentity, and who must therefore
find all the conditions of blessedness within himself alone. He is blessed from eternity, in
his own self-contemplation and self-communion. He does not need the universe in order
1 " That view of the divine nature which makes it inconsistent with the Incarnation and Trinity is philosophically imperfect, as
well as scnpturally incorrect." H. B. Smith: Faith and Philosophy, p. 191.
INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.
that he may have an object which he can know, which he can love, and over which he can
rejoice. "The Father knoweth the Son," from all eternity (Matt. xi. 27); and " loveth
the Son," from all eternity (John iii. 35); and " glorifieth the Son," from all eternity (John
xvii. 5). Prior to creation, the Eternal Wisdom " was by Him as one brought up with Him,
and was daily His delight, rejoicing always before Him" (Prov. viii. 30); and the Eternal
Word "was in the beginning with God" (John i. 2); and "the Only Begotten Son (or God
Only Begotten, as the uncials read) was eternally in the bosom of the Father" (John i. 18).
Here is society within the Essence, and wholly independent of the universe; and com-
munion and blessedness resulting therefrom. But this is impossible to an essence without
personal distinctions. Not the singular Unit of the deist, but the plural Unity of the trin-
itarian, explains this. A subject without an object could not know. What is there to bs
known ? Could not love. What is there to be loved ? Could not rejoice. What is there
to rejoice over ? And the object cannot be the universe. The infinite and eternal object of
God's infinite and eternal knowledge, love, and joy, cannot be his creation: because this is
neither eternal, nor infinite. There was a time when the universe was not; and if God's self-
consciousness and blessedness depends upon the universe, there was a time when God was
neither self-conscious nor blessed. The objective God for the subjective God must, there-
fore, be very God of very God, begotten not made, the eternal Son of the eternal Father.
The same line of reasoning applies to the thifd trinitarian person, but there is no need
of going through with it. The history of opinion shows, that if the first two eternal distinc-
tions are conceded, there is no denial of the reality and eternity of the third. '
The analogue derived from the nature of finite personality and self-consciousness has
one great advantage namely, that it illustrates the independence of the Divine personality
and self-consciousness. The later pantheism (not the earlier of Spinoza) constructs a kind
of trinity, but it is dependent upon the universe. God distinguishes Himself from the
world, and thereby finds the object required for the subject. But this implies either that
the world is eternal, or else, that God is not eternally self-conscious. The Christian trini-
tarianism, on the contrary, finds all the media and conditions of self-consciousness within
the Divine Essence. God distinguishes himself from himself, not from the universe. The
eternal Father beholds himself in the eternal Son, his alter ego, the "express image of his
own person" (Heb. i. 3). God does not struggle gradually into self-consciousness, as in the
Hegelian scheme, by the help of the universe. Before that universe was in existence, and
in the solitude of his own eternity and self-sufficiency, he had within his own essence all the
media and conditions of self-consciousness. And after the worlds were called into being,
the Divine personality remained the same immutable and infinite self-knowledge, unaffected
by anything in his handiwork.
" O Light Eterne, sole in thyself that dwellest,
Sole knowest thyself, and known unto thyself,
And knowing, lovest and smilest on thyself ! " Dante: Paradise xxxiii. 125.
While, however, this analogue from the conditions of finite personality approaches
nearer to the eternal distinctions in the Godhead than does that ternary which Augustin
employs namely, memory, understanding, and will yet like all finite analogies to the In-
finite it is inadequate. For the subject-ego, object-ego, and ego-percipient, are not so
essentially distinct and completely objective to each other, as are the Father, Son, and
Holy Spirit. They cannot employ the personal pronouns in reference to each other.
They cannot reciprocally perform acts and discharge functions towards each other, like the
1 Upon the necessary conditions of self consciousness in God, see Miiller: On Sin, II. 136 sq. (Urwick's Trans); Dorner: Christian
Doctrine, I. 412-465; Christlieb: Modern Doubt, Lecture III.; Kurtz: Sacred History, 2; Billroth: Religions Philosophic, 89,90;
Wilberforce: Incarnation, Chapter III; Kidd: On the Trinity, with Candlish's Introduction; Shedd: History 0/ Doctrine, I. 365-368.
10 THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
Divine Three. Revelation is explicit upon this point. It specifies at least the following
twelve actions and relations, that incontestably prove the conscious distinctness and mutual
objectivity of the persons of the Trinity. One divine person loves another (John iii. 35);
dwells in another (John xiv. 10, 11); knows another (Matt., xi. 27); sends another (Gen.
xvi. 7); suffers from another (Zech. xiii. 7-13); addresses another (Heb. i. 8); is the way
to another (John xiv. 6); speaks of another (Luke iii. 22;) glorifies another (John xvii. 5);
confers with another (Gen. i. 26; xi. 7); plans with another (Is. ix. 6): rewards another
(Phil. ii. 5-11; Heb. ii. 9).
Such are some of the salient features of this important treatise upon the Trinity. It
has its defects; but they pertain to the form more thar to the matter; to arrangement and
style more than to dogma. Literary excellence is no. the forte of the patristic writers.
Hardly any of them are literary artists. Lactantius among the Latins, and Chrysostom
among the Greeks, are almost the only fathers that have rhetorical grace. And none of
them approach the beauty of the classic writers, as seen in the harmomous flow and diction
of Plato, and the exquisite finish of Horace and Catullus.
Augustin is prolix, repetitious, and sometimes leaves his theme to discuss cognate but
distantly related subjects. This appears more in the last eight chapters, which are specula-
tive, than in the first seven, which are scriptural. The material in this second division is
capable of considerable compression. The author frequently employs two illustrations when
one would suffice, and three or more when two are enough. He discusses many themes
which are not strictly trinitarian.
Yet the patient student will derive some benefit from this discursiveness. He will find,
for example, in this treatise on the Trinity, an able examination of the subject of miracles
(Book III); of creation ex nihilo (III. ix); of vicarious atonement (IV. vii-xiv); of the fac-
ulty of memory (XI. x); and, incidentally, many other high themes are touched upon. Be-
fore such a contemplative intellect as that of Augustin, all truth lay spread out like the
ocean, with no limits and no separating chasms. Everything is connected and fluid. Con-
sequently, one doctrine inevitably leads to and merges in another, and the eager and in-
tense inquirer rushes forward, and outward, and upward, and downward, in every direction.
The only aim is to see all that can be seen, and state all that can be stated. The neglect
of the form, and the anxiety after the substance, contribute to the discursiveness. Caring
little for proportion in method, and nothing for elegance in diction, the writer, though
bringing forth a vast amount of truth, does it at the expense of clearness, conciseness, and
grace. Such is the case with the North African father one of the most voluminous and
prolix of authors, yet one of the most original, suggestive, and fertilizing of any.
And this particular treatise is perhaps as pregnant and suggestive as any that Augustin,
or any other theologian, ever composed. The doctrine of the Trinity is the most immense
of all the doctrines of religion. It is the foundation of theology. Christianity, in the last
analysis, is Trinitarianism. Take out of the New Testament the persons of the Father, the
Son, and the Holy Spirit, and there is no God left. Take out of the Christian conscious-
ness the thoughts and affections that relate to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit,
and there is no Christian consciousness left. The Trinity is the constitutive idea of the
evangelical theology, and the formative idea of the evangelical experience. The immen-
sity of the doctrine makes it of necessity a mystery; but a mystery which like night enfolds
in its unfathomed depths the bright stars points of light, compared with which there is no
light so keen and so glittering. Mysterious as it is, the Trinity of Divine Revelation is the
doctrine that holds in it all the hope of man; for it holds within it the infinite pity of the In-
carnation and the infinite mercy of the Redemption.
And it shares its mysteriousness with the doctrine of the Divine Eternity. It is diffi-
INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. i i
cult to say which is most baffling to human comprehension, the all-comprehending, simul-
taneous, successionless consciousness of the Infinite One, or his trinal personality. Yet no
theist rejects the doctrine of the Divine eternity because of its mystery. The two doctrines are
antithetic and correlative. On one of the Northern rivers that flows through a narrow chasm
whose depth no plummet has sounded, there stand two cliffs fronting each other, shooting
their pinnacles into the blue ether, and sending their roots down to the foundations of the
earth. They have named them Trinity and Eternity. So stand, antithetic and confront-
ing, in the Christian scheme, the trinity and eternity of God.
The translation of this treatise is the work of the Rev. Arthur West Haddan, Hon.
Canon of Worcester, who, according to a note of the publisher, died while it was passing
through the press. It has been compared with the original, and a considerable number of
alterations made. The treatise is exceedingly difficult to render into English probably the
most so of any in the author's writings. The changes in some instances were necessary
from a misconception of the original; but more often for the purpose of making the mean-
ing of the translator himself more clear. It is believed that a comparison between the orig-
inal and revised translation will show that the latter is the more intelligible. At the same
time, the reviser would not be too confident that in every instance the exact meaning of
Augustin has been expressed, by either the translator or reviser.
The annotations of the reviser upon important points in the treatise, it is hoped, will
assist the reader in understanding Augustin's reasoning, and also throw some light upon the
doctrine of the Trinity.
William G. T. Shedd.
New York, Feb. i, 1887.
TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE.
The history of St. Augustin's treatise on the Trinity, as gathered by Tillemont and others from his own
allusions to it, may be briefly given. It is placed by him in his Retractations among the works written (which in
the present case, it appears, must mean begun) in a.d. 400. In letters of a.d. 410, 414, and at the end of a.d.
415 {Ad Consentium, Ep. 120, and two Ad Evodium, Epp. 162, 169), it is referred to as still unfinished and
unpublished. But a letter of A.D. 412 {Ad Marcellinum, Ep. 143) intimates that friends were at that time im-
portuning him, although without success, to complete and publish it. And the letter to Aurelius, which was
sent to that bishop with the treatise itself when actually completed, informs us that a portion of it, w T hile it was
still unrevised and incomplete, was in fact surreptitiously made public, a proceeding which the letters above
cited postpone apparently until at least after a.d. 415. It was certainly still in hand in a.d. 416, inasmuch as
in Book XIII. a quotation occurs from the 12th Book of the Be Civitate Bei; and another quotation in Book
XV., irom the 90th lecture on St. John, indicates most probably a date of at least a year later, viz. a.d. 417.
The Retractations, which refer to it, are usually dated not later than a.d. 428. The letter to Bishop Aurelius
also informs us that the work was many years in progress, and was begun in St. Augustin's early manhood, and
finished in his old age. We may infer from this evidence that it was written by him between a.d. 400, when he
was forty-six years old, and had been Bishop of Hippo about four years, and a.d. 428 at the latest; but prob-
ably it was published ten or twelve years before this date. He writes of it, indeed, himself, as if the " nonum
prematnr in annum " very inadequately represented the amount of deliberate and patient thought which a sub-
ject so profound and so sacred demanded, and which he had striven to give to it; and as if, even at the very
last, he shrank from publishing his work, and was only driven to do so in order to remedy the mischief of its
partial and unauthorized publication.
His motive for writing on the subject may be learned from the treatise itself. It was not directed against
any individual antagonist, or occasioned by any particular controversial emergency. In fact, his labors upon it
were, he says, continually interrupted by the distraction of such controversies. Certain ingenious and subtle
theories respecting types or resemblances of the Holy Trinity, traceable in human nature as being the image of
God, seemed to him to supply, not indeed a logical proof, but a strong rational presumption, of the truth of the
doctrine itself; and thus to make it incumbent upon him to expound and unfold them in order to meet rationaliz-
ing objectors upon (so to say) their own ground. He is careful not to deal with these analogies or images as if
they either constituted a purely argumentative proof or exhausted the full meaning of the doctrine, upon both
which assumptions such speculations have at all times been the fruitful parent both of presumptious theorizing
and of grievous heresy. But he nevertheless employs them more affirmatively than would perhaps have been
the case. While modern theologians would argue negatively, from the triplicity of independent faculties,
united, nevertheless, in the unity of a single human person, that any presumption of reason against the Trinity
of persons in 'the Godhead is thereby, if not removed, at least materially and enormously lessened, St. Augustin
seems to argue positively from analogous grounds, as though they constituted a direct intimation of the doctrine
itself. But he takes especial pains, at the same time, to dwell upon the incapacity of human thought to fathom
the depths of the nature of God; and he carefully prefaces his reasonings by a statement of the Scripture evi-
dence of the catholic doctrine as a matter of faith and not of reason, and by an explanation of difficult texts
upon the subject. One of the most valuable portions, indeed, of the treatise is the eloquent and profound ex-
position given in this part of it of the rule of interpretation to be applied to Scripture language respecting the
person of our Lord. It should be noticed, however, that a large proportion of St. Augustin's scriptural exege-
, 4 THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
SIS IS
founded upon a close verbal exposition of the old Latin version, and is frequently not borne out by
the original text. And the rule followed in rendering Scripture texts in the present translation has been, accor-
dingly, wherever the argument in the context rests upon the variations of the old Latin, there to translate the
words as St. Augustin gives them, while adhering otherwise to the language of the authorized English version.
The reader's attention may allowably be drawn to the language of Book V. ex., and to its close resemblance to
some of the most remarkable phrases of the Athanasian Creed, and again to the striking passage respecting
miracles in Book III. C.V., and to that upon the nature of God at the beginning of Book V. ; the last named of
which seems to have suggested one of the profoundest passages in the profoundest of Dr. Newman's University
Sermons (p. 353, ed. 1843). It may be added, that the writings of the Greek Fathers on the subject were, if
not wholly unknown, yet unfamiliar to Augustin, who quotes directly only the Latin work of Hilary of
Poictiers.
It remains to say, that the translation here printed was made about four years since by a friend of the writer
of this preface, and that the latter's share in the work has been that of thoroughly revising and correcting it, and
of seeing it through the press. He is therefore answerable for the work as now published.
A. W. HADDAN.
Nov. 5, 1872.
In the Retractations (ii. 15) Augustin speaks of this work in the following terms:
" I spent some years in writing fifteen books concerning the Trinity, which is God. When, however, I
had not yet finished the thirteenth Book, and some who were exceedingly anxious to have the work were kept
waiting longer than they could bear, it was stolen from me in a less correct state than it either could or would
have been had it appeared when I intended. And as soon as I discovered this, having other copies of it, I had
determined at first not to publish it myself, but to mention what had happened in the matter in some other
work; but at the urgent request of brethren, whom I could not refuse, I corrected it as much as I thought fit,
and finished and published it, with the addition, at the beginning, of a letter that I had written to the vener-
able Aurelius, Bishop of Carthage, in which I set forth, in the way of prologue, what had happened, what I had
intended to do of myself, and what love of my brethren had forced me to do."
The letter to which he here alludes is the following :
" To the most blessed Lord, whom he reveres with most sincere love, to his holy brother and fellow- priest,
Pope Aurelius, Augustin sends health in the Lord.
" I began as a very young man, and have published in my old age, some books concerning the Trinity,
who is the supreme and true God. I had in truth laid the work aside, upon discovering that it had been prema-
turely, or rather surreptitiously, stolen from me before I had completed it, and before I had revised and put the
finishing touches to it, as had been my intention. For I had not designed to publish the Books one by one,
but all together, inasmuch as the progress of the inquiry led me to add the later ones to those which precede
them. When, therefore, these people had hindered the fulfillment of my purpose (in that some of them had ob-
tained access to the work before I intended), I had given over dictating it, with the idea of making my com-
plaint public in some other work that I might write, in order that whoso could might know that the Books had
not been published by myself, but had been taken away from my possession before they were in my own judg-
ment fit for publication. Compelled, however, by the eager demands of many of my brethren, and above all
by your command, I have taken the pains, by God's help, to complete the work, laborious as it is; and as now
corrected (not as I wished, but as I could, lest the Books should differ very widely from those which had surrep-
titiously got into people's hands), I have sent them to your Reverence by my very dear son and fellow-deacon,
and have allowed them to be heard, copied, and read by every one that pleases. Doubtless, if I could ha
fulfilled my original intention, although they would have contained the same sentiments, they would have been
worked out much more thoroughly and clearly, so far as the difficulty of unfolding so profound a subject, and
so far, too, as my own powers, might have allowed. There are some persons, however, who have the first four,
or rather five, Books without the prefaces, and the twelfth with no small part of its later chapters omitted. But
these, if they please and can, will amend the whole, if they become acquainted with the present edition. At
any rate, I have to request that you will order this letter to be prefixed separately, but at the beginning of the
Books. Farewell. Pray for me."
CONTENTS OF THE TRINITY.
PAGE
Introductory Essay, 3
Translator's Preface, , 13
BOOK I .
The unity and equality of the Trinity are demonstrated out of the Scriptures; and the true interpretation is
given of those texts which are wrongly alleged against the equality of the Son, 17
BOOK II.
The equality of the Trinity maintained against objections drawn from those texts which speak of the send-
ing of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 37
BOOK III.
The appearances of God to the Old Testament saints are discussed, 55
BOOK IV.
Augustin explains for what the Son of God was sent; but, however, that the Son of God, although made
less by being sent, is not therefore less because the Father sent Him; nor yet the Holy Spirit less be-
cause both the Father sent Him and the Son 69
BOOK V.
He proceeds to refute those arguments which the heretics put forward, not out of the Scriptures, but from
their own conceptions. And first he refutes the objection, that to beget and to be begotten, or that to
be begotten and not-begotten, being different, are therefore different substances, and shows that these
things are spoken of God relatively, and not according to. substance, 87
BOOK VI.
In reply to the argument alleged against the equality of the Son from the apostle's words, saying that Christ
is the <; power of God and the wisdom of God," he propounds the question whether the Father Him-
self is not wisdom. But deferring for a while the answer to this, he adduces further proof of the unity
and equality of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; and that God ought to be said and believed
to be a Trinity, not triple (triplicem). And he adds an explanation of the saying of Hilary Eternity
in the Father, Appearance in the Image, and Use in the Gift 97
BOOK VII.
He resolves the question he had deferred, and teaches us that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is
one power and one wisdom, no otherwise than one God and one essence. And he then inquires how it
is that, in speaking of God, the Latins say, One essence, three persons; but the Greeks, One essence,
three substances or hypostases, 104
BOOK VIII.
He advances reasons to show not only that the Father is not greater than the Son, but that neither are both
together anything greater than the Holy Spirit, nor any two together in the same Trinity anything
greater than one, nor all three together anything greater than each singly. He also intimates that the
nature of God may be understood from our understanding of truth, from our knowledge of the supreme
good, and from our implanted love of righteousness; but above all, that our knowledge of God is to be
sought through love, in which he notices a trio of things which contains a trace of the Trinity, . . .115
1 6 CONTENTS.
BOOK IX.
PAGE
He instructs us that there is a kind of trinity discernible in man, who is the image of God, viz. the mind,
and the knowledge by which the mind knows itself, and the love wherewith it loves both itself and its
own knowledge; these three being mutually equal and of one essence, 125
BOOK X.
That there is yet another and a more manifest trinity to be found in the mind of man, viz. in his memory,
understanding, and will, 134
BOOK XL
That even in the outer man some traces of a trinity may be detected, as e.g., in the bodily sight, and in the
recollection of objects seen with the bodily sight, 143
BOOK XII.
After premising the difference between wisdom and knowledge, he points out a kind of trinity in that which
is properly called knowledge; but one which, although we have reached in it the inner man, is not yet
to be called the image of God, 155
BOOK XIII.
He expounds this trinity that he has found in knowledge by commending Christian faith, ...... 166
BOOK XIV.
He speaks of the true wisdom of man, viz. that by which he remembers, understands, and loves God; and
shows that it is in this very thing that the mind of man is the image of God, although his mind, which
is here renewed in the knowledge of God, will only then be made the (perfect likeness of God in that
image when there shall be a perfect sight of God, 183
BOOK XV.
He embraces in a brief compendium the contents of the previous books; and finally shows that the Trinity,
in the perfect sight of which consists the blessed lifethat is promised us, is here seen by us as in a glass
and in an enigma, so long as it is seen through that image of God which we ourselves are, .... igq
THE
FIFTEEN BOOKS OF AURELIUS AUGUSTINUS,
BISHOP OF HIPPO,
ON THE TRINITY.
BOOK I.
IN WHICH THE UNITY AND EQUALITY OF THE SUPREME TRINITY IS ESTABLISHED FROM THE SA-
CRED SCRIPTURES, AND SOME TEXTS ALLEGED AGAINST THE EQUALITY OF THE SON ARE EX-
PLAINED.
CHAP. I. THIS WORK IS WRITTEN AGAINST
THOSE WHO SOPHISTICALLY ASSAIL THE FAITH
OF THE TRINITY, THROUGH MISUSE OF REA-
SON. THEY WHO DISPUTE CONCERNING GOD
ERR FROM A THREEFOLD CAUSE. HOLY SCRIPT-
URE, REMOVING WHAT IS FALSE, LEADS US
ON BY DEGREES TO THINGS DIVINE. WHAT
TRUE IMMORTALITY IS. WE ARE NOURISHED
BY FAITH, THAT WE MAY BE ENABLED TO
APPREHEND THINGS DIVINE.
1. The following dissertation concerning
the Trinity, as the reader ought to be in-
formed, has been written in order to guard
against the sophistries of those who disdain
to begin with faith, and are deceived by a
crude and perverse love of reason. Now one
class of such men endeavor to transfer to
things incorporeal and spiritual the ideas they
have formed, whether through experience of
the bodily senses, or by natural human wit
and diligent quickness, or by the aid of art,
from things corporeal; so as to seek to meas-
ure and conceive of the former by the latter.
Others, again, frame whatever sentiments
they may have concerning God according to
the nature or affections of the human mind;
and through this error they govern their dis-
course, in disputing concerning God, by dis-
torted and fallacious rules. While yet a third
class strive indeed to transcend the whole
creation, which doubtless is changeable, in
order to raise their thought to the unchangea-
ble substance, which is God; but being
weighed down by the burden of mortality,
whilst they both would seem to know what
they do not, and cannot know what
they would, preclude themselves from enter-
ing the very path of understanding, by an
over-bold affirmation of their own presump-
tuous judgments; choosing rather not to cor-
rect their own opinion when it is perverse,
than to change that which they have once
defended. And, indeed, this is the common
disease of all the three classes which I have
mentioned, viz., both of those who frame
their thoughts of God according to things
corporeal, and of those who do so according
to the spiritual creature, such as is the soul;
and of those who neither regard the body nor
the spiritual creature, and yet think falsely
about God; and are indeed so much the fur-
ther from the truth, that nothing can be found
answering to their conceptions, either in the
body, or in the made or created spirit, or in
the Creator Himself. For he who thinks, for
instance, that God is white or red, is in error;
and yet these things are found in the body.
Again, he who thinks of God as now forget-
ting and now remembering, or anything of
the same kind, is none the less in error; and
yet these things are found in the mind. But
he who thinks that God is of such power as
to have generated Himself, is so much the
i8
THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[Book I.
more in error, because not only does God not
so exist, but neither does the spiritual nor
the bodily creature; for there is nothing
whatever that generates its own existence .*
2. In order, therefore, that the human
mind might be purged from falsities of this
kind, Holy Scripture,which suits itself to babes,
has not avoided words drawn from any class of
things really existing, through which, as by
nourishment, our understanding might rise
gradually to things divine and transcendent.
For, in speaking of God, it has both used
words taken from things corporeal, as when
it says, " Hide me under the shadow of Thy
wings;" 2 and it has borrowed many things
from the spiritual creature, whereby to sig-
nify that which indeed is not so, but must
needs so be said: as, for instance, "I the
Lord thy God am a jealous God; " 3 and, " It
repenteth me that I have made man." 4 But
it has drawn no words whatever, whereby to
frame either figures of speech or enigmatic
sayings, from things which do not exist at all.
And hence it is that they who are shut out
from the truth by that third kind of error are
more mischievously and emptily vain than
their fellows; in that they surmise respecting
God, what can neither be found in Himself
nor in any creature. For divine Scripture is
wont to frame, as it were, allurements for
children from the things which are found in
the creature; whereby, according to their
measure, and as it were by steps, the affec-
tions of the weak may be moved to seek those
things that are above, and to leave those
things that are below. But the same Script-
ure rarely employs those things which are
spoken properly of God, and are not found
in any creature; as, for instance, that which
was said to Moses, " I am that I am;" and,
''I Am hath sent me to you." 3 For since
both body and soul also are said in some
sense to be, Holy Scripture certainly would
not so express itself unless it meant to be un-
derstood in some special sense of the term.
So, too, that which the Apostle says, " Who
only hath immortality. ' ' 6 Since the soul also
both is said to be, and is, in a certain manner
immortal, Scripture would not say "only
hath," unless because true immortality is un-
changeableness; which no creature can pos-
sess, since it belongs to the creator alone. 7
1 [Augustin here puts generare for creare which is rarely the
case with him, since the distinction between generation and crea-
tion is of the highest importance in discussing the doctrine of the
Trinity. His thought here is, that God does not bring himself into
being, because he always is. Some have defined God as the Self-
caused: causa sui. But the category of cause and effect is inap-
plicable to the Infinite Being. W. G. T. S.]
2 Ps. xvii. 8. 3 Ex. xx. 5. 4 Gen. vi. 7 .
5 Ex. iii. 14. 6 t Xim. vi. 16.
7 [God's being is necessary; that of the creature is contingent
Hence the name I Am, or Jehovah, which denotes this difference'
God alone has immortality a parte ante, as well as a parte post
So also James says, " Every good gift and
every perfect gift is from above, and cometh
down from the Father of Lights, with whom
is no variableness, neither shadow of turn-
ing." 8 So also David, " Thou, shalt change
them, and they shall be changed; but Thou
art the same." 5
3. Further, it is difficult to contemplate
and fully know the substance of God; who
fashions things changeable, yet without any
change in Himself, and creates things tem-
poral, yet without any temporal movement in
Hmselr. And it is necessary, therefore, to
purge our minds, in order to be able to see
ineffably that which is ineffable; whereto not
having yet attained, we are to be nourished
by faith, and led by such ways as are more
suited to our capacity, that we may be rendered
apt and able to comprehend it. And hence
the Apostle says, that " in Christ indeed are
hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowl-
edge; " I0 and yet has commended Him to us,
as to babes in Christ, who, although already
born again by His grace, yet are still carnal
and psychical, not by that divine virtue
wherein He is equal to the Father, but by
that human infirmity whereby He was cruci-
fied. For he says, " I determined not to
know anything among you, save Jesus Christ
and Him crucified;"" and then he continues,
"And I was with you in weakness, and in
fear, and in much trembling." And a little
after he says to them, "And I, brethren,
could not speak unto you as unto spiritual,
but as unto carnal, 12 even as unto babes in
Christ. I have fed you with milk, and not
with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to
bear it, neither yet now are ye able." I3 There
are some who are angry at language of this
kind, and think it is used in slight to them-
selves, and for the most part prefer rather to
believe that they who so speak to them have
nothing to say, than that they themselves
cannot understand what they have said. And
sometimes, indeed, we do allege to them, not
certainly that account of the case which they
seek in their inquiries about God, because
neither can they themselves receive it, nor
can we perhaps either apprehend or express
it, but such an account of it as to demon-
strate to them how incapable and utterly unfit
they are to understand that which they re-
quire of us. But they, on their parts, because
8 Jas. i. 17. 9 p s . c ii. 2 6 ) 2? .
"Col. 11. 3. 11 x Cor. ii. 2, 3.
([ I2 [St.Paul, in this place, denominates imperfect but true believers
carnal," in a relative sense, only. They are comparatively car-
nal, when contrasted with the law of God, which is absolutely and
perfectly spiritual. (Rom. vii. 14.) They do not, however, be-
long to the class of carnal or natural men, in distinction from
spiritual. The persons whom the Apostle here denominates " car-
nal," a **" ll ^l>^ ! r\~~\~*. n \\7 /-" 'i' o n
al," are " babes in Christ." W. G. T. S.]
J 3 1 Cor. iii. 1 2.
Chap. III. J
ON THE TRINITY.
19
they do not hear what they desire, think that
we are either playing them false in order to
conceal our own ignorance, or speaking in
malice because we grudge them knowledge;
and so go away indignant and perturbed.
CHAP. 2. IN WHAT MANNER THIS WORK PRO-
POSES TO DISCOURSE CONCERNING THE TRIN-
ITY.
4. Wherefore, our Lord God helping, we
will undertake to render, as far as we are
able, that very account which they so impor-
tunately demand: viz., that the Trinity is
the one and only and true God, and also how
the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are
rightly said, believed, understood, to be of
one and the same substance or essence; in
such wise that they may not fancy themselves
mocked by excuses on our part, but may find
by actual trial, both that the highest good is
that which is discerned by the most purified
minds, and that for this reason it cannot be
discerned or understood by themselves, be-
cause the eye of the human mind, being
weak, is dazzled in that so transcendent
light, unless it be invigorated by the
nourishment of the righteousness of faith.
First, however, we must demonstrate, ac-
cording to the authority of the Holy
Scriptures, whether the faith be so. Then,
if God be willing and aid us, we may perhaps
at least so far serve these talkative arguers
more puffed up than capable, and therefore
laboring under the more dangerous disease
as to enable them to find something which
they are not able to doubt, that so, in that
case where they cannot find the like, they
may be led to lay the fault to their own
minds, rather than to the truth itself or to
our reasonings; and thus, if there be any-
thing in them of either love or fear towards
God, they may return and begin from faith in
due order: perceiving at length how health-
ful a medicine has been provided for the
faithful in the holy Church, whereby a heed-
ful pietv, healing the feebleness of the mind,
may render it able to perceive the unchangea-
ble truth, and hinder it from falling headlong,
through disorderly rashness, into pestilent
and false opinion. Neither will I' myself
shrink from inquiry, if I am anywhere in
doubt; nor be ashamed to learn, if I am any-
where in error.
CHAP. 3. WHAT AUGUSTIN REQUESTS FROM
HIS READERS. THE ERRORS OF READERS DULL
OF COMPREHENSION NOT TO BE ASCRIBED TO
THE AUTHOR.
5. Further let me ask of my reader, wher-
ever^ alike with myself, he is certain, there
to go on with me; wherever, alike with
myself, he hesitates, there to join with
me in inquiring; wherever he recognizes
himself to be in error, there to return
to me ; wherever he recognizes me to be
so, there to call me back: so that we may
enter together upon the path of charity, and
advance towards Him of whom it is said,
"Seek His face evermore." 1 And I would
make this pious and safe agreement, in the
presence of our Lord God, with all who read
my writings, as well in all other cases as,
above all, in the case of those which inquire
into the unity of the. Trinity, of the Father
and the Son and the Holy Spirit; because in
no other subject is error more dangerous, or
inquiry more laborious, or the discovery
of truth more profitable. If, then, any
reader shall say, This is not well said, be-
cause I do not understand it; such an one
finds fault with my language, not with my
faith: and it might perhaps in very truth have
been put more clearly; yet no man ever so
spoke as to be understood in all things by all
men. Let him, therefore, who finds this
fault with my discourse, see whether he can
understand other men who have handled simi-
lar subjects and questions, when he does not
understand me: and if he can, let him put down
my book, or even, if he pleases, throw it
away; and let him spend labor and time
rather on those whom he understands. 2 Yet
let him not think on that account that I ought
to have been silent, because I have not been
able to express myself so smoothly and clearly
to him as those do whom he understands.
For neither do all things, which all men have
written, come into the hands of all. And
possibly some, who are capable of under-
standing even these our writings, may not find
those more lucid works, and may meet with
ours only. And therefore it is useful that
many persons should write many books, dif-
fering in style but not in faith, concerning
even the same questions, that the matter it-
self may reach the greatest number some
in one way, some in another. But if he who
complains that he has not understood these
things has never been able to comprehend
any careful and exact reasonings at all upon
such subjects, let him in that case deal with
himself bv resolution and study, that he may
1 Ps. cv. 4.
= [This request of Augustin to his reader, involves an admirable
rule for authorship generally -the desire, namely, th?t truth be
attained, be it through himself or through others. Milton teaches
the same, when he savs that the author must " study and love
learning for itself, not' for lucre, or any other end, but the sen-ire
of God and of truth, and perhaps that lasting fame and perpetuity
of praise, which God and good men have consented shall bethere-
I ward of those whose published labors advance the good of man-
kind. ' w. <;. t.s.]
20
THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[Book I.
know better; not with me by quarrellings and
wranglings, that I may hold my peace. Let
him, again, who says, when he reads my book,
Certainly I understand what is said, but it is
not true, assert, if he pleases, his own opinion,
and refute mine if he is able. And if he do
this with charity and truth, and take the pains
to make it known to me (if I am still alive),
I shall then receive the most abundant fruit
of this my labor. And if he cannot inform
myself, most willing and glad should I be that
he should inform those whom he can. Yet,
for my part, "I meditate in the law of the
Lord," 1 if not "day and night," at least
such short times as I can; and I commit my
meditations to writing, lest they should es-
cape me through forgetfulness; hoping by
the mercy of God that He will make me hold
steadfastly all truths of which I feel certain;
" but if in anything I be otherwise minded,
that He will himself reveal even this to me," 2
whether through secret inspiration and ad-
monition, or through His own plain utter-
ances, or through the reasonings of my breth-
ren. This I pray for, and this my trust and
desire I commit to Him, who is sufficiently
able to keep those things which He has
given me, and to render those which He has
promised.
6. I expect, indeed, that some, who are
more dull of understanding, will imagine that
in some parts of my books I have held senti-
ments which I have not held, or have not held
those which I have. But their error, as none
can be ignorant, ought not to be attributed to
me, if they have deviated into false doctrine
through following my steps without appre-
hending me, whilst I am compelled to pick
my way through a hard and obscure subject:
seeing that neither can any one, in any way,
rightly ascribe trie numerous and various
errors of heretics to the holy testimonies
themselves of the divine books; although all
of them endeavor to defend out of those
same Scriptures their own false and erroneous
opinions. The law of Christ, that is, chanty,
admonishes me clearly, and commands me
with a sweet constraint, that when men think
that I have held in my books something false
which I have not held, and that same false-
hood displeases one and pleases another, I
should prefer to be blamed by him who repre-
hends the falsehood, rather than praised by him
who praises it. For although I, who never held
the error, am not rightly blamed by the
former, yet the error itself is rightly cen-
sured; whilst by the latter neither am I
rightly praised, who am thought to have held
that which the truth censures, nor the senti-
ment itself, which the truth also censures.
Let us therefore essay the work which we
have undertaken in the name of the Lord.
CHAP. 4. WHAT THE DOCTRINE OF THE CATH-
OLIC FAITH IS CONCERNING THE TRINITY.
7. All those Catholic expounders of the
divine Scriptures, both Old and New, whom
I have been able to read, who have written
before me concerning the Trinity, Who is
God, have purposed to teach, according to
the Scriptures, this doctrine, that the Father,
and the Son, and the Holy Spirit intimate a
divine unity of one and the same substance in
an indivisible equality; 3 and therefore that
they are not three Gods, but one God: al-
though the Father hath begotten the Son, and
so He who is the Father is not the Son; and
the Son is begotten by the Father, and so He
who is the Son is not the Father; and the
Holy Spirit is neither the Father nor the Son,
but only the Spirit of the Father and of the
Son, Himself also co-equal with the Father
and the Son, and pertaining to the unity of
the Trinity. Yet not that this Trinity was
born of the Virgin Mary, and crucified under
Pontius Pilate, and buried, and rose again the
third day, and ascended into heaven, but only
the Son. Nor, again, that this Trinity de-
scended in the form of a dove upon Jesus
when He was baptized; 4 nor that, on the day
of Pentecost, after the ascension of the Lord,
when "there came a sound from heaven, as
of a rushing mighty wind,'' 5 the same Trinity
"sat upon each of them with cloven tongues
like as of fire," but only the Holy Spirit.
Nor yet that this Trinity said from heaven,
" Thou art my Son," 6 whether when He was
baptized by John, or when the three disciples
were with Him in the mount, 7 or when the
voice sounded, saying, " I have both glorified
it, and will glorify it again;" 8 but that it
was a word of the Father only, spoken to the
Son; although the Father, and the Son, and
the Holy Spirit, as they are indivisible, so
work indivisibly. 9 This is also my faith,
since it is the Catholic faith.
1 Ps. i.
2 Phil. iii. 15.
3 [Augufitin teaches the Nicene doctrine of a numerical unity of
essence in distinction from a specific unity. The latter is that of
mankind. In this case there is division of substance part after part
of the specific nature being separated and formed, by propagation,
into individuals. No human individual contains the whole spe-
cific nature. But in the case of the numerical unity of the
Trinity, there is no division of essence. The whole divine nature is
in each divine person. The three divine persons do not constitute
a species that is, three divine individuals made by the division
and distribution of one common divine nature but are three modes
or " forms " (Phil. ii. 6) of one undivided substance, numerically
and identically the same in each.- W. G. T. S.]
4 Matt. iii. 16. 5 Acts. ii. 2, 4. 6 Mark i. n.
7 Matt. xvii. 5. 8 John xii. 28.
9 [The term Trinity denotes the Divine essence in all three
modes. The term Father (or Son, or Spirit) denotes the essence
in only one mode. Consequently, there is something in the
Chap. VI.]
ON THE TRINITY.
21
CHAP. 5. OF DIFFICULTIES CONCERNING THE
TRINITY : IN WHAT MANNER THREE ARE ONE
GOD, AND HOW, WORKING INDIVISIBLY, THEY
YET PERFORM SOME THINGS SEVERALLY.
8. Some persons, however, find a difficulty
in this faith ; when they hear that the Father
is God, and the Son God, and the Holy
Spirit God, and yet that this Trinity is
not three Gods, but one God; and they
ask how they are to understand this :
especially when it is said that the Trinity
works indivisibly in everything that God
works, and yet that a certain voice of the
Father spoke, which is not the voice of the
Son; and that none except the Son was born
in the flesh, and suffered, and rose again, and
ascended into heaven; and that none except
the Holy Spirit came in the form of a dove.
They wish to understand how the Trinity
uttered that voice which was only of the
Father; and how the same Trinity created
that flesh in which the Son only was born of
the Virgin; and how the very same Trinity
itself wrought that form of a dove, in which
the Holy Spirit only appeared. Yet, other-
wise, the Trinity does not work indivisibly,
but the Father does some things, the Son
other things, and the Holy Spirit yet others:
or else, if they do some things together, some
severally, then the Trinity is not indivisible.
It is a difficulty, too, to them, in what man-
ner the Holy Spirit is in the Trinity, whom
neither the Father nor the Son, nor both,
have begotten, although He is the Spirit both
of the Father and of the Son. Since, then,
men weary us with asking such questions, let
us unfold to them, as we are able, whatever
wisdom God's gift has bestowed upon our
weakness on this subject; neither " let us go
on our way with consuming envy." Should
we say that we are not accustomed to think
about such things, it would not be true; yet
if we acknowledge that such subjects com-
monly dwell in our thoughts, carried away as
we are by the love of investigating the truth,
then they require of us, by the law of charity,
to make known to them what we have herein
been able to find out. " Not as though I had
already attained, either were already perfect "
(for, if the Apostle Paul, how much more
must I, who lie far beneath his feet, count
myself not to have apprehended!); but, ac-
cording to my measure, " if I forget those
things that are behind, and reach forth unto
those things which are before, and press to-
Trinity that cannot be attributed to any one of the Persons, as
such;_and something in a Person that cannot be attributed to
the Trinity, as such. Trinality cannot be ascribed to the first
Person; paternity cannot be ascribed to the Trinity. W. GTS
1 Wisd. vi. 23. ' J
wards the mark for the prize of the high call-
ing," 2 I am requested to disclose so much of
the road as I have already passed, and the
point to which I have reached, whence the
course yet remains to bring me to the end.
And those make the request, whom a gener-
ous charity compels me to serve. Needs
must too, and God will grant that, in supply-
ing them with matter to read, I shall profit
myself also; and that, in seeking to reply to
their inquiries, I shall myself likewise find
that for which I was inquiring. Accordingly
I have undertaken the task, by the bidding
and help of the Lord my God, not so much
of discoursing with authority respecting things
I know already, as of learning those things
by piously discoursing of them.
CHAP. 6. THAT THE SON IS VERY GOD, OF THE
SAME SUBSTANCE WITH THE FATHER. NOT
ONLY THE FATHER, BUT THE TRINITY, IS
AFFIRMED TO BE IMMORTAL. ALL THINGS
ARE NOT FROM THE FATHER ALONE, BUT ALSO
FROM THE SON. THAT THE HOLY SPIRIT IS
VERY GOD, EQUAL WITH THE FATHER AND
THE SON.
^ 9. They who have said that our Lord Jesus
Christ is not God, or not very God, or not
with the Father the One and only God, or not
truly immortal because changeable, are proved
wrong by the most plain and unanimous voice
of divine testimonies; as, for instance, " In
the beginning was the Word, and the Word
was with God, and the Word was God." For
it is plain that we are to take the Word of God
to be the only Son of God, of whom it is after-
wards said, "And the Word was made flesh,
and dwelt among us," on account of that birth
of His incarnation, which was wrought in time
of the Virgin. But herein is declared, not
only that He is God, but also that He is of
the same substance with the Father; because,
after saying, "And the Word was God," it is
said also, "The same was in the beginning
with God: all things were made by Him, and
without Him was not anything made." 3 Not
simply " all things;" but only all things that
were made, that is, the whole creature. From
which it appears clearly, that He Himself was
not made, by whom all things were made.
And if He was not made, then He is not a
creature; but if He is not a creature, then He
is of the same substance with the Father. For
all substance that is not God is creature; and
all that is not creature is God. 4 And if the
- Phil. iii. 12-14. 3 John i. 1. 14, 2, 3.
* [Augustin here postulates the theistic doctrines of two sub-
stances infinite and finite; in contradiction to the postulate of pan-
theism, that there is only one substance the infinite. W. G. T. S.]
22
THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[Book I.
Son is not of the same substance with the
Father, then He is a substance that was made:
and if He is a substance that was made, then all
things were not made by Him; but "all things
were made by Him," therefore He is of one
and the same substance with the Father.
And so He is not only God, but also very
God. And the same John most expressly
affirms this in his epistle: " For we know that
the Son of God is come, and hath given us
an understanding, that we may know the true
God, and that we may be in His true Son
Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal
life." >
10. Hence also it follows by consequence,
that the Apostle Paul did not say, "Who
alone has immortality," of the Father merely;
but of the One and only God, which is the
Trinity itself. For that which is itself eternal
life is not mortal according to any change -
ableness; and hence the Son of God, because
" He is Eternal Life," is also Himself un-
derstood with the Father, where it is said,
" Who only hath immortality." For we, too,
are made partakers of this eternal life, and
become, in our own measure, immortal. But
the eternal life itself, of which we are made
partakers, is one thing; we ourselves, who, by
partaking of it, shall live eternally, are an-
other. For if He had said, "Whom in His
own time the Father will show, who is the
blessed and only Potentate, the King of
kings, and Lord of lords; who only hath
immortality; " not even so would" it be neces-
sarily understood that the Son is excluded.
For neither has the Son separated the Father
from Himself, because He Himself, speaking
elsewhere with the voice of wisdom (for He
Himself is the Wisdom of God), 2 says, "I
alone compassed the circuit of heaven." 3
And therefore so much the more is it not
necessary that the words, "Who hath im-
mortality," should be understood of the
Father alone, omitting the Son; when they
are said thus: "That thou keep this com-
mandment without spot, unrebukeable, until
the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ:
whom in His own time He will show, who is
the blessed and only Potentate, the King of
kings, and Lord of lords; who only hath im-
mortality, dwelling in the light which no man
can approach unto; whom no man hath seen,
nor can see: to whom be honor and power
everlasting. Amen." 4 In which words
neither is the Father specially named, nor
the Son, nor the Holy Spirit; but the blessed
and only Potentate, the King of kings, and
1 ' John v. 20.
3 Kcclus. xxiv. 5.
2 t Cor. i. 24.
4 r Tim. vi. 14-16.
Lord of lords; that is, the One and only and
true God, the Trinity itself.
11. But perhaps what follows may inter-
fere with this meaning; because it is said,
"Whom no man hath seen, nor can see:"
although this may also be taken as belonging
to Christ according to His divinity, which
the Jews did not see, who yet saw and cruci-
fied Him in the flesh; whereas His divinity
can in no wise be seen by human sight, but is
seen with that sight with which they who see
are no longer men, but beyond men. Rightly,
therefore, is God Himself, the Trinity, under-
stood to be the "blessed and only Poten-
tate," who "shows the coming of our Lord
Jesus Christ in His own time." For the
words, "Who only hath immortality," are
said in the same way as it is said, " Who only
doeth wondrous things." 5 And I should be
glad to know of whom they take these words
to be said. If only of the Father, how then
is that true which the Son Himself says,.
"For what things soever the Father doeth,
these also doeth the Son likewise ? " Is there
any, among wonderful works, more wonderful
than to raise up and quicken the dead ? Yet
the same Son saith, "As the Father raiseth
up the dead, and quickeneth them, even so
the Son quickeneth whom He will." 6 How,
then, does the Father alone "do wondrous-
things/' when these words allow us to under-
stand neither the Father only, nor the Son
only, but assuredly the one only true God,
that is, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy
Spirit? 7
12. Also, when the same apostle says,
" But to us there is but one God, the Father,
of whom are all things, and we in Him; and
one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all
things, and we by Him," 8 who can doubt
that he speaks of all things which are created;
as does John, when he says, " All things were
made by Him"? I ask, therefore, of whom
he speaks in another place: "For of Him,
and through Him, and in Him, are all things:
to whom be glory for ever. Amen." 9 For
if of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy
Spirit, so as to assign each clause severally
to each person: of Him, that is to say, of the
Father; through Him, that is to say, through
the Son; in Him, that is to say, in the Holy
Spirit, it is manifest that the Father, and
the Son, and the Holy Spirit is one God, in-
asmuch as the words continue in the singular
number, "To whom 10 be glory for ever."
5 Ps. lxxii. 18. 6 John v. 19, 21.
7 [Nothing is more important, in order to a correct interpreta-
tion of the New Testament, than a correct explanation of the term
God. Sometimes it denotes the Trinity, and soinetimes a person
of the Trinity. The context always shows which it is. The ex-
amples given here by Augustin are only a few out of many. W.
1 G. T. S.] 8 ! Cor. viii. 6. 9 Rom. xi. 36. Ipsi.
Chap. VI.]
ON THE TRINITY.
23
For at the beginning of the passage he does
not say, " O the depth of the riches both of
the wisdom and knowledge" of the Father,
or of the Son, or of the Holy Spirit, but " of
the wisdom and knowledge of God ! " " How
unsearchable are His judgments, and His
ways past finding out ! For who hath known
the mind of the Lord ? or who hath been His
counsellor ? Or who hath first given to Him
and it shall be recompensed unto him again?
For of Him, and through Him, and in Him,
are all things: to whom be glory for ever.
Amen." 1 But if they will have this to be un-
derstood only of the Father, then in what way
are all things by the Father, as is said here;
and all things by the Son, as where it is said
to the Corinthians, "And one Lord Jesus
Christ, by whom are all things," 2 and as in
the Gospel of John, "All things were made
by Him ?" For if some things were made by
the Father, and some by the Son, then all
things were not made by the Father, nor all
things by the Son; but if all things were made
by the Father, and all things by the Son, then
the same things were made by the Father and
by the Son. The Son, therefore, is equal
with the Father, and the wosking of the
Father and the Son is indivisible. Because
if the Father made even the Son, whom cer-
tainly the Son Himself did not make, then all
things were not made by the Son; but all
things were made by the Son: therefore He
Himself was not made, that with the Father
x 3'
also
Simi!
ar
concerning
He might make all things that were made.
And the apostle has not refrained from using
the very word itself, but has said most ex-
pressly, "Who, being in the form of God,
thought it not robbery to be equal with
God; " 3 using here the name of God specially
of the Father; 4 as elsewhere, " But the head
of Christ is God." 5
1 Rom. xi. 33-36. 2 1 Cor. viii. 6. 3 Phil. ii. 6.
4 [It is not generally safe to differ from Augustin in tnnitarian
exegesis. But in Phil. ii. 6 " God " must surely denote the Di-
vine Essence, not the first Person of the Essence. St. Paul des-
cribes "Christ Jesus" as " subsisting " (inrdpxw) originally, that is
prior to incarnation, "in a form of God" (h fiop4>fi deou), and because
he so subsisted, as being "equal with God." The word MP<f>?j is
anarthrous in the text: a form, not the form; as the A.V. and R.V.
render. St. Paul refers to one of three " forms " of God namely,
that particular form of Sonship, which is peculiar to the second |
person of the Godhead. Had the apostle employed the article
with nopijjjj, the implication would be that there is only one
" form of God" that is, only one person in the Divine Essence.
If then #eou, in this place, denotes the Father, as Augustin
says, St. Paul would teach that the Logos subsisted " in a form of
the Father" which would imply that the Father had more than
one " form," or else (if |u.op<Jj be rendered with the article) that
the Logos subsisted in the " form" of the Father, neither of which
is true. But if " God," in this place, denotes the Divine Essence,
then St. Paul teaches that the unincarnate Logos subsisted in a par-
ticular " form " of the Essence the Father and Spirit subsisting
in other "forms" of it.
The student will observe that Augustin is careful to teach
that the Logos, when he took on him " a form of a servant," did
not lay aside "a form of God." He understands the kenosis
(e/ceVcucre) to be, the humbling of the divinity by its union with
the humanity; not the exinanition of it in the extremest sense of
entirely divesting himself of the divinity, nor the less extreme
sense of a total non-use of it during the humiliation. \Y r .G.T.S.].
5 1 Cor. xi. 3.
evidence has been collected
the Holy Spirit, of which
those who have discussed the subject before
ourselves have most fully availed themselves,
that He too is God, and not a creature. But
if not a creature, then not only God (for men
likewise are called gods 6 ), but also very God;
and therefore absolutely equal with the Father
and the Son, and in the unity of the Trinity
consubstantial and co-eternal. But that the
Holy Spirit is not a creature is made quite
plain by that passage above all others, where
we are commanded not to serve the creature,
but the Creator; 7 not in the sense in which
we are commanded to "serve" one another
by love, 8 which is in Greek oooUbzv;, but in
that in which God alone is served, which
is in Greek Xazpzbzv;. From whence they
are called idolaters who tender that service
to images which is due to God. For it is this
service concerning which it is said, "Thou
shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him
only shalt thou serve." 9 For this is found
also more distinctly in the Greek Scriptures,
which have ka-Tptbazi^. Now if we are for-
bidden to serve the creature with such a ser-
vice, seeing that it is written, "Thou shalt
worship the Lord thy God, and Him only
shalt thou serve " (and hence, too, the apostle
repudiates those who worship and serve the
creature more than the Creator), then as-
suredly the Holy Spirit is not a creature, to
whom such a service is paid by all the saints;
as says the apostle, " For we are the circum-
cision, which serve the Spirit of God," I0
which is in the Greek XarpeuovTes. For even
most Latin copies also have it thus, ' We
who serve the Spirit of God;" but all Greek
ones, or almost all, have it so. Although in
some Latin copies we find, not "We worship
the Spirit of God," but, "We worship God
in the Spirit." But let those who err in this case,
and refuse to give up to the more weighty
authority, tell us whether they find this text
also varied in the mss. : " Know ye not that
your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost,
which is in you, which ye have of God ? " Yet
what can be more senseless or more profane,
than that any one should dare to say that the
members of Christ are the temple of one who,
in their opinion, is a creature inferior to
Christ? For the apostle says in another
place, " Your bodies are members of Christ."
But if the members of Christ are also the
temple of the Holy Spirit, then the Holy
Spirit is not a creature; because we must
needs owe to Him, of whom our body is the
6 Ps. lxxxii. 6.
8 Gal. v. 13.
10 Phil. iii. 3 (Vulgate, etc.).
7 Rom. i. 25.
9 Deut. vi. 13.
'4
THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[ Book I.
temple, that service wherewith God only is to
be served, which in Greek is called Xarpeia.
And accordingly the apostle says, ' ' There-
fore glorify God in youi body.'' 1
CHAP. 7. IN WHAT MANNER THE SON IS LESS
THAN THE FATHER, AND THAN HIMSELF.
14. In these and like testimonies of the
divine Scriptures, by free use of which, as I
have said, our predecessors exploded such
sophistries or errors of the heretics, the unity
and equality of the Trinity are intimated to
our faith. But because, on account of the
incarnation of the Word of God for the work-
ing out of our salvation, that the man Christ
Jesus might be the Mediator between God
and men, 2 many things are so said in the
sacred books as to signify, or even most ex-
pressly declare, the Father to be greater than
the Son; men have erred through a want of
careful examination or consideration of the
whole tenor of the Scriptures, and have en-
deavored to transfer those things which are
said of Jesus Christ according to the flesh, to
that substance of His which was eternal before
the incarnation, and is eternal. They say, for
instance, that the Son is less than the Father,
because it is written that the Lord Himself
said, "My Father is greater than I." 3 But
the truth shows that after the sams sense the
Son is less also than Himself; for how was
He not made less also than Himself, who
" emptied 4 Himself, and took upon Him the
form of a servant 1" For He did not so take
the form of a servant as that He should lose
the form of God, in which He was equal to
the Father. If, then, the form of a servant
was so taken that the form of God was not
lost, since both in the form of a servant and
in the form of God He Himself is the same
only-begotten Son of God the Father, in the
form of God equal to the Father, in the form
of a servant the Mediator between God and
men, the man Christ Jesus; is there any one
who cannot perceive that He Himself in the
form of God is also greater than Himself, but
yet likewise in the form of a servant less than
Himself ? And not, therefore, without cause
the Scripture says both the one and the other,
both that the Son is equal to the Father, and
that the Father is greater than the Son. For
there is no confusion when the former is un-
derstood as on account of the form of God,
and the latter as on account of the form of a
servant. And, in truth, this rule for clearing
the question through all the sacred Scriptures
is set forth in one chapter of an epistle of the
1 i Cor. vi. 19, 15, 20.
3 John xiv. 28.
2 1 Tim. ii. 5.
4 Exinanivit.
Apostle Paul, where this distinction is com-
mended to us plainly enough. For he says,
"Who, being in the form of God, thought it
not robbery to be equal with God; but emptied
Himself, and took upon Him the form of a
servant, and was made in the likeness of
men: and was found in fashion 5 as a man." 6
The Son of God, then, is equal to God the
Father in nature, but less in "fashion." 7
For in the form of a servant which He took
He is less than the Father; but in the form
of God, in which also He was before He took
the form of a servant, He is equal to the
Father. In the form of God He is the Word,
" by whom all things are made; " 8 but in the
form of a servant He was " made of a woman,
made under the law, to redeem them that
were under the law/' 9 In like manner, in the
form of God He made man; in the form of a
servant He was made man. For if the Father
alone had made man without the Son, it
would not have been written, " Let us make
man in our image, after our likeness." 10
Therefore, because the form of God took the
form of a servant, both is God and both is
man; but both God, on account of God who
takes; and both man, on account of man who
is taken. For neither by that taking is the
one of them turned and changed into the
other: the Divinity is not changed into the
creature, so as to cease to be Divinity; nor
the creature into Divinity, so as to cease to
be creature.
CHAP. 8. THE TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE EXPLAINED
RESPECTING THE SUBJECTION OF THE SON TO
THE FATHER, WHICH HAVE BEEN MISUNDER-
STOOD. CHRIST WILL NOT SO GIVE UP THE
KINGDOM TO THE FATHER, AS TO TAKE IT
AWAY FROM HIMSELF. THE BEHOLDING HIM
IS THE PROMISED END OF ALL ACTIONS. THE
HOLY SPIRIT IS SUFFICIENT TO OUR BLESSED-
NESS EQUALLY WITH THE FATHER.
15. As for that which the apostle says,
"And when all things shall be subdued unto
Him, then shall the Son also Himself be sub-
ject unto Him that put all things under
Him:' : either the text has been so turned,
lest any one should think that the " fashion" 11
of Christ, which He took according to the
human creature, was to be transformed here-
after into the Divinity, or (to express it more
precisely) the Godhead itself, who is not a
creature, but is the unity of the Trinity, a
nature incorporeal, and unchangeable, and
consubstantial, and co-eternal with itself; or if
5 Habitu.
8 John i. 3.
11 Habititm.
6 Phil. ii. 6, 7.
9 Gal. iv. 4, 5 .
7 Habitu.
I(J ( )en. i. 26.
Chap. VIII.]
ON THE TRINITY.
25
any one contends, as some have thought, that
the text, "Then shall the Son also Himself
be subject unto Him that put all things under
Him," is so turned in order that one may be-
lieve that very " subjection " to be a change
and conversion hereafter of the creature into
the substance or essence itself of the Creator,
that is, that that which had been the substance
of a creature shall become the substance of
the Creator; such an one at any rate admits
this, of which in truth there is no possible
doubt, that this had not yet taken place, when
the Lord said, "My Father is greater than
I." For He said this not only before He
ascended into heaven, but also before He had
suffered, and had risen from the dead. But
they who think that the human nature in Him
is to be changed and converted into the sub-
stance of the Godhead, and that it was so said,
" Then shall the Son also Himself be subject
unto Him that put all things under Him,"
as if to say, Then also the Son of man Him-
self, and the human nature taken by the Word
of God, shall be changed into the nature of Him
who put all things under Him, must also
think that this will then take place, when,
after the day of judgment, " He shall have
delivered up the kingdom to God, even the
Father." And hence even still, according to
this opinion, the Father is greater than that
form of a servant which was taken of the
Virgin. But if some affirm even further, that
the man Christ Jesus has already been changed
into the substance of God, at least they cannot
deny that the human nature still remained,
when He said before His passion, "For my
Father is greater than I;" whence there is no
question that it was said in this sense, that
the Father is greater than the form of a ser-
vant, to whom in the form of God the Son is
equal. Nor let any one, hearing what the
apostle says, "But when He saith all things
are put under Him, it is manifest that He is
excepted which did put all things under
Him," 1 think the words, that He hath put
all things under the Son, to be so understood
of the Father, as that He should not think-
that the Son Himself put all things under
Himself. For this the apostle plainly de-
clares, when he says to the Philippians, " For
our conversation is in heaven; from whence
also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus
Christ: who shall change our vile body, that
it may be fashioned like unto His glorious
body, according to the working whereby He
is able even to subdue 2 all things unto Him-
self." 3 For the working of the Father and
of the Son is indivisible. Otherwise, neither
1 1 Cor. xv. 28, 24, 27.
- Sabjicere.
3 Phil. iii. 20, 21.
hath the Father Himself put all things under
Himself, but the Son hath put all things under
Him, who delivers the kingdom to Him, and
puts down all rule and all authority and power.
For these words are spoken of the Son:
"When He shall have delivered up," says
the apostle, "the kingdom to God, even the
Father; when He shall have put down 4 all
rule, and all authority, and all power." For
the same that puts down, also makes subject.
16. Neither may we think that Christ shall
so give up the kingdom to God, even the
Father, as that He shall take it away from
Himself. For some vain talkers have thought
even this. For when it is said, "He shall
have delivered up the kingdom to God, even
the Father,'' He Himself is not excluded; be-
cause He is one God together with the Father.
But that word "until" deceives those who
are careless readers of the divine Scriptures,
but eager for controversies. For the text
continues, " For He must reign, until He
hath put all enemies under His feet;" 3 as
though, when He had so put them, He would
no more reign. Neither do they perceive
that this is said in the same way as that other
text, " His heart is established: He shall not
be afraid, until He see His desire upon His
enemies." 6 For He will not then be afraid
when He has seen it. What then means,
" When He shall have delivered up the king-
dom to God, even the Father," as though God
and the Father has not the kingdom now ?
But because He is hereafter to bring all the
just, over whom now, living by faith, the
Mediator between God and men, the man
Christ Jesus, reigns, to that sight which the
same apostle calls " face to face;" 7 therefore
the words, "When He shall have delivered
up the kingdom to God, even the Father," are
as much as to say, When He shall have brought
believers to the contemplation of God, even
the Father. For He says, "All things are
delivered unto me of my Father: and no man
knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither
knoweth any man the Father, save the Son,
and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal
Him." 8 The Father will then be revealed by
the Son, "when He shall have put down all
rule, and all authority, and all power;" that
is, in such wise that there shall be no more
need of any economy of similitudes, by means
of angelic rulers, and authorities, and powers.
Of whom that is not unfitly understood, which
is said in the Song of Songs to the bride,
"We will make thee borders 9 of gold, with
studs of silver, while the King sitteth at His
t Evacuaverit.
6 Ps. cxii. 8.
8 Matt. xi. 27.
5 1 Cor. xv. 24, 25.
7 1 Cor. xiii. 12.
9 Similitudines.
THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[Book I.
table;" 1 that is, as long as Christ is in His
secret place: since "your life is hid with
Christ in God; when Christ, who is our 2 life,
shall appear, then shall ye also appear with
Him in glory." 3 Before which time, "we
see now through a glass, in an enigma," that
is, in similitudes, "but then face to face." 4
17. For this contemplation is held forth to
us as the end of all actions, and the everlast-
ing fullness of joy. For "we are the sons of
God ; and it doth not yet appear what we shall
be: but we know that, when He shall appear,
we shall be like Him; for we shall see Him
as He is." s For that which He said to His
servant Moses, "I am that 1 am; thus shalt
thou say to the children of Israel, I Am hath
sent me to you;" 6 this it is which we shall
contemplate when we shall live in eternity.
For so it is said, "And this is life eternal,
that they might know Thee, the only true
God, and Jesus Christ, whom Thou hast
sent.'' 7 This shall be when the Lord shall
have come, and " shall have brought to light
the hidden things of darkness;" 8 when the
darkness of this present mortality and corrup-
tion shall have passed away. Then will be
our morning, which is spoken of in the Psalm,
" In the morning will I direct my prayer unto
Thee, and will contemplate Thee." 9 Of this
contemplation I understand it to be said,
" When He shall have delivered up the king-
dom to God, even the Father; " that is, when
He shall have brought the just, over whom
now, living by faith, the Mediator between
God and man, the man Christ Jesus, reigns,
to the contemplation of God, even the Father.
If herein I am foolish, let him who knows
better correct me; to me at least the case
seems as I have said. 10 For we shall not seek
anything else, when we shall have come to the
contemplation of Him. But that contempla-
tion is not yet, so long as our joy is in hope.
For " hope that is seen is not hope: for what
a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for ? But
if we hope for that we see not, then do we
with patience wait for it," " viz. " as long as
the King sitteth at His table." 12 Then will
take place that which is written, " In Thy
presence is fullness of joy." I3 Nothing more
than that joy will be required; because there
1 In rectditu. Cant. i. n; see LXX.
2 Vestra. 3 Col. iii. 3, 4. 4 1 Cor. xiii. 12.
5 1 John 111. 2. 6 Ex. iii. 14. 7 John xvii. 3.
8 1 Cor. iv. 5. 9 Ps. v. 5.
! The common explanation is better, which regards the " king-
dom ' that is to be delivered up. to be the mediatorial commission.
When Christ shall have finished his work of redeeming men, he
no longer discharges the office of a mediator. It seems incon-
gruous to denominate the beatific vision of God by the redeemed,
a surrender of a kingdom. In I. x. 21, Augustin says that when
the Redeemer brings the redeemed from faith to sight, " He is
said to 'deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father' "
W.G.T.S.]
" Horn. viii. 24, 25. 1= Cant. i. 12. 13 Ps. xvi. 11.
will be nothing more than can be required.
For the Father will be manifested to us, and
that will suffice for us. And this much Philip
had well understood, so that he said to the
Lord, " Show us the Father, and it sufficeth
us." But he had not yet understood that he
himself was able to say this very same thing
in this way also: Lord, show Thyself to us,
and it sufficeth us. For, that he might under-
stand this, the Lord replied to him, " Have
I been so long time with you, and yet hast
thou not known me, Philip ? he that hath
seen me hath seen the Father." But be-
cause He intended him, before he could see
this, to live by faith, He went on to say,
" Believest thou not that I am in the Father,
and the Father in me ? " 14 For " while we are
at home in the body, we are absent from the
Lord: for we walk by faith, not by sight." IS
For contemplation is the recompense of faith,
for which recompense our hearts are purified
by faith; as it is written, " Purifying their
hearts by faith." l6 And that our hearts are to
be purified for this contemplation, is proved
above all by this text, " Blessed are the pure
in heart, for they shall see God." 17 And that
this is life eternal, God says in the Psalm,
" With long life will I satisfy him, and show
him my salvation" 18 Whether, therefore,
we hear, Show us the Son ; or whether we
hear, Show us the Father ; it is even all
one, since neither can be manifested without
the other. For they are one, as He also
Himself says, " My Father and I are one/" 9
Finally, on account of this very indivisibility,
it suffices that sometimes the Father alone, or
the Son alone, should be named, as hereafter
to fill us with the joy of His countenance.
18. Neither is the Spirit of either thence
excluded, that is, the Spirit of the Father and
of the Son; which Holy Spirit is specially
called "the Spirit of truth, whom the world
cannot receive. " 30 For to have the fruition
of God the Trinity, after whose image we are
made, is indeed the fullness of our joy, than
which there is no greater. On this account
the Holy Spirit is sometimes spoken of as if
He alone sufficed to our blessedness: and He
does alone so suffice, because He cannot be
divided from the Father and the Son; as the
Father alone is sufficient, because He cannot
be divided from the Son and the Holy Spirit;
and the Son alone is sufficient because He can-
not be divided from the Father and the Holy
Spirit. For what does He mean by saying,
''If ye love me, keep my commandments;
and I will pray the Father, and He shall give
r 4 lohn xiv. 8, 10.
'7 Matt. v. 8.
20 John xiv. 17.
J 5 2 Cor. v. 6, 7.
18 Ps. xci. 16.
16 Acts xv. 9.
! 9 John x. 30.
Chap. IX.]
ON THE TRINITY.
2 7
you another Comforter, that He may abide
with you for ever; even the Spirit of truth,
whom the world cannot receive," ' that is,
the lovers of the world? For "the natural
man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of
God." 2 But it may perhaps seem, further,
as if the words, " And I will pray the Father,
and He shall give you another Comforter,"
were so said as if the Son alone were not
sufficient. And that place so speaks of the
Spirit, as if He alone were altogether suffi-
cient: "When He, the Spirit of truth, is
come, He will guide you into all truth." 3
Pray, therefore, is the Son here excluded, as
if He did not teach all truth, or as if the Holy
Spirit were to fill up that which the Son could
not fully teach ? Let them say then, if it
pleases them, that the Holy Spirit is greater
than the Son, whom they are wont to call less.
Or is it, forsooth, because it is not said, He
alone, or. No one else except Himself will
guide you into all truth, that they allow that
the Son also may be believed to teach to-
gether with Him ? In that case the apostle
has excluded the Son from knowing those
things which are of God, where he says,
15 Even so the things of God knoweth no one,
but the Spirit of God:" 4 so that these perverse
men might, upon this ground, go on to say
that none but the Holy Spirit teaches even
the Son the things of God, as the greater
teaches the less; to whom the Son Himself
ascribes so much as to say, " But because I
have said these things unto you, sorrow hath
filled your heart. Nevertheless I tell you
the truth; it is expedient for you that I go
away: for if I go not away, the Comforter
will not come unto you.'' 5
CHAP. 9. ALL ARE SOMETIMES UNDERSTOOD IN
ONE PERSON.
But this is said, not on account of any in-
equality of the Word of God and of the Holy
Spirit, but as though the presence of the Son
of man with them would be a hindrance to
the coming of Him, who was not less, be-
cause He did not "empty Himself, taking
upon Him the form of a servant," 6 as the Son
did. It was necessary, then, that the form
of a servant should be taken away from their
eyes, because, through gazing upon it, they
thought that alone which they saw to be
Christ. Hence also is that which is said, " If
ye loved me, ye would rejoice because I said,
"I go unto the Father; for my Father is
greater than I :" 7 that is, on that account it
is necessary for me to go to the Father, be-
1 John xiv. 15-
4 1 Cor. ii. 11.
7 John xiv. 2 ?.
17-
- 1 Cor. ii. 14.
5 John xvi. 6, 7.
3 John xvi. 13.
6 Phil. ii. ?
cause, whilst you see me thus, you hold me
to be less than the Father through that which
you see; and so, being taken up with the
creature and the "fashion" which I have
taken upon me, you do not perceive the
equality which I have with the Father.
Hence, too, is this: "Touch me not; for I
am not yet ascended to my Father." ! For
touch, as it were, puts a limit to their con-
ception, and He therefore would not have
the thought of the heart, directed towards
Himself, to be so limited as that He should
be held to be- only that which He seemed to
be. But the "ascension to the Father"
meant, so to appear as He is equal to the
Father, that the limit of the sight which suf-
ficeth us might be attained there. Sometimes
also it is said of the Son alone, that He him-
self sufficeth, and the whole reward of our
love and longing is held forth as in the sight
of Him. For so it is said, " He that hath my
commandments, and keepeth them, he it is
that lovethme; and he that loveth me shall be
loved of my Father; and I will love him, and
will manifest myself to him." 9 Pray, be-
cause He has not here said, And I will show
the Father also to him, has He therefore
excluded the Father ? On the contrary, be-
cause it is true, " I and my Father are one,"
when the Father is manifested, the Son also,
who is in Him, is manifested; and when the
Son is manifested, the Father also, who is in
Him, is manifested. As, therefore, when it
is said, " And I will manifest myself to him,"
it is understood that He manifests also the
Father; so likewise in that which is said,
"When He shall have delivered up the king-
dom to God, even the Father," it is under-
stood that He does not take it away from
Himself; since, when He shall bring believers
to the contemplation of God, even the Father,
doubtless He will bring them to the contem-
plation of Himself, who has said, " And I will
manifest myself to him." And so, conse-
quently, when Judas had said to Him, " Lord,
how is it that Thou wilt manifest Thyself
unto us, and not unto the world?" Jesus
answered and said to him, "If a man love
me, he will keep my words: and my Father
will love him, and we will come unto him,
and make our abode with him." 10 Behold,
that He manifests not only Himself to him
by whom He is loved, because He comes to
him together with the Father, and abides
with him.
19. Will it perhaps be thought, that when
the Father and the Son make their abode
with him who loves them, the Holy Spirit
8 John xx. 17.
10 John xiv. 22, 23.
9 John xiv. 21.
28
THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[Book I.
is excluded from that abode ? What,
then, is that which is said above of the
Holy Spirit : " Whom the world cannot
receive, because it seeth Him not: but ye
know Him; for He abideth with you, and is
in you " ? He, therefore, is not excluded
from that abode, of whom it is said, "He
abideth with you, and is in you;" unless,
perhaps, any one be so senseless as to think,
that when the Father and the Son have come
that they may make their abode with him
who loves them, the Holy Spirit will depart
thence, and (as it were) give place to those
who are greater. But the Scripture itself
meets this carnal idea; for it says a little
above: " I will pray the Father, and He shall
give you another Comforter, that He may
abide with you for ever." 1 He will not
therefore depart when the Father and the
Son come, but will be in the same abode with
them eternally; because neither will He come
without them, nor they without Him. But
in order to intimate the Trinity, some things
are separately affirmed, the Persons being
also each severally named; and yet are not to
be understood as though the other Persons
were excluded, on account of the unity of the
same Trinity and the One substance and
Godhead of the Father and of the Son and
of the Holy Spirit. 2
CHAP. IO. IN WHAT MANNER CHRIST SHALL
DELIVER UP THE KINGDOM TO GOD, EVEN THE
FATHER. THE KINGDOM HAVING BEEN DE-
LIVERED TO GOD, EVEN THE FATHER, CHRIST
WILL NOT THEN MAKE INTERCESSION FOR US.
20. Our Lord Jesus Christ, therefore, will
so deliver up the kingdom to God, even the
Father, Himself not being thence excluded,
nor the Holy Spirit, when He shall bring be-
lievers to the contemplation of God, wherein
is the end of all good actions, and everlasting
rest, and joy which never will be taken from
us. For He signifies this in that which He
says: "I will see you again, and your heart
shall rejoice; and your joy no man taketh
from you." 3 Mary, sitting at the feet of the
Lord, and earnestly listening to His word,
foreshowed a similitude of this joy; resting
1 John xiv. 16-23.
2 [An act belonging- eminently and officially to a particular trin-
itarian person is not performed to the total exclusion of the other
persons, because of the numerical unity of essence. The whole
undivided essence is in each person; consequently, what the es-
sence in one of its personal modes, or forms, does officially and emi-
nently, is participated in by the essence in its other modes or
forms. Hence the interchange of persons in Scripture. Though
creation is officially the Father's work, yet the Son creates (Col.
i. 16; Heb. i. 3). The name Saviour is given to the Father (1 Tim.
i. 1). Judgment belongs officially to the Son (John v. 22; Matt.
xxv. 31); yet the Father judgeth (1 Pet. i. 17). The Father raises
Christ (Acts xiii. 30); yet Christ raises himself (John x. 18; Acts
x. 41; Rom. xiv. 9). W. G. T. S.]
3 John xvi. 22.
as she did from all business, and intent upon
the truth, according to that manner of which
this life is capable, by which, however, to
prefigure that which shall be for eternity.
For while Martha, her sister, was cumbered
about necessary business, which, although
good and useful, yet, when rest shall have
succeeded, is to pass away, she herself was
resting in the word of the Lord. And so the
Lord replied to Martha, when she complained
that her sister did not help her: " Mary hath
chosen the best part, which shall not be taken
away from her." 4 He did not say that Mar-
tha was acting a bad part; but that "best
part that shall not be taken away." For that
part which is occupied in the ministering to
a need shall be " taken away " when the need
itself has passed away. Since the reward of
a good work that will pass away is rest that
will not pass away. In that contemplation,
therefore, God will be all in all; because
nothing else but Himself will be required,
but it will be sufficient to be enlightened by
and to enjoy Him alone. And so he in
whom "the Spirit maketh intercession with
groanings which cannot be uttered,'' s says,
" One thing have I desired of the Lord, that
I will seek after; that I may dwell in the
house of the Lord all the days of my life, to
contemplate the beauty of the Lord." 6 For
we shall then contemplate God, the Father
and the Son and the Holy Spirit, when the
Mediator between God and men, the man
Christ Jesus, shall have delivered up the
kingdom to God, even the Father, so as no
longer to make intercession for us, as our
Mediator and Priest, Son of God and Son of
man; 7 but that He Himself too, in so far as
He is a Priest that has taken the form of a
servant for us, shall be put under Him who
has put all things under Him, and under
whom He has put all things: so that, in so
far as He is God, He with Him will have put
us under Himself; in so far as He is a Priest,
He with us will be put under Him. 8 And
therefore as the [incarnate] Son is both God
and man, it is rather to be said that the man-
hood in the Son is another substance [from
the Son], than that the Son in the Father [is
another substance from the Father]; just as
4 Luke x. 30-42. 5 Rom. viii. 26. 6 Ps. xxvii. 4.
7 [The redeemed must forever stand in the relation of redeemed
sinners to their Redeemer. Thus standing, they will forever need
Christ's sacrifice and intercession in respect to their past sins in
this earthly state. But as in the heavenly state they are sinless,
and are incurring no new guilt, it is true that they do not require
the fresh application of atoning blood for new sins, nor Christ's in-
tercession for such. This is probably what Augustin means by
saying that Christ " no longer makes intercession for us," when he
has delivered up the kingdom to God. When the Mediator has
surrendered his commission, he ceases to redeem sinners from
death, while yet he continues forever to be the Head of those whom
he has redeemed, and their High Priest forever, after the order of
Melchizedek (Heb. vii. 1; .) W. G. T. S.] S 1 Cor. xv. 24-28,
Chap. XL]
ON THE TRINITY.
29
my
de-
the carnal nature of my soul is more another
substance in relation to my soul itself, al-
though in one and the same man, than the
soul of another man is in relation to
soul. *
21. When, therefore, He "shall have
livered up the kingdom to God, even the
Father," that is, when He shall have
brought those who believe and live by faith,
for whom now as Mediator He maketh in-
tercession, to that contemplation, for the
obtaining of which we sigh and groan, and
when labor and groaning shall have passed
away, then, since the kingdom will have
been delivered up to God, even the Father,
He will no more make intercession for us.
And this He signifies, when He says: " These
things have I spoken unto you in simili-
tudes; 2 but the time cometh when I shall no
more speak unto you in similitudes, - but I
shall declare 3 to you plainly of the Father: "
that is, they will not then be "similitudes,"
when the sight shall be " face to face." For
this it is which He says, " But I will declare
to you plainly of the Father; " as if He said,
I will plainly show you the Father. For He
says, I will " declare " to you, because He is
His word. For He goes on to say, " At that
day ye shall ask in my name; and I say not
unto you, that I will pray the Father for
you: for the Father Himself loveth you, be-
cause ye have loved me, and have believed
that I came out from God. I came forth
from the Father, and am come into the
world: again, I leave the world, and go to the
Father." 4 What is meant by " I came forth
from the Father," unless this, that I have
not appeared in that form in which I am
equal to the Father, but otherwise, that is,
as less than the Father, in the creature which
I have taken upon me? And what is meant
by " I am come into the world," unless this,
that I have manifested to the eyes even of
sinners who love this world, the form of a
servant which I took, making myself of no
reputation? And what is meant by " Again,
I leave the world, " unless this, that I take
away from the sight of the lovers of this
world that which they have seen ? And what
is meant by " I go to the Father," unless
this, that I teach those who are my faithful
ones to understand me in that being in which
I am equal to the Father ? Those who be-
1 [The animal soul is different in kind from the rational soul,
though both constitute one person; while the rational soul of a man
is the same in kind with that of another man. Similarly, says Au-
gustin, there is a difference in kind between the human nature and
the divine nature of Christ, though constituting one theanthropic
person, while the divine nature of the Son is the same in substance
with that of the Father, though constituting two different persons,
the Father and Son. W. G. t. S.]
2 Proverbs A. V. 3 Show A.V. 4 John xvi. 25-28.
lieve this will be thought worthy of being
brought by faith to sight, that is, to that very
sight, in bringing them to which He is said
to " deliver up the kingdom to God, even the
Father." For His faithful ones, whom He
has redeemed with His blood, are called His
kingdom, for whom He now intercedes; but
then, making them to abide in Himself there,
where He is equal to the Father, He will no
longer pray the Father for them. " For,"
He says, "the Father Himself loveth you."
For indeed He "prays," in so far as He is
less than the Father; but as He is equal
with the Father, He with the Father grants.
Wherefore He certainly does not exclude
Himself from that which He says, " The
Father Himself loveth you; " but He means
it to be understood after that manner which I
have above spoken of, and sufficiently intimat-
ed, namely, that for the most part each Per-
son of the Trinity is so named, that the other
Persons also may be understood. Accord-
ingly* " For the Father Himself loveth you,"
is so said that by consequence both the Son
and the Holy Spirit also may be understood:
not that He does not now love us, who spared
not His own Son, but delivered Him up for
us all; 3 but God loves us, such as we shall
be, not such as we are, For such as they are
whom He loves, such are they whom He
keeps eternally; which shall then be, when
He who now maketh intercession for us shall
have " delivered up the kingdom to God,
even the Father," so as no longer to ask the
Father, because the Father Himself loveth
us. But for what deserving, except of faith,
by which we believe before we see that which
is promised ? For by this faith we shall ar-
rive at sight; so that He may love us, being
such, as He loves us in order that we may
become; and not such, as He hates us be-
cause we are, and exhorts and enables us to
wish not to be always.
CHAP. II BY WHAT RULE IN THE SCRIPTURES
IT IS UNDERSTOOD THAT THE SON IS NOW
EQUAL AND NOW LESS.
22. Wherefore, having mastered this rule
for interpreting the Scriptures concerning the
Son of God, that we are to distinguish in them
what relates to the form of God, in which He
is equal to the Father, and what to the form
of a servant which He took, in which He is
less than the Father; we shall not be dis-
quieted by apparently contrary and mutually
repugnant sayings of the sacred books. For
both the Son and the Holy Spirit, according
to the form of God, are equal to the Father,
5 Rom. viii. 32.
3
THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[Book I.
is greater than I;"
Himself, because it
emptied Himself ; "
the doing of which things
clares Himself to be "sent,"
because neither of them is a creature, as we
have already shown: but according to the
form of a servant He is less than the Father,
because He Himself has said, "My Father
and He is less than
is said of Him, He
and He is less than
the^Holy Spirit, because He Himself says,
"Whosoever speaketh a word against the
Son of man, it shall be forgiven him; but
whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost,
it shall not be forgiven Him." 3 And in the
Spirit too He wrought miracles, saying: " But
if I with the Spirit of God cast out devils, no
doubt the kingdom of God is come upon
you." 4 And in Isaiah He says, in the les-
son which He Himself read in the synagogue,
and showed without a scruple of doubt to be
fulfilled concerning Himself," The Spirit of
the Lord God," He says, "is upon me: be-
cause He hath anointed me to preach good
tidings unto the meek He hath sent me to
proclaim liberty to the captives/' 5 etc.: for
He therefore de-
because the
Spirit of God is upon Him. According to
the form of God, all things were made by
Him; 6 according to the form of a servant,
He was Himself made of a woman, made
under the law. 7 According to the form of
God, He and the Father are one; 8 according
to the form of a servant, He came not to do
His own will, but the will of Him that sent
Him. 9 According to the form of God, "As
the Father hath life in Himself, so hath He
given to the Son to have life in Himself;" 10
according to the form of a servant, His " soul
is sorrowful even unto death;'' and, " O my
Father," He says, " if it be possible, let this
cup pass from me." " According to the form
of God, "He is the True God, and eternal
life;" 12 according to the form of a servant,
" He became obedient unto death, even the
death of the cross." I3 23, According to the
form of God, all things that the Father hath
are His, I4 and "All mine," He says, "are
Thine, and Thine are mine; " I5 according to
the form of a servant, the doctrine is not His
own, but His that sent Him. 16
1 John xiv. 28. 2 Phil. ii. 7.
3 Matt. xii. 32. 4 Matt. xii. 28.
5 Isa lxi. 1; Luke iv. 18, 19. 6 John i. 3.
7 Gal. iv. 4. 8 John. x. 30.
9 John vi. 38.
! John v. 26. [In communicating the- Divine Essence to the
Son, in eternal generation, the essence is communicated with all
its attributes. Self existence is one of these attributes. In this
way, the Father " gives to the Son to have life in himself." when
he makes common (icot.vu>i>eiv), between Himself and the Son, the
one Divine Essence. W. G. T. S.]
11 Matt. xxvi. 38, 39. I2 1 John v. 20.
13 Phil. ii. 8. U John xvii. 15.
15 John xvii. 10. l6 John vii. 16.
CHAP. 12. IN WHAT MANNER THE SON IS SAID
NOT TO KNOW THE DAY AND THE HOUR
WHICH THE FATHER KNOWS. SOME THINGS
SAID OF CHRIST ACCORDING TO THE FORM OF
GOD, OTHER THINGS ACCORDING TO THE FORM
OF A SERVANT. IN WHAT WAY IT IS OF CHRIST
TO GIVE THE KINGDOM, IN WHAT NOT OF
CHRIST. CHRIST WILL BOTH JUDGE AND NOT
JUDGE.
Again, " Of that day and that hour knoweth
no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven;
neither the Son, but the Father." 17 For He is
ignorant of this, as making others ignorant ; that
is, in that He did not so know as at that time
to show His disciples: lS as it was said to
Abraham, "Now I know that thou fearest
God," 19 that is, now I have caused thee to
know it; because he himself, being tried in
that temptation, became known to himself.
For He was certainly going to tell this same
thing to His disciples at the fitting time;
speaking of which yet future as if past, He
says, "Henceforth I call you not servants,
but friends; for the servant knoweth not what
his Lord doeth: but I have called you friends;
for all things that I have heard of my Father
I have made known unto you;" 20 which He
had not yet done, but spoke as though He
had already done it, because He certainly
would do it. For He says to the disciples
themselves, "I have yet many things to say
unto you; but ye cannot bear them now." 21
Among which is to be understood also, " Of
the day and hour." For the apostle also
says, "I determined not to know anything
among you, save Jesus Christ, and Him cru-
cified;" 22 because he was speaking to those
who were not able to receive higher things
concerning the Godhead of Christ. To whom
also a little while after he says, " I could not
speak unto you as unto spiritual,but as unto car-
nal." 23 He was " ignorant," therefore, among
them of that which they were not able to know
from him. And that only he said that he
knew, which it was fitting that they should
know from him. In short, he knew among
the perfect what he knew not among babes;
for he there says: " We speak wisdom among
them that are perfect." 24 For a man is said
r 7 Mark xiii. 32.
18 [The more common explanation of this text in modern ex-
egesis makes the ignorance to be literal, and referable solely to
the human nature of our Lord, not to his person as a whole.
Augustin's explanation, which Bengel, on Mark xiii. 32, is in-
clined to favor, escapes the difficulty that arises from a seeming
division of the one theanthopic person into two portions, one of
which knows, and the other does not. Yet this same difficulty be-
sets the fact ol a. growth in knowledge, which is plainly taught in
Luke i. 80. In this case, the increase in wisdom must relate to the
humanity alone. W.G.T.S.l
*9 Gen. xxii. 12. 2 John xv. 15.
21 John xvi. 12. 22 1 Cor. ii. 2.
2 3 1 Cor. iii. 1. 24 1 Cor. ii. 6.
Chap. XII.]
ON THE TRINITY.
31
not to know what he hides, after that kind of
speech, after which a ditch is called blind
which is hidden. For the Scriptures do not
use any other kind of speech than may be
found in use among men, because they speak
to men.
24. According to the form of God, it is said,
" Before all the hills He begat me," ' that is,
before all the loftinesses of things created;
and, " Before the dawn I begat Thee," 2 that
is, before all times and temporal things: but
according to the form of a servant, it is said,
*' The Lord created me in the beginning of
His ways." 3 Because, according to the form
of God, He said, "I am the truth;" and ac-
cording to the form of a servant, " I am the
way." 4 For, because He Himself, being the
first-begotten of the dead, 5 made a passage to
the kinodom of God to life eternal for His
Church, to which He is so the Head as to
make the body also immortal, therefore He
was " created in the beginning of the ways "
of God in His work. For, according to the
form of God, He is the beginning, 6 that also
speaketh unto us, in which "beginning" God
created the heaven and the earth; 7 but ac-
cording to che form of a servant, " He is a
bridegroom coming out of His chamber." 8
According to the form of God, " He is the
first-born of every creature, and He is before
all things and by him all things consist; "
according to the form of a servant, " He
is the head of the body, the Church." 9
According to the form of God, " He is
the Lord of glory." I0 From which it is
evident that He Himself glorifies His saints:
for, "Whom He did predestinate, them He
also called; and whom He called, them He
also justified; and whom He justified, them
He also glorified."" Of Him accordingly it
is said, that He justifieth the ungodly; 12 of
Him it is said, that He is just and a justifier. 13
If, therefore, He has also glorified those whom
He has justified, He who justifies, Himself
also glorifies; who is, as I have said, the Lord
of glory. Yet, according to the form of a
servant, He replied to His disciples, when
inquiring about their own glorification: "To
sit on my right hand and on my left is not
mine to give, but [it shall be given to them]
for whom it is prepared by my Father." I4
25. But that which is prepared by His
Father is prepared also by the Son Himself,
because He and the Father are one. IS For we
have already shown, by many modes of speech
in the divine Scriptures, that, in this Trinity,
1 Prov. viii. 25.
3 Prov. viii. 22.
6 John viii. 25.
9 Col. i. 15, 17, 18.
12 Rom. iv. 5.
T 5 John x. 30.
2 Ps. ex. 3, Vulgate.
4 John xiv. 6. S Apoc. i. 5.
7 Gen. i. 1. 8 Ps. xix. <;.
10 1 Cor. ii. 8. " Rom. viii. 30.
*3 Rom. iii. 26. *4 Matt. xx. 23.
what is said of each is also said of all, on ac-
count of the indivisible working of the one
and same substance. As He also says of the
Holy Spirit, "If I depart, I will send Him
unto you." 16 He did not say, We will send;
but in such way as if the Son only should
send Him, and not the Father; while yet He
says in another place, "These things have I
spoken unto you, being yet present with you;
but the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost,
whom the Father will send in my name, He
shall teach you all things." 17 Here again it
is so said as if the Son also would not send
Him, but the Father only. As therefore in
these texts, so also where He says, " But for
them for whom it is prepared by my Father,"
He meant it to be understood that He Him-
self, with the Father, prepares seats of glory
for those for whom He will. But some one
may say: There, when He spoke of the Holy
Spirit, He so says that He Himself will send
Him, as not to deny that the Father will send
Him; and in the other place, He so says that
the Father will send Him, as not to deny
that He will do so Himself; but here He ex-
pressly says, ' It is not mine to give," and
so goes on to say that these things are pre-
pared by the Father. But this is the very
thing which we have already laid down to be
said according to the form of a servant: viz.,
that we are so to understand "It is not mine
to give,'' as if it were said, This is not in the
power of man to give; that so He may be un-
derstood to give it through that wherein He
is God equal to the Father. "It is not
mine," He says, " to give;" that is, I do not
give these things by human power, but "to
those for whom it is prepared by my Father; "
but then take care you understand also, that
if "all things which the Father hath are
mine," 18 then this certainly is mine also, and
I with the Father have prepared these things.
26. For I ask again, in what manner this is
said, " If any man hear not my words, I will
not judge him?'' I9 For perhaps He has said
here, "I will not judge him," in the same
sense as there, "It is not mine to give." But
what follows here? "I came not," He
says, "to judge the world, but to save the
world; " and then He adds," He that reject-
eth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one
that judgeth him." Now here we should
understand the Father, unless He had added,
" The word that I have spoken, the same
shall judge him in the last day." Well, then,
will neither the Son judge, because He says,
" I will not judge him, " nor the Father, hut
the word which the Son hath spoken ? Nay.
16 John xvi. 7.
18 John xvi 15.
*7 John xiv. 25, 26.
'9 John xii. 47-50.
THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[Book I.
but hear what yet follows: " For I," He says,
" have not spoken of myself; but the Father
which sent me, He gave me a commandment,
what I should say, and what I should speak;
and I know that His commandment is life
everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore,
even as the Father said unto me, so I speak."
If therefore the Son judges not, but "the
word which the Son hath spoken;" and the
word which the Son hath spoken therefore
judges, because the Son " hath not spoken of
Himself, but the Father who sent Him gave
Him a commandment what He should say,
and what He should speak:" then the Father
assuredly judges, whose word it is which the
Son hath spoken; and the same Son Himself
is the very Word of the Father. For the
commandment of the Father is not one thing,
and the word of the Father another; for He
hath called it both a word and a command-
ment. Let us see, therefore, whether per-
chance, when He says, " I have not spoken
of myself," He meant to be understood thus,
I am not born of myself. For if He speaks
the word of the Father, then He speaks Him-
self, 1 because He is Himself the Word of the
Father. For ordinarily He says, "The
Father gave to me; " by which He means it
to be understood that the Father begat Him:
not that He gave anything to Him, already
existing and not possessing it; but that the
very meaning of, To have given that He
might have, is, To have begotten that He
might be. For it is not, as with the creature,
so with the Son of God before the incarnation
and before He took upon Him our flesh, the
Only-begotten by whom all things were made;
that He is one thing, and has another: but
He is in such way as to be what He has.
And this is said more plainly, if any one is
fit to receive it, in that place where He says:
" For as the Father hath life in Himself, so
hath He given to the Son to have life in Him-
self." 2 For He did not give to Him, already
existing and not having life, that He should
have life in Himself; inasmuch as, in that He
is, He is life. Therefore "He gave to the
Son to have life in Himself" means, He begat
the Son to be unchangeable life, which is life
eternal. Since, therefore, the Word of God
is the Son of God, and the Son of God is
"the true God and eternal life," 3 as John
says in his Epistle; so here, what else are we
to acknowledge when the Lord says, "The
word which I have spoken, the same shall
judge him at the last day,"* and calls that
very word the word of the Father and the
commandment of the Father, and that very
1 Seifisum loquitur.
3 i John v. 20
2 John v. 26.
4 John xii. 48.
commandment everlasting life?" "And I
know," He says, " that His commandment is
life everlasting."
27. I ask, therefore, how we are to under-
stand, "I will not judge him; but the Word
which I have spoken shall judge him:" which
appears from what follows to be so said, as if
He would say, I will not judge; but the Word
of the Father will judge. But the Word of
the Father is the Son of God Himself. Is it
to be so understood: I will not judge, but I
will judge ? How can this be true, unless in
this way: viz., I will not judge by human
power, because I am the Son of man; but I
will judge by the power of the Word, because
I am the Son of God ? Or if it still seems
contradictory and inconsistent to say, I will
not judge, but I will judge; what shall we say
of that place where He says, "My doctrine
is not mine?" How "mine," when "not
mine ? " For He did not say, This doctrine
is not mine, but "My doctrine is not mine:"
that which He called His own, the same He
called not His own. How can this be true,
unless He has called it His own in one rela-
tion; not His own, in another ? According to
the form of God, His own; according to the
form of a servant, not His own. For when
He says, "It is not mine, but His that sent
me," 5 He makes us recur to the Word itself.
For the doctrine of the Father is the Word of
the Father, which is the Only Son. And
what, too, does that mean, " He that believeth
on me, believeth not on me ? " 6 How believe
on Him, yet not believe on Him? How can
so opposite and inconsistent a thing be under-
stood "Whoso believeth on me," He says,
"believeth not on me, but on Him that sent
me;" unless you so understand it, Whoso
believeth on me believeth not on that which
he sees, lest our hope should be in the crea-
ture; but on Him who took the creature,
whereby He might appear to human eyes, and
so might cleanse our hearts by faith, to con-
template Himself as equal to the Father? So
that in turning the attention of believers to
the Father, and saying, " Believeth not on me,
but on Him that sent me," He certainly did
not mean Himself to be separated from the
Father, that is, from Him that sent Him; but
that men might so believe on Himself, as
they believe on the Father, to whom He is
equal. And this He says in express terms in
another place, "Ye believe in God, believe
also in me:" 7 that is, in the same way as
you believe in God, so also believe in me;
because I and the Father are One God. As
therefore, here, He has as it were withdrawn
5 John vii. 16.
6 John xii. 44.
7 John xiv. 1.
Chap. XIII.]
ON THE TRINITY.
33
the faith of men from Himself, and transferred
it to the Father, by saying, " Believeth not
on me, but on Him that sent me," from
whom nevertheless He certainly did not sepa-
rate Himself; so also, when He says, " It is
not mine to give, but [it shall be given to
them] for whom it is prepared by my Father,"
it is 1 think plain in what relation both are to
be taken. For that other also is of the same
kind, " I will not judge; " whereas He Him-
self shall judge the quick and dead. 1 But
because He will not do so by human power,
therefore, reverting to the Godhead, He raises
the hearts of men upwards; which to lift up,
He Himself came down.
CHAP. 13. DIVERSE THINGS ARE SPOKEN CON-
CERNING THE SAME CHRIST, ON ACCOUNT OF
THE DIVERSE NATURES OF THE ONE HYPO-
STASIS [theanthropic PERSON]. WHY IT IS
SAID THAT THE FATHER WILL NOT JUDGE, BUT
HAS GIVEN JUDGMENT TO THE SON.
28. Yet unless the very same were the Son
of man on account of the form of a servant
which He took, who is the Son of God on ac-
count of the form of God in which He is;
Paul the apostle would not say of the princes
of this world, " For had they known it, they
would not have crucified the Lord of glory." 2
For He was crucified after the form of a ser-
vant, and yet " the Lord of glory " was cruci-
fied. For that '' taking '' was such as to make
God man, and man God. Yet what is said
on account of what, and what according to
what, the thoughtful, diligent, and pious reader
discerns for himself, the Lord being his helper.
For instance, we have said that He glorifies
His own, as being God, and certainly then as
being the Lord of glory; and yet the Lord of
glory was crucified, because even God is
rightly said to have been crucified, not after
the power of the divinity, but after the weak-
ness of the flesh: 3 just as we say, that He
judges as God, that is, by divine power, not by
human; and yet the man Himself will judge,
just as the Lord of glory was crucified: for so
He expressly says, "When the Son of man
shall come in His glory, and all the holy
angels with Him, and before Him shall be
' gathered all nations;" 4 and the rest that is
foretold of the future judgment in that place
even to the last sentence. And the Jews, in-
asmuch as they will be punished in that judg-
ment for persisting in their wickedness, as it
is elsewhere written, " shall look upon Him
whom they have pierced." 5 For whereas
both good and bad shall see the Judge of the
1 2 Tim. iv. 1.
4 Matt. xxv. 31, 32.
2 1 Cor. ii. 8.
5 Zech. xii. 10.
3 2 Cor. xiii. 4.
quick and dead, without doubt the bad will
not be able to see Him, except after the form
in which He is the Son of man; but yet in the
glory wherein He will judge, not in the lowli-
ness wherein He was judged. But the un-
godly without doubt will not see that form of
God in which He is equal to the Father. For
they are not pure in heart; and " Blessed are
the pure in heart: for they shall see God." 6
And that sight is face to face, 7 the very sight
that is promised as the highest reward to the
just, and which will then take place when He
" shall have delivered up the kingdom to God,
even the Father;" and in this "kingdom"
He means the sight of His own form also to
be understood, the whole creature being made
subject to God, including that wherein the
Son of God was made the Son of man. Be-
cause, according to this creature, "The Son
also Himself shall be subject unto Him, that
put all things under Him, that God may be
all in all." 8 Otherwise if the Son of God,
judging in the form in which He is equal to
the Father, shall appear when He judges to
the ungodly also; what becomes of that which
He promises, as some great thing, to him who
loves Him, saying, "And I will love him, and
will manifest myself to him?" 9 Wherefore
He will judge as the Son of man, yet not by
human power, but by that whereby He is
the Son of God; and on the other hand,
He will judge as the Son of God, yet not
appearing in that [unincarnate] form in which
He is God equal to the Father, but in that [in-
carnate form] in which He is the Son of man. 10
29. Therefore both ways of speaking may
be used; the Son of man will judge, and, the
Son of man will not judge: since the Son of
man will judge, that the text may be true
which says, "When the Son of man shall
come, then before Him shall be gathered all
nations;" and the Son of man will not judge,
that the text may be true which says, " I will
not judge him; "" and, " I seek not mine own
glory: there is One that seeketh and judg-
eth.'' 13 For in respect to this, that in the
judgment, not the form of God, but the form
of the Son of man will appear, the Father
Himself will not judge; for according to this
6 Matt. v. 8. 7 1 Cor. xiii. 12.
8 1 Cor. xv. 24-28. 9 John xiv. 21.
10 [Augustin, in this discussion, sometimes employs the phrase
"Son of man" to denote the human nature of Christ, in distinc-
tion from the divine. Hut in Scripture and in trinitarian theology
generally, this phrase properly denotes the whole theanthropic per-
son under a human title just as '" man," (1 Tim. ii. 5), "last Adam"
(1 Cor. xv. 45), and "second man" (1 Cor. xv. 47), denote not tin-
human nature, but the whole divine-human person under a human
title. Strictly used, the phrase " Son of man " does not designate the
difference between the divine and human natures in the theanthro-
pos, but between the person of the -incarnate and that of the
incarnate Logos. Augustin's meaning is. that the Son of God will
judge men at the last day, not in his original " form of God," but
as this is united with human nature as the Son of man. W. G.
T. S.] XI John xii. 47. I2 John viii. 50.
;4
THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[Book I.
it is said, " For the Father judgeth no man,
hut hath committed all judgment unto the
Son." Whether this is said after that mode
of speech which we have mentioned above,
where it is said, "So hath He given to the
Son to have life in Himself," 1 that it should
signify that so He begat the Son; or, whether
after that of which the apostle speaks, saying,
"Wherefore God also hath highly exalted Him,
and given Him a name which is above every
name:" (For this is said of the Son of man,
in respect to whom the Son of God was raised
from the dead; since He, being in the form of
God equal to the Father, wherefrom He
"emptied" Himself by taking the form of a
servant, both acts and suffers, and receives,
in that same form of a servant, what the
apostle goes on to mention: "He humbled
Himself, and became obedient unto death,
even the death of the cross; wherefore God
also hath highly exalted Him ; and given Him
a name which is above every name; that at
the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of
things in heaven, and things in earth, and
things under the earth; and that every tongue
should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, in.
the Glory of God the Father:" 2 ) whether
then the words, " He hath committed all
judgment unto the Son," are said according
to this or that mode of speech; it sufficiently
appears from this place, that if they were said
according to that sense in which it is said,
"He hath given to the Son to have life in
Himself," it certainly would not be said,
" The Father judgeth no man." For in re-
spect to this, that the Father hath begotten
the Son equal to Himself, He judges with
Him. Therefore it is in respect to this that
it is said, that in the judgment, not the form
of God, but the form of the Son of man will
appear. Not that He will not judge, who
hath committed all judgment unto the Son,
since the Son saith of Him, " There is One
that seeketh and judgeth:" but it is so said,
' The Father judgeth no man, but hath com-
mitted all judgment unto the Son;" as if it
were said, No one will see the Father in the
judgment of the quick and the dead, but all
will see the Son: because He is also the Son
of man, so that He can be seen even by the
ungodly,. since they too shall see Him whom
they have pierced.
30. Lest, however, we may seem to conjec-
ture this rather than to prove it clearly, let us
produce a certain and plain sentence of the
Lord Himself, by which we may show that
this was the cause why He said, " The Father
judgeth no man, but hath committed all judg-
1 John v. 22, 26.
2 Phil. ii. 8-11.
ment unto the Son," viz. because He will ap-
pear as Judge in the form of the Son of man,
which is not the form of the Father, but of
the Son; nor yet that form of the Son in which
He is equal to the Father, but that in which
He is less than the Father; in order that, in
the judgment. He may be visible both to the
good and to the bad. For a little while after
He says, " Verily, verily, I say unto you, He
that heareth my word, and believeth on Him
that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall
not come into condemnation; but shall pass 3
from death unto life." Now this life eternal
is that sight which does not belong to the bad.
Then follows, " Verily, verily, I say unto you,
The hour is coming, and now is, when the
dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God,
and they that hear shall live." 4 And this is
proper to the godly, who so hear of His in-
carnation, as to believe that He is the Son of
God, that is, who so receive Him, as made
for tneir sakes less than the Father, in the
form of a servant, that they believe Him
equal to the Father, in the form of God.
And thereupon He continues, enforcing this
very point, " For as the Father hath life in
Himself, so hath He given to the Son to have
life in Himself." And then He comes to the
sight of His own glory, in which He shall
come to judgment; which sight will be com-
mon to the ungodly and to the just. For He
goes on to say, "And hath given Him au-
thority to execute judgment also, because He
is the Son of man." 5 I think nothing can be
more clear. For inasmuch as the Son of God
is equal to the Father, He does not receive
this power of executing judgment, but He has
it with the Father in secret; but He receives
it, so that the good and the bad may see Him
judging, inasmuch as He is the Son of man.
Since the sight of the Son of man will be
shown to the bad also: for the sight of the
form of God will not be shown except to the
pure in heart, for they shall see God; that is,
to the godly only, to whose love He promises
this very thing, that He will show Himself to
them. And see, accordingly, what follows:
" Marvel not at this," He says. Why does
He forbid us to marvel, unless it be that, in
truth, every one marvels who does not under-
stand, that therefore He said the Father gave
Him power also to execute judgment, because
He is the Son of man; whereas, it might
rather have been anticipated that He would
say, since He is the Son of God ? But because
the wicked are not able to see the Son of God
as He is in the form of God equal to the Father,
3 TransizV in Vulg.; and so in the Greek.
4 John v. 24, 25. 5 John v. 25, 26.
Chap. XIII.]
ON THE TRINITY.
35
but yet it is necessary that both the just and the
wicked should see the Judge of the quick and
dead, when they will be judged in His pres-
ence; "Marvel not at this," He says, "for
the hour is coming, in the which all that are in
the graves shall hear His voice, and shall come
forth; they that have done good, unto the
resurrection of life; and they that have done
evil, unto the resurrection of damnation." 1
For this purpose, then, it was necessary that
He should therefore receive that power, be-
cause He is the Son of man, in order that all
in rising again might see Him in the form in
which He can be seen by all, but by some to
damnation, by others to life eternal. And
what is life eternal, unless that sight which is
not granted to the ungodly? "That they
might know Thee," He says, "the One true
God, and Jesus Christ, whom Thou hast
sent." 2 And how are they to know Jesus
Christ Himself also, unless as the One true
God, who will show Himself to them; not as
He will show Himself, in the form of the Son
of man, to those also that shall be punished ? 3
31. He is "good," according to that sight,
according to which God appears to the pure
in heart; for " truly God is good unto Israel,
even to such as are of a clean heart." 4 But
when the wicked shall see the Judge, He will
not seem good to them; because they will not
rejoice in their heart to see Him, but all
"kindreds of the earth shall then wail be-
cause of Him," 5 namely, as being reckoned
in the number of all the wicked and unbe-
lievers. On this account also He replied to
him, who had called Him Good Master, when
seeking advice of Him how he might attain
eternal life, " Why askest thou me about
good? 6 there is none good but One, that is,
God." 7 And yet the Lord Himself, in an-
other place, calls man good: "A good man,"
He says, " out of the good treasure of his
heart, bringeth forth good things: and an evil
man, out of the evil treasure of his heart,
bringeth forth evil things." 8 But because
that man was seeking eternal life, and eternal
life consists in that contemplation in which
God is seen, not for punishment, but for ever-
lasting joy; and because he did not under-
1 John v. 22-29. 2 John xvii. 3.
3 [Augustin here seems to teach that the phenomenal appear-
ance of Christ to the redeemed in heaven will be different from
that to all men in the day of judgment. He says that he will show
himself to the former "in the form of God;" to the latter, "in the
form of the Son of man." But, surely, it is one and the same God-
m.in who sits on the judgment throne, and the heavenly throne.
His appearance must be the same in both instances: namely, that
of God incarnate. The effect of his phenomenal appearance upon
the believer will, indeed, "be very different from that upon the un-
believer. For the wicked, this vision of God incarnate will be
one of terror; for the redeemed one of joy. W. G. T. S.]
4 Ps. lxxiii. 1. 5 Apoc. i. 7.
6 [Augustin's reading of this text is that of the uncials; and in
that form which omits the article with aya.-<iov. W. G. T. S.]
7 Matt. xix. 17. 8 Matt. xii. 35.
stand with whom he was speaking, and thoug it
Him to be only the Son of man: 9 Why, He
says, askest thou me about good ? that is,
with respect to that form which thou seest,
why askest thou about good, and callest me.
according to what thou seest, Good Master ?
This is the form of the Son of man, the form
which has been taken, the form that will ap-
pear in judgment, not only to the righteous,
but also to the ungodly; and the sight of this
form will not be for good to those who are
wicked. But there is a sight of that form of
mine, in which when I was, I thought it not
robbery to be equal with God: but in order
to take this form I emptied myself. 10 That
one God, therefore, the Father and the Son
and the Holy Spirit, who will not appear,
except for joy which cannot be taken away
from the just; for which future joy he sighs,
who says, " One thing have I desired of the
Lord, that will I seek after; that I may dwell
in the house of the Lord all the days of my
life, to behold the beauty of the Lord: " " that
one God, therefore, Himself, I say, is alone
good, for this reason, that no one sees Him
for sorrow and wailing, but only for salvation
and true joy. If you understand me after
this latter form, then I am good; but if ac-
cording to that former only, then why askest
thou me about good ? If thou art among
those who " shall look upon Him whom they
have pierced," I2 that very sight itself will be
evil to them, because it will be penal. That
after this meaning, then, the Lord said,
" Why askest thou me about good ? there is
none good but One, that is, God," is proba-
ble upon those proofs which I have alleged,
because that sight of God, whereby we shall
contemplate the substance of God unchange-
able and invisible to human eyes (which is
promised to the saints alone; which the Apos-
tle Paul speaks of, as " face to face; " I3 and
of which the Apostle John says, "We shall
be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is; " u
and of which it is said, "One thing have I
desired of the Lord, that I may behold the
beauty of the Lord," and of which the Lord
Himself says, " I will both love him, and will
manifest myself to him; " IS and on account of
which alone we cleanse our hearts by faith,
that we may be those " pure in heart who are
blessed for they shall see God:" 16 and what-
9 [That is, a mere man. Augustin here, as in some other places,
employs the phrase " Son of, man " to denote the human nature
by itself not the divine and human natures united in one person,
and designated by this human title. The latter is the Scripture
usage. As " Immanuel " does not properly denote the divine na-
ture, but the union of divinity and humanity, so " Son of man "
does not properly denote the human nature, but the union of di-
vinity and humanity. \\ . G. T. S.]
10 Phil. ii. 6, 7. " Ps. xxvii. 4. z - Zech. xii. 10.
13 1 Cor. xiii. 12. M 1 John iii. 2. >S John xiv. 21.
6 Matt. v. 8.
36
THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[Book I.
ever else is spoken of that sight: which who-
soever turns the eye of love to seek it, may
find most copiously scattered through all the
Scriptures), that sight alone, I say, is our
chief good, for the attaining of which we are
directed to do whatever we do aright. But
that sight of the Son of man which is foretold,
when all nations shall be gathered before
Him, and shall say to Him, " Lord, when saw
we Thee an hungered, or thirsty, etc.? " will
neither be a good to the ungodly, who shall
be sent into everlasting fire, nor the chief
good to the righteous. For He still goes on
to call these to the kingdom which has been
prepared for them from the foundation of the
world. For, as He will say to those, " De-
part into everlasting fire;" so to these," Come,
ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom
prepared for you." And as those will go into
everlasting burning; so the righteous will go
into life eternal. But what is life eternal, ex-
cept "that they may know Thee/' He says,
"the One true God, and Jesus Christ, whom
Thou hast sent ? " * but know Him now in that
glory of which He says to the Father, " Which
I had with Thee before the world was." 2 For
then He will deliver up the kingdom to God,
even the Father, 3 that the good servant may
enter into the joy of his Lord, 4 and that He
may hide those whom God keeps in the hid-
ing of His countenance from the confusion of
men, namely, of those men who shall then be
confounded by hearing this sentence; of
which evil hearing "the righteous man shall
not be afraid" 5 if only he be kept in " the
tabernacle," that is, in the true faith of the
Catholic Church, from "the strife of
tongues," 6 that is, from the sophistries of
heretics. But if there is any other explana-
tion of the words of the Lord, where He says,
" Why asketh thou me about good ? there is
none good, but One, that is, God;" provided
only that the substance of the Father be not
therefore believed to be of greater goodness
than that of the Son, according to which He is
the Word by whom all things were made; and
if there is nothing in it abhorrent from sound
doctrine; let us securely use it, and not one
explanation only, but as many as we are able
to find. For so much the more powerfully
are the heretics proved wrong, the more out-
lets are open for avoiding their snares. But
let us now start afresh, and address ourselves
to the consideration of that which still remains.
1 Matt. xxv. 37, 41, 34.
2 John xvii. 3-5.
3 1 Cor. xv. 24.
5 Ps. cxii. 7.
4 Matt. xxv. 31, 23.
6 Ps. xxxi. 31.
BOOK II.
AUGUSTIN PURSUES HIS DEFENSE OF THE EQUALITY OF THE TRINITY; AND IN TREATING OF THE
SENDING OF THE SON AND OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, AND OF THE VARIOUS APPEARANCES OF GOD,
DEMONSTRATES THAT HE WHO IS SENT IS NOT THEREFORE LESS THAN HE WHO SENDS, BE-
CAUSE THE ONE HAS SENT, THE OTHER HAS BEEN SENT; BUT THAT THE TRINITY, BEING IN
ALL THINGS EQUAL, AND ALIKE IN ITS OWN NATURE UNCHANGEABLE AND INVISIBLE AND
OMNIPRESENT, WORKS INDIVISIBLY IN EACH SENDING OR APPEARANCE.
PREFACE.
When men seek to know God, and bend
their minds according to the capacity of hu-
man weakness to the understanding of the
Trinity; learning, as they must, by experience,
the wearisome difficulties of the task, whether
from the sight itself of the mind striving to
gaze upon light unapproachable, or, indeed,
from the manifold and various modes of
speech employed in the sacred writings
(wherein, as it seems to me, the mind is
nothing else but roughly exercised, in order
that it may find sweetness when glorified by
the grace of Christ); such men, I say, when
they have dispelled every ambiguity, and
arrived at something certain, ought of all
others most easily to make allowance for
those who err in the investigation of so deep
a secret. But there are two things most hard
to bear with, in the case of those who are in
error: hasty assumption before the truth is
made plain; and, when it has been made
plain, defence of the falsehood thus hastily
assumed. From which two faults, inimical
as they are to the finding out of the truth,
and to the handling of the divine and sacred
books, should God, as I pray and hope, de-
fend and protect me with the shield of His
good will, 1 and with the grace of His mercy,
I will not be slow to search out the substance
of God, whether through His Scripture or
through the creature. For both of these are
set forth for our contemplation to this end,
that He may Himself be sought, and Him-
self be loved, who inspired the one, and
1 PS. V. 12.
created the other. Nor shall I be afraid of
giving my opinion, in which I shall more
desire to be examined by the upright, than
fear to be carped at by the perverse. For
charity, most excellent and unassuming,
gratefully accepts the dovelike eye; but for
the dog's tooth nothing remains, save either
to shun it by the most cautious humility, or
to blunt it by the most solid truth; and far
rather would I be censured by any one what-
soever, than be praised by either the erring
or the flatterer. For the lover of truth need
fear no one's censure. For he that censures,
must needs be either enemy or friend. And
if an enemy reviles, he must be borne with:
but a friend, if he errs, must be taught; if
he teaches, listened to. But if one who errs
praises you, he confirms your error; if one
who flatters, he seduces you into error.
"Let the righteous," therefore, "smite me,
it shall be a kindness; and let him reprove
me; but the oil of the sinner shall not anoint
my head." 2
CHAP. I. THERE IS A DOUBLE RULE FOR UN-
DERSTANDING THE SCRIPTURAL MODES OF
SPEECH CONCERNING THE SON OF GOD. TH I
MODES OF SPEECH ARE OF A THREEFOLD KIN P.
2. Wherefore, although we hold most
firmly, concerning our Lord Jesus Christ,
what may be called the canonical rule, as it
is both disseminated through the Scriptures,
and has been demonstrated by learned and
Catholic handlers of the same Scriptures,
namely, that the Son of God is both under-
" Ps. cxli. 5.
38
THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[Book II.
stood to be equal to the Father according to
the form of God in which He is, and less
than the Father according to the form of a
servant which He took; 1 in which form He
was found to be not only less than the Father,
but also less than the Holy Spirit; and not
only so, but less even than Himself, not
than Himself who was, but than Himself who
is; because, by taking the form of a servant,
He did not lose the form of God, as the testi-
monies of the Scriptures taught us, to which
we have referred in the former book: yet
there are some things in the sacred text so
put as to leave it ambiguous to which rule
they are rather to be referred; whether to
that by which we understand the Son as less,
in that He has taken upon Him the creature,
or to that by which we understand that the
Son is not indeed less than, but equal to the
Father, but yet that He is from Him, God
of God, Light of light. For we call the Son
God of God; but the Father, God only; not
^/"God. Whence it is plain that the Son has
another of whom He is, and to whom He is
Son; but that the Father has not a Son of
whom He is, but only to whom He is father.
For every son is what he is, of his father,
and is son to his father; but no father is
what he is, of his son, but is father to his
son. 2
3. Some things, then, are so put in the
Scriptures concerning the Father and the
Son, as to intimate the unity and equality of
their substance; as, for instance, " I and the
Father are one;" 3 and, " Who, being in the
form of God, thought it not robbery to be
equal with God; " 4 and whatever ether texts
there are of the kind. And some, again, are
so put that they show the Son as less on ac-
count of the form of a servant, that is, of
His having taken upon Him the creature of
a changeable and human substance; as, for
instance, that which says, " For my Father is
greater than I; " 5 and, " The Father judgeth
no man, but hath committed all judgment
unto the Son." For a little after he goes on
to say, " And hath given Him authority to
execute judgment also, because He is the
Son of man." And further, some are so put,
as to show Him at that time neither as less
1 Phil. ii. 6, 7.
2 [Augustin here brings to view both the trinitarian and the
theanthropic or mediatorial subordination. The former is the
status of Sonship. God the Son is God of God. Sonship as a
relation is subordinate to paternity. Rut a son must be of the
same grade of being, and of the same nature with his father. A
human son and a human father arealikeand equally human. And
a Divine Son and a Divine Father are alike and equally divine.
The theanthropic or mediatorial subordination is the status of
humiliation, by reason of the incarnation. In the words of Augus-
tin, it is " that by which we understand the Son as less, in that he
has taken upon Him the creature." The subordination in this
case is that of voluntary condescension, for the purpose of redeem-
ing sinful man. W.G.T.S.]
3 John x. 30. 4 Phil. ii. 6. 5 John xiv. 28.
nor as equal, but only to intimate that He is
of the Father; as, for instance, that which
says, " For as the Father hath life in Him-
self, so hath He given to the Son to have
life in Himself;" and that other: "The Son
can do nothing of Himself, but what He
seeth the Father do." 6 For if we shall take
this to be therefore so said, because the Son
is less in the form taken from the creature,
it will follow that the Father must have
walked on the water, or opened the eyes with
clay and spittle of some other one born blind,
and have done the other things which the
Son appearing in the flesh did among men,
before the Son did them; 7 in order that He
might be able to do those things, who said
that the Son was not able to do anything of
Himself, except what He hath seen the Father
do. Yet who, even though he were mad,
would think this ? It remains, therefore, that
these texts are so expressed, because the life
of the Son is unchangeable as that of the
Father is, and yet He is of the Father; and
the working of the Father and of the Son is
indivisible, and yet so to work is given to the
Son from Him of whom He Himself is, that
is, from the Father; and the Son so sees the
Father, as that He is the Son in the very see-
ing Him. For to be of the Father, that is, to
be born of the Father, is to Him nothing else
than to see the Father; and to see Him work-
ing, is nothing else than to work with Him:
but therefore not from Himself, because He
is not from Himself. And, therefore, those
things which " He sees the Father do, these
also doeth the Son likewise," because He is
of the Father. For He neither does other
things in like manner, as a painter paints other
pictures, in the same way as he sees others
to have been painted by another man; nor
the same things in a different manner, as the
body expresses the same letters, which the
mind has thought; but " whatsoever things,"
saith He, "the Father doeth, these same
things also doeth the Son likewise." 8 He
has said both "these same things," and
' likewise; " and hence the working of both
the Father and the Son is indivisible and
equal, but it is from the Father to the Son.
Therefore the Son cannot do anything of
Himself, except what He seeth the Father
do. From this rule, then, whereby the
Scriptures so speak as to mean, not to set
forth one as less than another, but only to
show which is of which, some have drawn this
meaning, as if the Son were said to be less.
And some among ourselves who are more un-
learned and least instructed in these things,
6 John v. 22, 27, 26, 19. 7 Matt. xiv. 26. and John ix. 6, 7.
8 John v. 19.
Chap. IV.]
ON THE TRINITY.
39
endeavoring to take these texts according to
the form of a servant, and so mis-interpret-
ing them, are troubled. And to prevent
this, the rule in question is to be observed,
whereby the Son is not less, but it is simply
intimated that He is of the Father, in which
words not His inequality but His birth is
declared.
CHAP. 2. THAT SOME WAYS OF SPEAKING CON-
CERNING THE SON ARE TO BE UNDERSTOOD AC-
CORDING TO EITHER RULE.
4. There are, then, some things in the
sacred books, as I began by saying, so put,
that it is doubtful to which they are to be re-
ferred: whether to that rule whereby the Son
is less on account of His having taken the
creature; or whether to that whereby it is in-
timated that although equal, yet He is of the
Father. And in my opinion, if this is in
such way doubtful, that which it really is can
neither be explained nor discerned, then such
passages may without danger be understood
according to. either rule, as that, for instance,
" My doctrine is not mine, but His that sent
me." 1 For this may both be taken according
to the form of a servant, as we have already
treated it in the former book; 2 or according
to the form of God, in which He is in such
way equal to the Father, that He is yet of the
Father. For according to the form of God,
as the Son is not one and His life another,
but the life itself is the Son; so the Son is
not one and His doctrine another, but the
doctrine itself is the Son. And hence, as
the text, " He hath given life to the Son," is
no otherwise to be understood than, He hath
begotten the Son, who is life; so also when
it is said, He hath given doctrine to the
Son, it may be rightly understood to mean,
He hath begotten the Son, who is doctrine;
so that, when it is said, " My doctrine is not
mine, but His who sent me," it is so to be
understood as if it were, I am not from my-
self, but from Him who sent me.
CHAP. 3. SOME THINGS CONCERNING THE HOLY
SPIRIT ARE TO .BE UNDERSTOOD ACCORDING
TO THE ONE RULE ONLY.
5. For even of the Holy Spirit, of whom
it is not said, "He emptied Himself, and took
upon Him the form of a servant;" yet the
Lord Himself says, " Howbeit, when He the
Spirit of Truth is come, He will guide you
into all truth. For He shall not speak of
Himself, but whatsoever He shall hear that
shall He speak; and He will show you things
John
16.
2 See above, Book I. c. 12.
to come. He shall glorify me; for He shall
receive of mine, and shall show it unto you."
And except He had immediately gone on to
say after this, " All things that the Father
hath are mine; therefore said I, that He shall
take of mine, and shall show it unto you;" 3
it might, perhaps, have been believed that the
Holy Spirit was so born of Christ, as Christ
is of the Father. Since He had said of Him-
self, " My doctrine is not mine, but His that
sent me;" but of the Holy Spirit," For He
shall not speak of Himself, but whatsoever he
shall hear, that shall He speak;" and, " For
He shall receive of mine, and shall show it
unto you." But because He has rendered the
reason why He said, "He shall receive of
mine " (for He says, " All things that the
Father hath are mine; therefore said I, that
He shall take of mine"); it remains that the
Holy Spirit be understood to have of that
which is the Father's, as the Son also hath.
And how can this be, unless according to
that which we have said above, "But when
the Comforter is come, whom I will send
unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of
truth which proceedeth from the Father, He
shall testify of me " ? 4 He is said, therefore,
not to speak of Himself, in that He proceed-
eth from the Father; and as it does not fol-
low that the Son is less because He said,
" The Son can do nothing of Himself, but
what He seeth the Father do " (for He has
not said this according to the form of a ser-
vant, but according to the form of God, as
we have already shown, and these words do
not set Him forth as less than, but as of the
Father), so it is not brought to pass that the
Holy Spirit is less, because it is said of Him,
" For He shall not speak of Himself, but
whatsoever He shall hear, that shall He
speak;" for the words belong to Him as pro-
ceeding from the Father. But whereas both
the Son is of the Father, and the Holy Spirit
proceeds from the Father, why both are not
called sons, and both not said to be begotten,
but the former is called the one only-begot-
ten Son, and the latter, viz. the Holy Spirit,
neither son nor begotten, because if begotten,
then certainly a son, we will discuss in an-
other place, if God shall grant, and so far as
He shall grant. 5
CHAP. 4. THE GLORIFICATION OF THE SON BY
THE FATHER DOES NOT PROVE INEQUALITY.
6. But here also let them wake up if they
can, who have thought this, too, to be a tes-
timony on their side, to show that the Father
3 John xvi. 13-15.
5 Below, Bk. XV. c. 25.
4 John xv. 26.
10
40
THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[Book II.
is greater than the Son, because the Son hath
said, " Father, glorify me." Why, the Holy
Spirit also glorifies Him. Pray, is the Spirit,
too, greater than He? Moreover, if on that
account the Holy Spirit glorifies the Son, be-
cause He shall receive of that which is the
Son's, and shall therefore receive of that
which is the Son's because all things that the
Father has are the Son's also; it is evident
that when the Holy Spirit glorifies the Son,
the Father glorifies the Son. Whence it may
be perceived that all things that the Father
hath are not only of the Son, but also of the
Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit is able
to glorify the Son, whom the Father glorifies.
But if he who glorifies is greater than he whom
he glorifies, let them allow that those are equal
who mutually glorify each other. But it is
written, also, that the Son glorifies the Father;
for He says, " I have glorified Thee on the
earth." 1 Truly let them beware lest the
Holy Spirit be thought greater than both, be-
cause He glorifies the Son whom the Father
glorifies, while it is not written that He Him-
self is glorified either by the Father or by the
Son.
CHAP. 5. THE SON AND HOLY SPIRIT ARE NOT
THEREFORE LESS BECAUSE SENT. THE SON IS
SENT ALSO BY HIMSELF. OF THE SENDING OF
THE HOLY SPIRIT.
7. But being proved wrong so far, men be-
take themselves to saying, that he who sends
is greater than he who is sent: therefore the
Father is greater than the Son, because the
Son continually speaks of Himself as being
sent by the Father; and the Father is also
greater than the Holy Spirit, because Jesus
has said of the Spirit, " Whom the Father
will send jn my name; '' " and the Holy Spirit
is less than both, because both the Father
sends Him, as we have said, and the Son,
when He says, " But if I depart, I will send
Him unto you." I first ask, then, in this in-
quiry, whence and whither the Son was sent.
"I," He says, " came forth from the Father,
and am come into the world." 3 Therefore,
to be sent, is to come forth forth from the
Father, and to come into the world. What,
then, is that which the same evangelist says
concerning Him, " He was in the world, and
the world was made by Him, and the world
knew Him not;" and then he adds, "He
came unto His own?" 4 Certainly He was
sent thither, whither He came; but if He was
sent into the world, because He came forth
from the Father, then He both came into the
1 John xvii. 1, 4.
3 John xvi. 7, 28.
2 John xiv. 26.
4 John i. 10, ii.
world and was in the world. He was sent
therefore thither, where He already was. For
consider that, too, which is written in the
prophet, that God said, " Do not I fill heaven
and earth V s If this is said of the Son (for
some will have it understood that the Son
Himself spoke either by the prophets or in the
prophets), whither was He sent except to the
place where He already was ? For He who
says, "I fill heaven and earth/' was every-
where. But if it is said of the Father, where
could He be without His own word and with-
out His own wisdom, which " reacheth from
one end to another mightily, and sweetly or-
dereth all things ? " 6 But He cannot be any-
where without His own Spirit. Therefore, if
God is everywhere, His Spirit also is every-
where. Therefore, the Holy Spirit, too, was
sent thither, where He already was. For he,
too, who finds no place to which he might go
from the presence of God, and who says, " If
I ascend up into heaven, Thou art there; if I
shall go down into hell, behold, Thou art
there; " wishing it to be understood that God
is present everywhere, named in the previous
verse His Spirit; for He says, " Whither shall
I go from Thy Spirit ? or whither shall I flee
from Thy presence ? " 7
8. For this reason, then, if both the Son
and the Holy Spirit are sent thither where
they were, we must inquire, how that sending,
whether of the Son or of the Holy Spirit, is
to be understood; for of the Father alone, we
nowhere read that He is sent. Now, of the
Son, the apostle writes thus: " But when the
fullness of the time was come, God sent forth
His Son, made of a woman, made under the
law, to redeem them that were under the
law." 8 " He sent," he says, " His Son, made
of a woman." And by this term, woman, 9
what Catholic does not know that he did not
wish to signify the privation of virginity; but,
according to a Hebraism, the difference of
sex? When, therefore, he says, "God sent
His Son, made of a woman," he sufficiently
shows that the Son was "sent" in this very
way, in that He was "made of a woman."
Therefore, in that He was born of God, He
was in the world; but in that He was born of
Mary, He was sent and came into the world.
Moreover, He could not be sent by the Father
without the Holy Spirit, not only because the
Father, when He sent Him, that is, when He
made Him of a woman, is certainly under-
stood not to have so made Him without His
own Spirit; but also because it is most plainly
and expressly said in the Gospel in answer to
the Virgin Mary, when she asked of the angel,
5 Jer. xxiii. 24.
8 Gal. iv. 4, 5.
6 Wisd. viii
9 Mulicr.
7 Ps.
Chap. V.]
ON THE TRINITY.
41
( "How shall this be?" "The Holy Ghost
'shall come upon thee, and the power of the
Highest shall overshadow thee." 1 And Mat-
thew says, "She was found with child of the
Holy Ghost." 2 Although, too, in the prophet
Isaiah, Christ Himself is understood to say of
His own future advent, "And now the Lord
God and His Spirit hath sent me." 3
9. Perhaps some one may wish to drive us
to say, that the Son is sent also by Himself,
because the conception and childbirth of Mary
is the working of the Trinity, by whose act
of creating all things are created. And how,
he will go on to say, has the Father sent Him,
if He sent Himself? To whom I answer first,
by asking him to tell me, if he can, in what
manner the Father hath sanctified Him, if
He hath sanctified Himself? For the same
Lord says both; " Say ye of Him,*' He says,
4 'whom the Father hath sanctified and sent
into the world, Thou blasphemest, because I
said, I am the Son of God; " 4 while in another
place He says, "And for their sake I sanctify
myself." 5 I ask, also, in what manner the
Father delivered Him, if He delivered Him-
self? For the Apostle Paul says both:
" Who," he says, " spared not His own Son,
but delivered Him up for us all;" 6 while
elsewhere he says of the Saviour Himself,
" Who loved me, and delivered Himself for
me." 7 He will reply, I suppose, if he has a
right sense in these things, Because the will
of the Father and the Son is one, and their
working indivisible. In like manner, then, let
him understand the incarnation and nativity of
the Virgin, wherein the Son is understood as
sent, to have been wrought by one and the
same operation of the Father and of the Son
indivisibly; the Holy Spirit certainly not being
thence excluded, of whom it is expressly said,
"She was found with child by the Holy
Ghost." For perhaps our meaning will be
more plainly unfolded, if we ask in what
manner God sent His Son. He commanded
that He should come, and He, complying with
the commandment, came. Did He then re-
quest, or did He only suggest ? But which-
ever of these it was, certainly it was done by
a word, and the Word of God is the Son of
God Himself. Wherefore, since the Father
sent Him by a word, His being sent was the
work of both the Father and His Word;
therefore the same Son was sent by the Father
and the Son, because the Son Himself is the
"Word of the Father. For who would embrace
so impious an opinion as to think the Father
to have uttered a word in time, in order that
the eternal Son might thereby be sent and
might appear in the flesh in the fullness of
time? But assuredly it was in that Word of
God itself which was in the beginning with
God and was God, namely, in the wisdom
itself of God, apart from time, at what time
that wisdom must needs appear in the flesh.
Therefore, since without any commencement
of time, the Word was in the beginning, and
the Word was with God, and the Word was
God, it was in the Word itself without any
time, at what time the Word was to be made
flesh and dwell among us. 8 And when this
fullness of time had come, "God sent His
Son, made of a woman," 9 that is, made in
time, that the Incarnate Word might appear
to men; while it was in that Word Himself,
apart from time, at what time this was to be
done; for the order of times is in the eternal
wisdom of God without time. Since, then,
that the Son should appear in the flesh was
wrought by both the Father and the Son, it
is fitly said that He who appeared in that flesh
was sent, and that He who did not appear in
it, sent Him; because those things which are
transacted outwardly before the bodily eyes
have their existence from the inward structure
(apparatu) of the spiritual nature, and on that
account are fitly said to be sent. Further,
that form of man which He took is the person
of the Son, not also of the Father; on which
account the invisible Father, together with
the Son, who with the Father is invisible, is
said to have sent the same Son by making
Him visible. But if He became visible in
such way as to cease to be invisible with the
Father, that is, if the substance of the invisi-
ble Word were turned by a change and transi-
tion into a visible creature, then the Son
would be so understood to be sent by the
Father, that He would be found to be only
sent; not also, with the Father, sending. But
since He so took the form of a servant, as
that the unchangeable form of God remained,
it is clear that that which became apparent in
the Son was done by the Father and the Son
not being apparent; that is, that by the in-
visible Father, with the invisible Son, the
same Son Himself was sent so as to be visi-
ble. Why, therefore, does He say, " Neither
I came I of myself? " This, we may now say,
is said according to the form of a servant, in
the same way as it is said, " I judge no man." IO
10. If, therefore, He is said to be sent, in
so far as He appeared outwardly in the bodily
creature, who inwardly in His spiritual nature
is always hidden from the eyes of mortals, it
is now easy to understand also of the Holy
1 Luke i. 34, 35
4 John x. 36.
7 Gal. ii. 20.
2 Matt. i. 18.
5 John xvii. 19.
3 Isa. xlviii. 16.
6 Rom. viii. 32.
8 John i. 1, 2, 14.
9 Gal. iv. 4.
i John viii. 42, 15.
42
THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[Book II.
Spirit why He too is said to be sent. For in
due time a certain outward appearance of the
creature was wrought, wherein the Holy Spirit
might be visibly shown; whether when He
descended upon the Lord Himself in a bodily
shape as a dove, * or when, ten days having
past since His ascension, on the day of Pente-
cost a sound came suddenly from heaven as
of a rushing mighty wind, and cloven tongues
like as of fire were seen upon them, and it sat
upon each of them. 2 This operation, visibly
exhibited, and presented to mortal eyes,
is called the sending of the Holy Spirit;
not that His very substance appeared, in
which He himself also is invisible and un-
changeable, like the Father and the Son, but
that the hearts of men, touched by things
seen outwardly, might be turned from the
manifestation in time of Him as coming to
His hidden eternity as ever present.
CHAP. 6. THE CREATURE IS NOT SO TAKEN BY
THE HOLY SPIRIT AS FLESH IS BY THE WORD.
ii. It is, then, for this reason nowhere
written, that the Father is greater than the
Holy Spirit, or that the Holy Spirit is less
than God the Father, because the creature in
which the Holy Spirit was to- appear was not
taken in the same way as the Son of man was
taken, as the form in which the person of the
Word of God Himself should be set forth;
not that He might possess the word of God,
as other holy and wise men have possessed it,
but "above His fellows;" 3 not certainly that
He possessed the word more than they, so as
to be of more surpassing wisdom than the rest
were, but that He was the very Word Him-
self. For the word in the flesh is one thing,
and the Word made flesh is another; i.e. the
word in man is one thing, the Word that is
man is another. For flesh is put for man,
where it is said, "The Word was made
flesh;" 4 and again, "And all flesh shall see
the salvation of God." " For it does not
mean flesh without soul and without mind;
but " all flesh," is the same as if it were said,
every man. The creature, then, in which the
Holy Spirit should appear, was not so taken,
as that flesh and human form were taken, of
the Virgin Mary. For the Spirit did not
beatify the dove, or the wind, or the fire, and
join them for ever to Himself and to His
person in unity and " fashion." 6 Nor, again,
is the nature of the Holy Spirit mutable and
1 Matt. iii. 16. 2 Actsii. 2-4.
3 Heb. i. q. 4 John i. 14. 5 Luke iii. 6.
6 [The reference is to crxwa, in Phil. ii. 8 the term chosen bv
St. Paul to describe the "likeness of men," which the second
trinitarian person assumed. The variety in the terms by which
St. Paul describes the incarnation is very striking. The person in-
carnated subsists first in a " form of God; '' he then takes along
with this (still retaining this) a " form of a servant; " which form
changeable; so that these things were not
made of the creature, but He himself was
turned and changed first into one and then
into another, as water is changed into ice.
But these things appeared at the seasons at
which they ought to have appeared, the crea-
ture serving the Creator, and being changed
and converted at the command of Him who
remains immutably in Himself, in order to
signify and manifest Him in such way as it
was fit He should be signified and manifested
to mortal men. Accordingly, although that
dove is called the Spirit; 7 and in speaking of
that fire, "There appeared unto them," he
says, " cloven tongues, like as of fire, and it
sat upon each of them; and they began to
speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave
them utterance; " 8 in order to show that the
Spirit was manifested by that fire, as by the
dove; yet we cannot call the Holy Spirit both
God and a dove, or both God and fire, in the
same way as we call the Son both God and
man; nor as we call the Son the Lamb of
God; which not only John the Baptist says,
"Behold the Lamb of God," 9 but also John
the Evangelist sees the Lamb slain in the
Apocalypse. 10 For that prophetic vision was
not shown to bodily eyes through bodily
forms, but in the spirit through spiritual
images of bodily things. But whosoever saw
that dove and that fire, saw them with their
eyes. Although it may perhaps be disputed
concerning the fire, whether it was seen by
the eyes or in the spirit, on account of the
form of the sentence. For the text does not
say, They saw cloven tongues like fire, but,
" There appeared to them." But we are not
wont to say with the same meaning, It ap-
peared to me; as we say, I saw. And in
those spiritual visions of corporeal images the
usual expressions are, both, It appeared to
me; and, I saw: but in those things which are
shown to the eyes through express corporeal
forms, the common expression is not, It ap-
peared to me; but, I saw. There may,
therefore, be a question raised respecting that
fire, how it was seen; whether within in the
spirit as it were outwardly, or really outwardly
before the eyes of the flesh. But of that
dove, which is said to have descended in a
bodily form, no one ever doubted that it was
seen by the eyes. Nor, again, as we call the
Son a Rock (for it is written, "And that Rock
was Christ " "), can we so call the Spirit a dove
or fire. For that rock was a thing already
created, and after the mode of its action was
of a servant is a " likeness of men; " which likeness of men is a
" scheme" (A. V. "fashion' 1 ) or external form of a man. W.G.
T.S.]
7 Matt. iii. 16. 8 Acts ii. 3, 4.
9 John i. 29. I0 Apoc. v. 6. IT 1 Cor. x. 4.
Chap. VIII.]
ON THE TRINITY.
4.
called by the name of Christ, whom it signi-
fied; like the stone placed under Jacob's
head, and also anointed, which he took in
order to signify the Lord; 1 or as Isaac was
Christ, when he carried the wood for the sac-
rifice of himself. 2 A particular significative
action was added to those already existing
tilings; they did not, as that dove and fire,
suddenly come into being in order simply so
to signify. The dove and the fire, indeed,
seem to me more like that flame which ap-
peared to Moses in the bush, 3 or that pillar
which the people followed in the wilderness, 4
or the thunders and lightnings which came
when the Law was given in the mount. 5 For
the corporeal form of these things came into
being for the very purpose, that it might sig-
nify something, and then pass away. 6
CHAP. 7. A DOUBT RAISED ABOUT DIVINE AP-
PEARANCES.
12. The Holy Spirit, then, is also said to
be sent, on account of these corporeal forms
which came into existence in time, in order
to signify and manifest Him, as He must
needs be manifested, to human senses; yet
He is not said to be less than the Father, as
the Son, because He was in the form of a
servant, is said to be; because that form of a
servant inhered in the unity of the person of
the Son, but those corporeal forms appeared
for a time, in order to show what was necessary
to be shown, and then ceased to be. Why,
then, is not the Father also said to be sent,
through those corporeal forms, the fire of the
bush, and the pillar of cloud or of fire, and
the lightnings in the mount, and whatever
other things of the kind appeared at that time,
when (as we have learned from Scripture testi-
mony) He spake face to face with the fathers,
if He Himself was manifested by those modes
and forms of the creature, as exhibited and
presented corporeally to human sight? But
if the Son was manifested by them, why is
He said to be sent so long after, when He was
made of a woman, as the apostle says, " But
when the fullness of time was come, God sent
forth His Son, made of a woman/' 7 seeing
that He was sent also before, when He ap-
peared to the fathers by those changeable
forms of the creature ? Or if He cannot
1 Gen. xxviii. 18. 2 Gen. xxii. 6. 3 Ex. iii. 2.
4 Ex. xiii. 21, 22. 5 Ex. xix. 16.
6 [A theophany, though a harbinger of the incarnation, differs
from it, by not effecting a hypostatical or personal union between
God and the creature. When the Holy Spirit appeared in the
form of a dove, he did not unite himself with it. The dove did
not constitute an integral part of the divine person who employed
it. Nor did the illuminated vapor in the theophany of the Sheki-
nah. But when the Logos appeared in the form of a man, he
united himself with it, so that it became a constituent part of his
person. A theophany, as Augustin notices, is temporary and tran-
sient. The incarnation is perpetual. W.G.T.S.] 7 Gal. iv. 4^
rightly be said to be sent, unless when the
Word was made flesh, why is the Holy Spirit
said to be sent,of whom no such incarnation was
ever wrought ? But if by those visible things,
which are put before us in the Law and in the
prophets, neither the Father nor the Son but
the Holy Spirit was manifested, why also is
He said to be sent now, when He was sent
also before after these modes ?
13. In the perplexity of this inquiry, the
Lord helping us, we must ask, first, whether
the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit; or
whether, sometimes the Father, sometimes
the Son, sometimes the Holy Spirit; or
whether it was without any distinction of per-
sons, in such way as the one and only God is
spoken of, that is, that the Trinity itself ap-
peared to the Fathers by those forms of the
creature. Next, whichever of these alterna-
tives shall have been found or thought true,
whether for this purpose only the creature
was fashioned, wherein God, as He judged
it suitable at that time, should be shown to
human sight; or whether angels, who already
existed, were so sent, as to speak in the per-
son of God, taking a corporeal form from the
corporeal creature, for the purpose of their
ministry, as each had need; or else, accord-
ing to the power the Creator has given them,
changing and converting their own body
itself, to which they are not subject, but gov-
ern it as subject to themselves, into whatever
appearances they would that were suited and
apt to their several actions. Lastly, we shall
discern that which it was our purpose to ask,
viz. whether the Son and the Holy Spirit were
also sent before ; and, if they were so sent, what
difference there is between that sending, and
the one which we read of in the Gospel; or
whether in truth neither of them were sent,
except when either the Son was made of the
Virgin Mary, or the Holy Spirit appeared in
a visible form, whether in the dove or in
tongues of fire.
CHAP. 8. THE ENTIRE TRINITY INVISIBLE.
14. Let us therefore say nothing of those
who, with an over carnal mind, have thought
the nature of the Word of God, and the Wis-
dom, which, "remaining in herself, maketh
all things new/' 8 whom we call the only Son
of God, not only to be changeable, but also
to be visible. For these, with more audacity
than religion, bring a very dull heart to the
inquiry into divine things. For whereas the
soul is a spiritual substance, and whereas it-
self also was made, yet could not be made
8 Wisd. vii. 27.
44
THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[Book II.
by any other than by Him by whom all things
were made, and without whom nothing is
made, it, although changeable, is yet not
visible; and this they have believed to be the
case with the Word Himself and with the
Wisdom of God itself, by which the soul was
made; whereas this Wisdom is not only in-
visible, as the soul also is, but likewise un-
changeable, which the soul is not. It is in
truth the same unchangeableness in it, which
is referred to when it was said, "Remaining
in herself she maketh all things new." Yet
these people, endeavoring, as it were, to prop
up their error in its fall by testimonies of the
divine Scriptures, adduce the words of the
Apostle Paul; and take that, which is said of
the one only God, in whom the Trinity itself
is understood, to be said only of the Father,
and neither of the Son nor of the Holy Spirit:
"Now unto the King eternal, immortal, in-
visible, the only wise God, be honor and
glory for ever and ever;" 2 and that other
passage, "The blessed and only Potentate,
the King of kings, and Lord of lords; who
only hath immortality, dwelling in the light
which no man can approach unto; whom no
man hath seen, nor can see." 3 How these
passages are to be understood, I think we
have already discoursed sufficiently. 4
CHAP. 9. AGAINST THOSE WHO BELIEVED THE
FATHER ONLY TO BE IMMORTAL AND INVISIBLE.
THE TRUTH TO BE SOUGHT BY PEACEFUL
STUDY.
15. But they who will have these texts un-
derstood only of the Father, and not of the
Son or the Holy Spirit, declare the Son to be
visible, not by having taken flesh of the
Virgin, but aforetime also in Himself. For
He Himself, they say, appeared to the eyes
of the Fathers. And if you say to them, In
whatever manner, then, the Son is visible in
Himself, in that manner also He is mortal in
Himself; so that it plainly follows that you
would have this saying also understood only
of the Father, viz., " Who only hath immor-
tality; " for if the Son is mortal from having
taken upon Him our flesh, then allow that it
is on account of this flesh that He is also
visible: they reply, that it is not on account of
this flesh that they say that the Son is mortal;
but that, just as He was also before visible,
so He was also before mortal. For if they
say the Son is mortal from having taken our
flesh, then it is not the Father alone without
the Son who hath immortality; because His
1 John i. 3. 2 1 Tim. i. 17. 3 r Tim. vi. 15, 16.
4 [For an example of the manner in which the patristic writers
present the doctrine of the divine invisibility, see Irena;us, Adv.
Hterescs, IV. xx. W.G.T.S.]
Word also has immortality, by which all things
were made. For Fie did not therefore lose
His immortality, because He took mortal
flesh; seeing that it could not happen even to
the human soul, that it should die with the
body, when the Lord Himself says, " Fear
not them which kill the body, but are not
able to kill the soul." s Or, forsooth, also the
Holy Spirit took flesh: concerning whom cer-
tainly they will, without doubt, be troubled to
say if the Son is mortal on account of taking
our flesh in what manner they understand
that the Father only has immortality without
the Son and the Holy Spirit, since, indeed,
the Holy Spirit did not take our flesh; and if
He has not immortality, then the Son is not
mortal on account of taking our flesh; but if
the Holy Spirit has immortality, then it is not
said only of the Father, "Who only hath
immortality." And therefore they think they
are able to prove that the Son in Himself was
mortal also before the incarnation, because
changeableness itself is not unfitly called mor-
tality, according to which the soul also is said
to die; not because it is changed and turned in-
to body, or into some substance other than
itself, but because, whatever in its own self-
same substance is now after another mode than
it once was, is discovered to be mortal, in so
far as it has ceased to be what it was. Be-
cause then, say they, before the Son of God
was born of the Virgin Mary, He Himself ap-
peared to our fathers, not in one and the same
form only, but in many forms; first in one
form, then in another; He is both visible in
Himself, because His substance was visible
to mortal eyes, when He had not yet taken
our flesh, and mortal, inasmuch as He is
changeable. And so also the Holy Spirit,
who appeared at one time as a dove, and an-
other time as fire. Whence, they say, the
following texts do not belong to the Trinity,
but singularly and properly to the Father only:
"Now unto the King eternal, immortal, and
invisible, the only wise God;" and, "Who
only hath immortality, dwelling in the light
which no man can approach unto; whom no
man hath seen, nor can see/'
16. Passing by, then, these reasoners, who
are unable to know the substance even of the
soul, which is invisible, and therefore are very
far indeed from knowing that the substance
of the one and only God, that is, the Father
and the Son and the Holy Spirit, remains
ever not only invisible, but also unchangea-
ble, and that hence it possesses true and real
immortality; let us, who deny that God,
whether the Father, or the Son, or the Holy
5 Matt. x. 28.
Chap. X.]
ON THE TRINITY.
45
Spirit, ever appeared to bodily eyes, unless
through the corporeal creature made subject
to His own power; let us, I say ready to be
corrected, if we are reproved in a fraternal
and upright spirit, ready to be so, even if
carped at by an enemy, so that he speak the
truth in catholic peace and with peaceful
study inquire, whether God indiscriminately
appeared to our fathers before Christ came in
the flesh, or whether it was any one person of
the Trinity, or whether severally, as it were
by turns.
CHAP. IO WHETHER GOD THE TRINITY INDIS-
CRIMINATELY APPEARED TO THE FATHERS, OR
ANY ONE PERSON OF THE TRINITY. THE AP-
PEARING OF GOD TO ADAM. OF THE SAME AP-
PEARANCE. THE VISION TO ABRAHAM.
17. And first, in that which is written in
Genesis, viz., that God spake with man whom
He had formed out of the dust; if we set apart
the figurative meaning, and treat it so as to
place faith in the narrative even in the letter,
it should appear that God then spake with
man in the appearance of a man. This is
not indeed expressly laid down in the book,
but the general tenor of its reading sounds in
this sense, especially in that which is written,
that Adam heard the voice of the Lord God,
walking in the garden in the cool of the even-
ing, and hid himself among the trees of the
garden; and when God said, " Adam, where
art thou?" 1 replied, "I heard Thy voice,
and I was afraid because I was naked, and I
hid myself from Thy face." For I do not
see how such a walking and conversation of
God can be understood literally, except He
appeared as a man. For it can neither be said
that a voice only of God was framed, when
God is said to have walked, or that He who
was walking in a place was not visible; while
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 ?
Whether altogether indiscriminately did God
the Trinity Himself speak to man in the form
of man ? The context, indeed, itself of the
Scripture nowhere, it should seem, indicates
a change from person to person; but He seems
still to speak to the first man, who said, " Let
there be light," and, " Let there be a firma-
ment," and so on through each of those days;
whom we usually take to be God the Father,
making by a word whatever He willed to
make. For He made all things by His word,
which Word we know, by the right rule of
faith, to be His only Son. If, therefore, God
1 Gen. iii. 8-10.
the Father spake to the first man, and Himself
was walking in the garden in the cool of the
evening, and if it was from His face that the
sinner hid himself amongst the trees of the
garden, why are we not to go on to under-
stand that it was He also who appeared to
Abraham and to Moses, and to whom He
would, and how He would, through the
changeable and visible creature, subjected to
Himself, while He Himself remains in Him-
self and in His own substance, in which He is
unchangeable and invisible ? But, possibly,
it might be that the Scripture passed over in
a hidden way from person to person, and while
it had related that the Father said "Let
there be light," and the rest which it men-
tioned Him to have done by the Word, went
on to indicate the Son as speaking to the first
man; not unfolding this openly, but intimat-
ing it to be understood by those who could
understand it.
18. Let him, then, who has the strength
whereby he can penetrate this secret with his
mind's eye, so that to him it appears clearly,
either that the Father also is able, or that
only the Son and Holy Spirit are able, to ap-
pear to human eyes through a visible creature;
let him, I say, proceed to examine these things
if he can, or even to express and handle them
in words; but the thing itself, so far as con-
cerns this testimony of Scripture, where God
spake with man, is, in my judgment, not dis-
coverable, because it does not evidently
appear even whether Adam usually saw God
with the eyes of his body; especially as it is
a great question what manner of eyes it was
that were opened when they tasted the for-
bidden fruit; 2 for before they had tasted,
these eyes were closed. Yet I would not
rashly assert, even if that scripture implies
Paradise to have been a material place, that
God could not have walked there in any way
except in some bodily form. For it might
be said, that only words were framed for the
man to hear, without seeing any form.
Neither, because it is written, "Adam hid
himself from the face of God," does it follow
forthwith that he usually saw His face. For
what if he himself indeed could not see, but
feared to be himself seen by Him whose voice
he had heard, and had felt His presence as
he walked ? For Cain, too, said to God,
"From Thy face I will hide myself;" 3 yet
we are not therefore compelled to admit that
he was wont to behold the face of God with
his bodily eyes in any visible form, although
he had heard the voice of God questioning
and speaking with him of his sin. But what
2 Gen. iii. 7.
3 Gen. iv. 14.
4 6
THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[Book II.
manner of speech it was that God then uttered
to the outward ears of men, especially in
speaking to the first man, it is both difficult
to discover, and we have not undertaken to
say in this discourse. But if words alone and
sounds were wrought, by which to bring about
some sensible presence of God to those first
men, I do not know why I should not there
understand the person of God the Father,
seeing that His person is manifested also in
that voice, when Jesus appeared in glory on
the mount before the three disciples; 1 and in
that when the dove descended upon Him at
His baptism; 2 and in that where He cried to
the Father concerning His own glorification,
and it was answered Him, " I have both glori-
fied, and will glorify again." 3 Not that the
voice could be wrought without the work of
the Son and of the Holy Spirit (since the
Trinity works indivisibly), but that such a
voice was wrought as to manifest the person
of the Father only; just as the Trinity
wrought that human form from the Virgin
Mary, yet it is the person of the Son alone;
for the invisible Trinity wrought the visible
person of the Son alone. Neither does any-
thing forbid us, not only to understand those
words spoken to Adam as spoken by the
Trinity, but also to take them as manifesting
the person of that Trinity. For we are com-
pelled to understand of the Father only, that
which is said, "This is my beloved Son." 4
For Jesus can neither be believed nor under-
stood to be the Son of the Holy Spirit, or
even His own Son. And where the voice
uttered, " I have both glorified, and will
glorify again," we confess it was only the
person of the Father; since it is the answer
to that word of the Lord, in which He had
said, " Father, glorify thy Son," which He
could not say except to God the Father only,
and not also to the Holy Spirit, whose Son
He was not. But here, where it is written,
"And the Lord God said to Adam," no rea-
son can be given why the Trinity itself should
not be understood.
19. Likewise, also, in that which is written,
" Now the Lord had said unto Abraham, Get
thee out of thy country, and from thy kin-
dred, and thy father's house," it is not clear
whether a voice alone came to the ears of
Abraham, or whether anything also appeared
to his eyes. But a little while after, it is
somewhat more clearly said, "And the Lord
appeared unto Abraham, and said, Unto thy
seed will I give this land." 5 But neither
there is it expressly said in what form God
appeared to him, or whether the Father, or
the Son, or the Holy Spirit appeared to him.
Unless, perhaps, they think that it was the
Son who appeared to Abraham, because it is
not written, God appeared to him, but "the
Lord appeared to him." For the Son seems
to be called the Lord as though the name was
appropriated to Him; as e.g. the apostle
says, " For though there be that are called
gods, wh'ether in heaven or in earth, (as
there be gods many and lords many,) but to
us there is but one God, the Father, of whom
are all things, and we in Him; and one Lord
Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we
by Him." 6 But since it is found that God
the Father also is called Lord in many places,
for instance, " The Lord hath said unto
me, Thou art my Son; this day have I be-
gotten Thee; " 7 and again, " The Lord said
unto my Lord, Sit Thou at my right hand; " 8
since also the Holy Spirit is found to be
called Lord, as where the apostle says,
"Now the Lord is that Spirit;" and then,
lest any one should think the Son to be sig-
nified, and to be called the Spirit on account
of His incorporeal substance, has gone on to
say, "And where the Spirit of the Lord is,
there is liberty; " 9 and no one ever doubted
the Spirit of the Lord to be the Holy Spirit:
therefore, neither here does it appear plainly
whether it was any person of the Trinity that
appeared to Abraham, or God Himself the
Trinity, of which one God it is said, " Thou
shalt fear the Lord thy God, and Him only
shalt thou serve." 10 But under the oak at
Mamre he saw three men, whom he invited,
and hospitably received, and ministered to
them as they feasted. Yet Scripture at the
beginning of that narrative does not say,
three men appeared to him, but, " The Lord
appeared to him." And then, setting forth
in due order after what manner the Lord ap-
peared to him, it has added the account of
the three men, whom Abraham invites to his
hospitality in the plural number, and after-
wards speaks to them in the singular number
as one; and as one He promises him a son
by Sara, viz. the one whom the Scripture calls
Lord, as in the beginning of the same narra-
tive, "The Lord," it says, "appeared to
Abraham." He invites them then, and
washes their feet, and leads them forth at
their departure, as though they were men;
but he speaks as with the Lord God, whether
when a son is promised to him, or when the
destruction is shown to him that was impend-
ing over Sodom."
1 Matt. xvii. 5.
4 Matt. iii. 17.
2 Matt. iii. 17.
5 Gen. xii. i, 7.
3 John xii. 28.
6 1 Cor. viii. 5, 6.
9 2 Cor. iii. 17.
7 Ps. ii. 7.
10 Deut. vi. 13.
8 Ps. ex. 1.
11 Gen. xviii.
Chap. XII.]
ON THE TRINITY.
47
CHAP. II. OF THE SAME APPEARANCE.
20. That place of Scripture demands
neither a slight nor a passing consideration.
For if one man had appeared, what else would
those at once cry out, who say that the Son
was visible also in His own substance before
He was born of the Virgin, but that it was
Himself? since it is said, they say, of the
Father, " To the only invisible God." * And
yet, I could still go on to demand, in what
manner " He was found in fashion as a man,"
before He had taken our flesh, seeing that
his feet were washed, and that He fed upon
earthly food ? How could that be, when He
was still " in the form of God, and thought
it not robbery to be equal with God?" 2
For, pray, had He already " emptied Him-
self, taking upon Him the form of a servant,
and made in the likeness of men, and found
in fashion as a man?" when we know when
it was that He did this through His birth of
the Virgin. How, then, before He had done
this, did He appear as one man to Abraham ?
or, was not that form a reality? I could put
these questions, if it had been one. man that
appeared to Abraham, and if that one were
believed to be the Son of God. But since
three men appeared, and no one of them is
said to be greater than the rest either in form,
or age, or power, why should we not here
understand, as visibly' intimated by the visi-
ble creature, the equality of the Trinity, and
one and the same substance in three per-
sons ? 3
21. For, lest any one should think that
one among the three is in this way intimated
to have been the greater, and that this one
is to be understood to have been the Lord,
the Son of God, while the other two were His
angels; because, whereas three appeared,
Abraham there speaks to one as the Lord:
Holy Scripture has not forgotten to anticipate,
by a contradiction, such future cogitations
and opinions, when a little while after it says
that two angels came to Lot, among whom
that just man also, who deserved to be freed
from the burning of Sodom, speaks to one as
to the Lord. For so Scripture goes on to
say, "And the Lord went His way, as soon
as He left communing with Abraham; and
Abraham returned to his place." 4
1 1 Tim. i. 17. 2 Phil. ii. 6, 7.
3 [The thenphanies of the Pentateuch are trinitarian in their
implication. They involve distinctions in God God sending, and
<lod sent; God speaking: of God, and God speaking to God. The
trinitarianism of the Old Testament has been lost sight of to some
extent in the modern construction of the doctrine. The patristic,
mediaeval, and reformation theologies worked this vein with thor-
oughness, and the analysis of Augustin in this reference is worthy
of careful study. W.G.T.S.]
4 Gen. xviii. 33.
CHAP. 12. THE APPEARANCE TO LOT IS EX-
AMINED.
"But there came two angels to Sodom at
even." Here, what I have begun to set forth
must be considered more attentively. Cer-
tainly Abraham was speaking with three, and
called that one, in the singular number, the
Lord. Perhaps, some one may say, he recog-
nized one of the three to be the Lord, but
the other two His angels. What, then, does
that mean which Scripture goes on to say,
"And the Lord went His way, as soon as He
had left communing with Abraham; and
Abraham returned to his place: and there
came two angels to Sodom at even?" Are
we to suppose that the one who, among the
three, was recognized as the Lord, had de-
parted, and had sent the two angels that were
with Him to destroy Sodom ? Let us see,
then, what follows. "There came," it is
said, "two angels to Sodom at even; and
Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing
them, rose up to meet them; and he bowed
himself with his face toward the ground; and
he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I
pray you, into your servant's house." Here
it is clear, both that there were two angels,
and that in the plural number they were in-
vited to partake of hospitality, and that they
were honorably designated lords, when they
perchance were thought to be men.
22. Yet, again, it is objected that except
they were known to be angels of God, Lot
would not have bowed himself with his face
to the ground. Why, then, is both hospitality
and food offered to them, as though they
wanted such human succor ? But whatever
may here lie hid, let us now pursue that
which we have undertaken. Two appear;
both are called angels; they are invited
plurally; he speaks as with two plurally, until
the departure from Sodorn. And then Script-
ure goes on to say, "And it came to pass,
when they had brought them forth abroad,
that they said, Escape for thy life; look not
behind thee, neither stay thou in all the
plain; escape to the mountain, and there
thou shalt be saved, 5 lest thou be consumed.
And Lot said unto them, Oh ! not so, my
lord: behold now, thy servant hath found
grace in thy sight," 6 etc. What is meant by
his saying to them, " Oh ! not so, my lord,"
if He who was the Lord had already departed,
and had sent the angels? Why is it said,
" Oh ! not so, my lord," and not, " Oh ! not
so, my lords?" Or if he wished to speak to
one of them, why does Scripture say, "But
Lot said to them. Oh ! not so, my lord: be-
S This clause is not in the Hebrew.
6 Gen. xix. 1-19.
48
THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[Book II.
hold now, thy servant hath found grace in thy
sight," etc.? Are we here, too, to understand
two persons in the plural number, but when
the two are addressed as one, then the one
Lord God of one substance ? But which two
persons do we here understand ? of the
Father and of the Son, or of the Father and
of the Holy Spirit, or of the Son and of
the Holy Spirit ? The last, perhaps, is the
more suitable; for they said of themselves
that they were sent, which is that which we
say of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. For
we find nowhere in the Scriptures that the
Father was sept. 1
CHAP. 13. THE APPEARANCE IN THE BUSH.
23. But when Moses was sent to lead the
children of Israel out of Egypt, it is written
that the Lord appeared to him thus: " Now
Moses kept the flock of Jethro his father-in-
law, the priest of Midian: and he led the flock
to the back side of the desert, and came to
the mountain of God, even to Horeb. And
the Angel of the Lord appeared unto him in
a flame of fire, out of the midst of a bush;
and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned
with fire, and the bush was not consumed.
And Moses said, I will now turn aside, and
see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt.
And when the Lord saw that he turned aside
to see, God called unto him out of the midst
of the bush, and said, I am the God of thy
father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac,
and the God of Jacob." 2 He is here also first
called the Angel of the Lord, and then God.
Was an angel, then, the God of Abraham, and
the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob ?
Therefore He may be rightly understood to
be the Saviour Himself, of whom the apostle
says, " Whose are the fathers, and of whom as
concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over
all, God blessed forever." 3 He, therefore,
"who is over all, God blessed for ever," is
not unreasonably here understood also to be
Himself the God of Abraham, the God of
Isaac, and the God of Jacob. But why is He
previously called the Angel of the Lord, when
1 [It is difficult to determine the details of this theophany, be-
yond all doubt: namely, whether the " Jehovah "' who " went his
way as soon as he had left communing with Abraham." (Gen. xviii.
33) joins the " two angels " that " came to Sodom at even " (Gen.
xix. 1); or whether one of these " two angels " is Jehovah himself.
One or the other supposition must be made; because a person is
addressed by Lot as God (Gen. xix. 18-20), and speaks to Lot as
God (Gen. xix. 21, 22), and acts as God ((Jen. xix. 24). The Mas-
orite marking of the word " lords " in Gen. xix. 2, as "profane,"
i.e., to be taken in the human sense, would favor the first supposi-
tion. The interchange of the singular and plural, in the whole
narrative is very striking. " It came to pass, when they had brought
them forth abroad, that he said, escape for thy life. And Lot said
unto them. Oh not so, my Lord : behold now, thy servant hath
found grace in thy sight. And he said unto him, see / have ac-
cepted thee; / will not overthrow the city of which thou hast
spoken." (Gen. xix. 17-21.) W.G.T.S.]
2 Ex. iii. 1-6. 3 Rom. ix. 5.
He appeared in a flame of fire out of the
bush ? Was it because it was one of many
angels, who by an economy [or arrangement]
bare the person of his Lord ? or was some-
thing of the creature assumed by Him in order
to bring about a visible appearance for the
business in hand, and that words might thence
be audibly uttered, whereby the presence of
the Lord might be shown, in such way as was
fitting, to the corporeal senses of man, by
means of the creature made subject? For if
he was one of the angels, who could easily
affirm whether it was the person of the Son
which was imposed upon him to announce,
or that of the Holy Spirit, or that of God the
Father, or altogether of the Trinity itself, who
is the one and only God, in order that he
might say, " I am the God of Abraham, and
the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob ? "
For we cannot say that the Son of God is the
God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and
the God of Jacob, and that the Father is not;
nor will any one dare to deny that either the
Holy Spirit, or the Trinity itself, whom we
believe and understand to be the 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. Fur-
thermore, if not only the Father is God, as
all, even heretics, admit; but also the Son,
which, whether they will or not, they are com-
pelled to acknowledge, since the apostle says,
" Who is over all, God blessed for ever; " and
the Holy Spirit, since the same apostle says,
" Therefore glorify God in your body;-'' when
he had said above, " Know ye not that your
body is the temple of the Holy Ghost, which
is in you, which ye have of God ? " 4 and these
three are one God, as catholic soundness be-
lieves: it is not sufficiently apparent which
person of the Trinity that angel bare, if he
was one of the rest of the angels, and whether
any person, and not rather that of the Trinity
itself. But if the creature was assumed for
the purpose of the business in hand, whereby
both to appear to human eyes, and to sound
in human ears, and to be called the Angel of
the Lord, and the Lord, and God; then can-
not God here be understood to be the Father,
but either the Son or the Holy Spirit. Al-
though I cannot call to mind that the Holy
Spirit is anywhere else called an angel, which
yet may be understood from His work; for it
is said of Him, "And He will show you 3
things to come;" 6 and " angel" in Greek
is certainly equivalent to " messenger " 7 in
Latin: but we read most evidently of the
Lord Jesus Christ in the prophet, that He is
4 1 Cor. vi. 20, 19.
6 John xvi. 13.
5 A nnuntiabit.
7 Nuntiits.
Chap. XV.]
ON THE TRINITY.
49
called " the Angel of Great Counsel," ' while
both the Holy Spirit and the Son of God
is God and Lord of the angels.
CHAP. 14. OF THE APPEARANCE IN THE PILLAR
OF CLOUD AND OF FIRE.
24. Also in the going forth of the children
of Israel from Egypt it is written, " And the
Lord went before them, by day in a pillar of
cloud to lead them the way, and by night in
a pillar of fire. He took not away the pillar
of the cloud by day, nor the pillar of fire by
night, from before the people." 2 Who nere,
too, would doubt that God appeared to the
eyes of mortal men by the corporeal creature
made subject to Him, and not by His own
substance ? But it is not similarly apparent
whether the Father, or the Son, or the Holy
Spirit, or the Trinity itself, the one God.
Nor is this distinguished there either, in my
judgment, where it is written, " The glory of
the Lord appeared in the cloud, and the Lord
spake unto Moses, saying, I have heard the
murmurings of the children of Israel," 3 etc.
CHAP. 15. OF THE APPEARANCE ON SINAI.
WHETHER THE TRINITY SPAKE IN THAT AP-
PEARANCE OR SOME ONE PERSON SPECIALLY.
25. But now of the clouds, and voices, and
lightnings, and the trumpet, and the smoke
on Mount Sinai, when it was said, " And
Mount Sinai was altogether on a smoke,
because the Lord descended upon it in fire,
and the smoke thereof ascended as the smoke
of a furnace ; and all the people that was
in the camp trembled; and when the voice
of the trumpet sounded long and waxed
louder and louder, Moses spake, and God
answered him by a voice.'' 4 And a little
after, when the Law had been given in the ten
commandments, it follows in the text, " And
all the people saw the thunderings, and the
lightnings, and the noise of the trumpet, and
the mountain smoking." And a little after,
" And [when the people saw it,] they re-
moved and stood afar off, and Moses drew
near unto the thick darkness s where God
was, and the Lord said unto Moses," 6 etc.
What shall I say about this, save that no one
can be so insane as to believe the smoke, and
the fire, and the cloud, and the darkness, and
whatever there was of the kind, to be the
substance of the word and wisdom of God
which is Christ, or of the Holy Spirit ? For
not even the Arians ever dared to say that
thev were the substance of God the Father.
1 Isa. ix. 6.
3 Ex. xvi. 10-12.
5 Nebitlam.
2 Ex. iii. 21, 22.
4 Ex. xix. 18, 19.
6 Ex. xx. 18, 21.
All these things, then, were wrought through
the creature serving the Creator, and were pre-
sented in a suitable economy {dispc?isatio) to
human senses; unless, perhaps, because it is
said, "And Moses drew near to the cloud where
God was," carnal thoughts must needs sup-
pose that the cloud was indeed seen by the
people, but that within the cloud Moses with
the eyes of the flesh saw the Son of God,
whom doting heretics will have to be seen in
His own substance. Forsooth, Moses may
have seen Him with the eyes of the flesh, if
not only the wisdom of God which is Christ,
but even that of any man you please and
howsoever wise, can be seen with the eyes of
the flesh; or if, because it is written of the
elders of Israel, that "they saw the place
where the God of Israel had stood," and that
" there was under His feet as it were a paved
work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the
body of heaven in his clearness," 7 therefore
we are to believe that the word and wisdom
of God in His own substance stood within
the space of an earthly place, who indeed
" reacheth firmly from end to end, and
sweetly ordereth all things;" 8 and that the
Word of God, by whom all things were
made, 9 is in such wise changeable, as now to
contract, now to expand Himself; (may the
Lord cleanse the hearts of His faithful ones
from such thoughts ! ) But indeed all these
visible and sensible things are, as we have
often said, exhibited through the creature
made subject in order to signify the invisible
and intelligible God, not only the Father,
but also the Son and the Holy Spirit, "of
whom are all things, and through whom are
all things, and in whom are all things; " I0 al-
though "the invisible things of God, from
the creation of the world, are clearly seen,
being understood by the things that , are
made, even His eternal power and God-
head.""
26. But as far as concerns our present un-
dertaking, neither on Mount Sinai do I see
how it appears, by all those things which were
fearfully displayed to the senses of mortal
men, whether God the Trinity spake, or the
Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit sever-
ally. But if it is allowable, without rash
assertion, to venture upon a modest and hesi-
tating conjecture from this passage, if it is
possible to understand it of one person of the
Trinity, why do we not rather understand the
Holy Spirit to be spoken of, since the Law
itself also, which was given there, is said to
have been written upon tables of stone with the
7 Ex. xxiv. 10.
10 Rom. xi. 36.
8 Wisd. viii. 1.
11 Rom. i. 20.
9 John i. 3.
5
THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[Book II-
finger of God, r by which name we know the
Holy Spirit to be signified in the Gospel. 2
And fifty days are numbered from the slay-
ing of the lamb and the celebration of the
Passover until the day in which these things
began to be done in Mount Sinai; just as
after the passion of our Lord fifty days are
numbered from His resurrection, and then
came the Holy Spirit which the Son of God
had promised. And in that very coming of
His, which we read of in the Acts of the
Apostles, there appeared cloven tongues like
as of fire, and it sat upon each of them: 3
which agrees with Exodus, where it is writ-
ten, "And Mount Sinai was altogether on a
smoke, because the Lord descended upon it
in fire;" and a little after, "And the sight
of the glory of the Lord," he says, " was like
devouring fire on the top of the mount in the
eyes of the children of Israel." 4 Or if these
things were therefore wrought because neither
the Father nor the Son could be there pre-
sented in that mode without the Holy Spirit,
by whom the Law itself must needs be writ-
ten; then we know doubtless that God ap-
peared there, not by His own substance,
which remains invisible and unchangeable,
but by the appearance above mentioned of
the creature; but that some special person of
the Trinity appeared, distinguished by a
proper mark, as far as my capacity of under-
standing reaches, we do not see.
CHAP. l6. IN WHAT MANNER MOSES SAW GOD.
26. There is yet another difficulty which
troubles most people, viz. that it is written,
"And the Lord spake unto Moses face to
face, as a man speaketh unto his friend;"
whereas a little after, the same Moses says,
" Now therefore, I pray Thee, if I have found
grace in Thy sight, show me now Thyself
plainly, that I may see Thee, that I may find
grace in Thy sight, and that I may consider
that this nation is Thy people;" and a little
after Moses again said to the Lord, " Show
me Thy glory." What means this then, that
in everytning which was done, as above said,
God was thought to have appeared by His
own substance; whence the Son of God has
been believed by these miserable people to be
visible not by the creature, but by Himself;
and that Moses, entering into the cloud, ap-
peared to have had this very object in enter-
ing, that a cloudy darkness indeed might be
shown to the eyes of the people, but that
Moses within might hear the words of God,
as though he beheld His face; and, as it is
1 Ex. xxi. 18.
3 Acts. ii. 1-4.
2 Luke x:. 20
4 Ex. xxiv. 1
said, " And the Lord spake unto Moses face
to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend; "
and yet, behold, the same Moses says, " If I
have found grace in Thy sight, show me
Thyself plainly?" Assuredly he knew that
he saw corporeally, and he sought the true
sight of God spiritually. And that mode of
speech accordingly which was wrought in
words, was so modified, as if it were of a friend
speaking to a friend. Yet who sees God the
Father with the eyes of the body ? And that
Word, which was in the beginning, the Word
which was with God, the Word which was
God, by which all things were made, 5 who
sees Him with the eyes of the body ? And
the spirit of wisdom, again, who sees with the
eyes of the body? Yet what is, "Show me
now Thyself plainly, that I may see Thee,"
unless, Show me Thy substance ? But if
Moses had not said this, we must indeed
have borne with those foolish people as we
could, who think that the substance of God
was made visible to his eyes through those
things which, as above mentioned, were said
or done. But when it is here demonstrated
most evidently that this was not granted to
him, even though he desired it; who will dare
to say, that by the like forms which had ap-
peared visibly to him also, not the creature
serving God, but that itself which is God,
appeared to the eyes of a mortal man ?
28. Add, too, that which the Lord after-
ward said to Moses, " Thou canst not see
my face: for there shall no man see my face,
and live. And the Lord said, Behold, there
is a place by me, and thou shall stand upon
a rock: and it shall come to pass, while my
glory passeth by, that I will put thee into a
watch-tower 6 of the rock, and will cover thee
with my hand while I pass by: and I will take
away my hand, and thou shalt see my back
parts; but my face shall not be seen." 7
CHAP. 17. HOW THE BACK PARTS OF GOD WERE
SEEN. THE FAITH OF THE RESURRECTION OF
CHRIST. THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ONLY IS THE
PLACE FROM WHENCE THE BACK PARTS OF GOD
ARE SEEN. THE BACK PARTS OF GOD WERE
SEEN BY THE ISRAELITES. IT IS A RASH OPIN-
ION TO THINK THAT GOD THE FATHER ONLY
WAS NEVER SEEN BY THE FATHERS.
Not unfitly is it commonly understood to
be prefigured from the person of our Lord
Jesus Christ, that His "back parts" are to
be taken to be His flesh, in which He was
5 John i. 1, 3.
6 Clift A. V. Spelunca is one reading in S. Aug., but the
Benedictines read specula = watch-tower, which the context
proves to be certainly right.
7 Ex. xxxiii. 11-23.
Chap. XVII.]
ON THE TRINITY.
51
born of the Virgin, and died, and rose again;
whether they are called back parts 1 on ac-
count of the posteriority of mortality, or be-
cause it was almost in the end of the world,
that is, at a late period, 2 that He deigned
to take it: but that His " face " was that form
of God, in which He " thought it not robbery
to be equal with God," 3 which no one cer-
tainly can see and live; whether because after
this life, in which we are absent from the
Lord, 4 and where the corruptible body press-
eth down the soul, 5 we shall see " face to
face/' 6 as the apostle says (for it is said in
the Psalms, of this life, "Verily every man
living is altogether vanity;" 7 and again,
" For in Thy sight shall no man living be
justified;" 8 and in this life also, according to
John, " It doth not yet appear what we shall
be, but we know," he says, " that when He
shall appear, we shall be like Him, for we
shall see Him as He is,'' 9 which he certainly
intended to be understood as after this life,
when we shall have paid the debt of death,
and shall have received the promise of the
resurrection); or whether that even now, in
whatever degree we spiritually understand
the wisdom of God, by which all things were
made, in that same degree we die to carnal
affections, so that, considering this world
dead to us, we also ourselves die to this
world, and say what the apostle says, ' ' The
world is crucified unto me, and I unto the
world." 10 For it was of this death that he
also says, "Wherefore, if ye be dead with
Christ, why as though living in the world are
ye subject to ordinances?" 11 Not therefore
without cause will no one be able to see the
" face,'' that is, the manifestation itself of
the wisdom of God, and live. For it is this
very appearance, for the contemplation of
which every one sighs who strives to love
God with all his heart, and with all his soul,
and with all his mind; to the contemplation
of which, he who loves his neighbor, too, as
himself builds up his neighbor also as far as
he may; on which two commandments hang
all the law and the prophets. 12 And this is
signified also in Moses himself. For when
he had said, on account of the love of God
with which he was specially inflamed, " If I
have found grace in thy sight, show me now
Thyself plainly, that I may find grace in Thy
sight; " he immediately subjoined, on account
of the love also of his neighbor, "And that I
1 Posteriora.
3 Phil. ii. 6.
5 Wisd. ix. 15.
7 Ps. xxxix. 5.
9 1 John iii. 2.
2 Posterius.
4 2 Cor. v. 6.
6 1 Cor. xiii. 12.
8 Ps. cxliii. 2.
10 Gal. vi. 14.
11 Col. ii. 20. Viventes de hoc inimdo decei-nitis.
12 Matt. xxii. 37-40.
may know that this nation is Thy people."
It is therefore that " appearance " which hur-
ries away ever)'- rational soul with the desire
of it, and the more ardently the more pure
that soul is; and it is the more pure the more
it rises to spiritual things; and it rises the
more to spiritual things the more it dies to
carnal things. But whilst we are absent from
the Lord, and walk by faith, not by sight, 13
we ought to see the " back parts " of Christ,
that is His flesh, by that very faith, that is,
standing on the solid foundation of faith,
which the rock signifies, 14 and beholding it
from such a safe watch-tower, namely in the
Catholic Church, of which it is said, "And
upon this rock I will build my Church." 15
For so much the more certainly we love that
face of Christ, which we earnestly desire to
see, as we recognize in His back parts how
much first Christ loved us.
29. But in the flesh itself, the faith in His
resurrection saves and justifies us. For, " If
thou shalt believe," he says, " in thine heart,
that God hath raised Him from the dead,
thou shalt be saved; " l6 and again, " Who was
delivered," he says, "for our offenses, and was
raised again for our justification." 17 So that
the reward of our faith is the resurrection of
the body of our Lord. 18 For even His enemies
believe that that flesh died on the cross of
His passion, but they do not believe it to
have risen again. Which we believing most
firmly, gaze upon it as from the solidity of a
rock: whence we wait with certain hope for
the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our
body; 19 because we hope for that in the mem-
bers of Christ, that is, in ourselves, which by
a sound faith we acknowledge to be perfect
in Him as in our Head. Thence it is that
He would not have His back parts seen, un-
less as He passed by, that His resurrection
may be believed. For that which is Pascha
in Hebrew, is translated Passover. 20 Whence
John the Evangelist also says, " Before the
feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that
His hour was come, that He should pass out
of this world unto the Father." 21
30. But they who believe this, but believe
it not in the Catholic Church, but in some
schism or in heresy, do not see the back parts
of the Lord from " the place that is by Him."
For what does that mean which the Lord says,
" Behold, there is a place by me, and thou
1 3 2 Cor. v. 6, 7.
M [Augustin here gives the Protestant interpretation of the
word "rock," in the passage, "on this rock I will build my
church." W.G.T.S.]
l i Matt. xvi. 18. l6 Rom. x. g. '7 Rom. iv. 25.
18 [The meaning seems to be, that the vivid realization that
Christ's body rose from the dead is the reward of a Christian's faith.
The unbeliever has no such reward. W.G.T.S.]
z 9 Rom. viii. 23.
20 Transilus = passing by. 2I John xiii. 1.
52
THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[Book II.
shalt stand upon a rock?" What earthly
place is "by" the Lord, unless that is "by
Him" which touches Him spiritually ? For
what place is not "by" the Lord, who
" reacheth from one end to another mightily,
and sweetly doth order all things," 'and of
whom it is said, " Heaven is His throne, and
earth is His footstool;" and who said,
" Where is the house that ye build unto me,
and where is the place of my rest ? For has
not my hand made all those things?" 2 Eut
manifestly the Catholic Church itself is un-
derstood to be " the place by Him," wherein
one stands upon a rock, where he healthfully
sees the " Pascha Domini," that is, the
"Passing by" 3 of the Lord, and His back
parts, that is, His body, who believes in His
resurrection. "And thou shalt stand," He
says, "upon a rock while my glory passeth
by." For in reality, immediately after the
majesty of the Lord had passed by in the
glorification of the Lord, in which He rose
again and ascended to the Father, we stood
firm upon the rock. And Peter himself then
stood firm, so that he preached Him with
confidence, whom, before he stood firm, he
had thrice from fear denied; 4 although, in-
deed, already before placed in predestination
upon the watch-tower of the rock, but with
the hand of the Lord still held over him that
he might not see. For he was to see His
back parts, and the Lord had not yet " passed
by," namely, from death to life; He had not
yet been glorified by the resurrection.
31. For as to that, too, which follows in
Exodus, " I will cover thee with mine hand
while I pass by, and I will take away my
hand and thou shalt see my back parts; "
many Israelites, of whom Moses was then a
figure, believed in the Lord after His resur-
rection, as if His hand had been taken off
from their eyes, and they now saw His back
parts. And hence the evangelist also men-
tions that prophesy of Isaiah, " Make the
heart of this people fat, and make their ears
heavy, and shut their eyes." 5 Lastly, in
the Psalm, that is not unreasonably under-
stood to be said in their person, " For day
and night Thy hand was heavy upon me."
"By day," perhaps, when He performed
manifest miracles, yet was not acknowledged
by them; - but " by night," when He died in
suffering, when they thought still more cer-
tainly that, like any one among men, He
was cut off and brought to an end. But
since, when He had already passed by, so
that His back parts were seen, upon the
1 Wisd. viii. 1.
3 Transitus.
5 Isa. vi. 10; Matt. xiii. 15.
2 Isa. lxvi. 1, 2.
4 Matt. xxvi. 70-74.
preaching to them by the Apostle Peter that
it behoved Christ to suffer and rise again,
they were pricked in their hearts with the
grief of repentance, 6 that that might come to
pass among the baptized which is said in the
beginning of that Psalm, " Blessed are they
whose transgressions are forgiven, and whose
sins are covered;" therefore, after it had
been said, " Thy hand is heavy upon me,"
the Lord, as it were, passing by, so that now
He removed His hand, and His back parts
were seen, there follows the voice of one who
grieves and confesses and receives remission
of sins by faith in the resurrection of the
Lord: " My moisture," he says, " is turned
into the drought of summer. I acknowledged
my sin unto Thee, and mine iniquity have I
not hid. I said, I will confess my trans-
gressions unto the Lord, and Thou forgavest
the iniquity of my sin." 7 For we ought not
to be so wrapped up in the darkness of the
flesh, as to think the face indeed of God to
be invisible, but His back visible, since both
appeared visibly in the form of a servant;
but far be it from us to think anything of the
kind in the form of God; far be it from us to
think that the Word of God and the Wisdom
of God has a face on one side, and on the
other a back, as a human body has, or is at
all changed either in place or time by any
appearance or motion. 8
32. Wherefore, if in those words which
were spoken in Exodus, and in all those cor-
poreal appearances, the Lord Jesus Christ
was manifested; or if in some cases Christ
was manifested, as the consideration of this
passage persuades us, in others the Holy
Spirit, as that which we have said above ad-
monishes us; at any rate no such result fol-
lows, as that God the Father never appeared
in any such form to the Fathers. For many
such appearances happened in those times,
without either the Father, or the Son, or the
Holy Spirit being expressly named and desig-
nated in them; but yet with some intimations
given through certain very probable interpre-
tations, so that it would be too rash to say
that God the Father never appeared by any
visible forms to the fathers or the prophets.
For they gave birth to this opinion who were
not able to understand in respect to the unity of
the Trinity such texts as, " Now unto the King
eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise
God; " 9 and, " Whom no man hath seen, nor
6 Acts ii. 37, 41. 7 Ps. xxxii. 4, 5.
8 [This explanation of the "back parts" of Christ to mean his
resurrection, and of " the place that is by him," to mean the
church, is an example of the fanciful exegesis into which Augns-
tin, with the fathers generally, sometimes falls. The reasoning,
here, unlike that in the preceding chapter, is not from the imme-
diate context, and hence extraneous matter is read into the text.
W. G. T. S.] 9 1 Tim. i. 17.
Chap. XVIII.]
ON THE TRINITY.
53
can see." 1 Which texts are understood by
a sound faith in that substance itself, the
highest, and in the highest degree divine and
unchangeable, whereby both the Father and
the Son and the Holy Spirit is the one and
only God. But those visions were wrought
through the changeable creature, made sub-
ject to the unchangeable God, and did not
manifest God properly as He is, but by in-
timations such as suited the causes and times
of the several circumstances.
CHAP. 1 8. THE VISION OF DANIEL.
33. - 1 do not know in what manner these
men understand that the Ancient of Days
appeared to Daniel, from whom the Son of
man, which He deigned to be for our sakes,
is understood to have received the kingdom;
namely, from Him who says to Him in the
Psalms, " Thou art my Son; this day have I
begotten Thee; ask of me, and I shall give
Thee the heathen for Thine inheritance;" 3
and who has "put all things under His
feet." 4 If, however, both the Father giving
the kingdom, and the Son receiving it, ap-
peared to Daniel in bodily form, how can
those men say that the Father never appeared
to the prophets, and, therefore, that He only
ought to be understood to be invisible whom
no man has seen, nor can see ? For Daniel
has told us thus: " I beheld," he says, "till
the thrones were set, 5 and the Ancient of
Days did sit, whose garment was white as
snow, and the hair of His head like the pure
wool: His throne was like the fiery flame,
and His wheels as burning fire; a fiery stream
issued and came forth from before Him:
thousand thousands ministered unto Him,
and ten thousand times ten thousand stood
before Him: the judgment was set, and the
books were opened," etc. And a little after,
"I saw," he says, "in the night visions,
and behold, one like the Son of man came
with the clouds of heaven, and came to the
Ancient of Days, and they brought Him near
before Him. And there was given Him
dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all
peoples, nations, and languages should serve
Him: His dominion is an everlasting domin-
ion, which shall not pass away, and His king-
dom that which shall not be destroyed." 6
Behold the Father giving, and the Son re-
ceiving, an eternal kingdom ; and both are in
1 1 Tim. vi. 16.
2 [The original has an awkward anacoluthon in the opening
sentence of this chapter, which has been removed by omitting
"'quaviquat/i," and substituting " autem" for " erev."- -W. G.
T. S.]
i Ps. ii. 7, 8. 4 Ps. viii. 8.
5 Cast down A. V. 6 Dan. vii. 9-14.
the sight of him who prophesies, in a visible
form. It is not, therefore, unsuitably be-
lieved that God the Father also was wont to
appear in that manner to mortals.
34. Unless, perhaps, some one shall say,
that the Father is therefore not visible, be-
cause He appeared within the sight of one
who was dreaming; but that therefore the
Son and the Holy Spirit are visible, because
Moses saw all those things being awake; as
if, forsooth, Moses saw the Word and the
Wisdom of God with fleshly eyes, or that
even the human spirit which quickens that
flesh can be seen, or even that corporeal thing
which is called wind; how much less can
that Spirit of God be seen, who transcends
the minds of all men, and of angels, by the
ineffable excellence of the divine substance?
Or can any one fall headlong into such an
error as to dare to say, that the Son and the
Holy Spirit are visible also to men who are
awake, but that the Father is not visible ex-
cept to those who dream ? How, then, do
they understand that of the Father alone,
"Whom no man hath seen, nor can see."?
When men sleep, are they then not men ?
Or cannot He, who can fashion the likeness
of a body to signify Himself through the
visions of dreamers, also fashion that same
bodily creature to signify Himself to the eyes
of those who are awake ? Whereas His own
very substance, whereby He Himself is that
which He is, cannot be shown by any bodily
likeness to one who sleeps, or by any bodily
appearance to one who is awake; but this not
of the Father only, but also of the Son and
of the Holy Spirit. And certainly, as to
those who are moved by the visions of wak-
ing men to believe that not the Father, but
only the Son, or the Holy Spirit, appeared to
the corporeal sight of men, to omit the
great extent of the sacred pages, and their
manifold interpretation, such that no one of
sound reason ought to affirm that the person
of the Father was nowhere shown to the eyes
of waking men by any corporeal appearance;
but, as I said, to omit this, what do they
say of our father Abraham, who was certainly
awake and ministering, when, after Scripture
had premised, " The Lord appeared unto
Abraham," not one, or two, but three men
appeared to him; no one of whom- is said to
have stood prominently above the others, no
one more than the others to have shone with
greater glory, or to have acted more authori-
tatively ? 7
35. Wherefore, since in that our threefold
division we determined to inquire, first,
7 oen. xvm. 1.
8 See above, chap. vii.
54
THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[Book II.
whether the Father, or the Son, or the Holy
Spirit; or whether sometimes the Father,
sometimes the Son, sometimes the Holy-
Spirit; or whether, without any distinction of
persons, as it is said, the one and only God,
that is, the Trinity itself, appeared to the
fathers through those forms of the creature:
now that we have examined, so far as ap-
peared to be sufficient, what places of the
Holy Scriptures we could, a modest and
cautious consideration of divine mysteries
leads, as far as I can judge, to no other con-
clusion, unless that we may not rashly affirm
which person of the Trinity appeared to this
or that of the fathers or the prophets in some
body or likeness of body, unless when the
context attaches to the narrative some proba-
ble intimations on the subject. For the
nature itself, or substance, or essence, or by
whatever other name that very thing, which
is God, whatever it be, is to be called, cannot
be seen corporeally: but we must believe
that by means of the creature made subject
to Him, not only the Son, or the Holy Spirit,
but also the Father, may have given intima-
tions of Himself to mortal senses by a cor-
poreal form or likeness. And since the case
stands thus, that this second book may not
extend to an immoderate length, let us con-
sider what remains in those which follow.
BOOK III.
THE QUESTION IS DISCUSSED WITH RESPECT TO THE APPEARANCES OF GOD SPOKEN OF IN THE
PREVIOUS BOOK, WHICH WERE MADE UNDER BODILY FORMS, WHETHER ONLY A CREATURE
WAS FORMED, FOR THE PURPOSE OF MANIFESTING GOD TO HUMAN SIGHT IN SUCH WAY AS HE
AT EACH TIME JUDGED FITTING; OR WHETHER ANGELS, ALREADY EXISTING, WERE SO SENT
AS TO SPEAK IN THE PERSON OF GOD; AND THIS, EITHER BY ASSUMING A BODILY APPEAR-
ANCE FROM THE BODILY CREATURE, OR BY CHANGING THEIR OWN BODIES INTO WHATEVER
FORMS THEY WOULD, SUITABLE TO THE PARTICULAR ACTION, ACCORDING TO THE POWER
GIVEN TO THEM BY THE CREATOR; WHILE THE ESSENCE ITSELF OF GOD WAS NEVER SEEN IN
ITSELF.
PREFACE. WHY AUGUSTIN WRITES OF THE
TRINITY. WHAT HE CLAIMS FROM READERS.
WHAT HAS BEEN SAID IN THE PREVIOUS BOOK.
i. I would have them believe, who are
willing to do so, that I had rather bestow
labor in reading, than in dictating what others
may read. But let those who will not be-
lieve this, but are both able and willing to
make the trial, grant me whatever answers
may be gathered from reading, either to my
own inquiries, or to those interrogations of
others, which for the character I bear in the
service of Christ, and for the zeal with which
I burn that our faith may be fortified against
the error of carnal and natural men, 1 I must
needs bear with; and then let them see how
easily I would refrain from this labor, and
with how much even of joy I would give my
pen a holiday. But if what we have read
upon these subjects is either not sufficiently
set forth, or is not to be found at all, or at
any rate cannot easily be found by us, in the
Latin tongue, while we are not so familiar
with the Greek tongue as to be found in any
way competent to read and understand there-
in the books that treat of such topics, in which
class of writings, to judge by the little which
has been translated for us, I do not doubt
that everything is contained that we can profit-
1 [The English translator renders " animalium ' by " psychi-
cal," to agree with i|/vxikos in i Cor. ii. 14. The rendering " nat-
ural " of the A. V. is more familiar. W, G. T. S.]
ably seek; 2 while yet I cannot resist my
brethren when they exact of me, by that law
by which I am made their servant, that I
should minister above all to their praiseworthy
studies in Christ by my tongue and by my
pen, of which two yoked together in me, Love
is the charioteer; and while I myself confess
that I have by writing learned many things
which I did not know: if this be so, then this
my labor ought not to seem superfluous to
any idle, or to any very learned reader; while
it is needful in no small part, to many who
are busy, and to many who are unlearned,
and among these last to myself. Supported,
then, very greatly, and aided by the writings
we have already read of others on this sub-
ject, I have undertaken to inquire into and
to discuss, whatever it seems to my judg-
ment can be reverently inquired into and dis-
cussed, concerning the Trinity, the one su-
preme and supremely good God; He himself
exhorting me to the inquiry, and helping me
in the discussion of it; in order that, if there
are no other writings of the kind, there may
be something for those to have and read who
2 [This is an important passage with reference to Augustin's
learning. From it, it would appear that he had not read the
Greek Trinitarians in the original, and that only "a little ' of these
had been translated, at the time when he was composing this
treatise. As this was from A.D. 400 to A.D. 416 , the treatises of
Athanasius(d. 373), Basil (d. 379), Gregory of Nyssa (d. 400?), and
Gregory of Nazianzum (d. 390 ?) had been composed and were cur-
rent in the Eastern church. That Augustin thought out this pro-
found scheme of the doctrine of the Trinity by the close study of
Scripture alone, and unassisted by the equally profound trimtarian-
ism of the Greek church, is an evidence of the depth and strength
of his remarkable intellect. W. G. T. S.]
56
THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[Book III.
are willing and capable; but if any exist al-
ready, then it may be so much the easier to
find some such writings, the more there are
of the kind in existence,
2. Assuredly, as in all my writings I desire
not only a pious reader, but also a free correc-
tor, so I especially desire this in the present
inquiry, which is so important that I would
there were as many inquirers as there are ob-
jectors. But as I do not wish my reader to
be bound down to me, so I do not wish my
corrector to be bound down to himself. Let
not the former love me more than the catho-
lic faith, let not the latter love himself more
than the catholic verity. As I say to the for-
mer, Do not be willing to yield to my writings
as to the canonical Scriptures; but in these,
when thou hast discovered even what thou
didst not previously believe, believe it unhes-
itatingly; while in those, unless thou hast un-
derstood with certainty what thou didst not
before hold as certain, be unwilling to hold it
fast: so I say to the latter, Do not be willing
to amend my writings by thine own opinion or
disputation, but from the divine text, or by
unanswerable reason. If thou apprehendest
anything of truth in them, its being there
does not make it mine, but by understanding
and loving it, let it be both thine and mine;
but if thou convictest anything of falsehood,
though it have once been mine, in that I was
guilty of the error, yet now by avoiding it
let it be neither thine nor mine.
3. Let this third book, then, take its begin-
ning at the point to which the second had
reached. For after we had arrived at this,
that we desired to show that the Son was not
therefore less than the Father, because the
Father sent and the Son was sent; nor the
Holy Spirit therefore less than both, because
we read in the Gospel that He was sent both
by the one and by the other; we undertook
then to inquire, since the Son was sent thither,
where He already was, for He came into the
world, and " was in the world; " * since also
the Holy Spirit was sent thither, where He
already was, for "the Spirit of the Lord filleth
the world, and that which containeth all things
hath knowledge of the voice; " 2 whether the
Lord was therefore "sent" because He was
born in the flesh so as to be no longer hidden,
and, as it were, came forth from the bosom of
the Father, and appeared to the eyes of men
in the form of a servant; and the Holy Spirit
also was therefore " sent," because He too
was seen as a dove in a corporeal form, 3 and
in cloven tongues, like as of fire; 4 so that, to
1 John i. 10.
3 Matt. iii. 16.
2 Wisd. i. 7.
4 Acts ii. 3.
be sent, when spoken of them, means to go
forth to the sight of mortals in some corpo-
real form from a spiritual hiding-place; which,
because the Father did not, He is said only
to have sent, not also to be sent. Our next
inquiry was, Why the Father also is not some-
times said to be sent, if He Himself was mani-
fested through those corporeal forms which
appeared to the eyes of the ancients. But if
the Son was manifested at these times, why
should He be said to be" sent" so long after,
when the fullness of time was come that He
should be born of a woman; 5 since, indeed,
He was sent before also, viz., when He ap-
peared corporeally in those forms ? Or if He
were not rightly said to be " sent," except
when the Word was made flesh; 6 why should
the Holy Spirit be read of as "sent," of
whom such an incarnation never took place ?
But if neither the Father, nor the Son, but
the Holy Spirit was manifested through these
ancient appearances; why should He too be
said to be " sent " now, when He was also sent
before in these various manners ? Next we
subdivided the subject, that it might be hand-
led most carefully, and we made the question
threefold, of which one part was explained in
the second book, and two remain, which I
shall next proceed to discuss. For we have
already inquired and determined, that not only
the Father, nor only the Son, nor only the
Holy Spirit appeared in those ancient corpo-
real forms and visions, but either indifferent-
ly the Lord God, who is understood to be the
Trinity itself, or some one person of the Trin-
ity, whichever the text of the narrative might
signify, through intimations supplied by the
context.
CHAP. I. WHAT IS TO BE SAID THEREUPON.
4. Let us, then, continue our inquiry now
in order. For under the second head in that
division the question occurred, whether the
creature was formed for that work only, where-
in God, in such way as He then judged it to
be fitting, might be manifested to human
sight; or whether angels, who already ex-
isted, were so sent as to speak in the person
of God, assuming a corporeal appearance from
the corporeal creature for the purpose of their
ministry; or else changing and turning their
own body itself, to which they are not subject,
but govern it as subject to themselves, into
whatever forms they would, that were appro-
priate and fit for their actions, according to
the power given to them by the Creator. And
when this part of the question shall have been
investigated, so far as God permit, then, last-
5 Gal. iv. 4.
6 John i. 14.
Chap. II.]
ON THE TRINITY.
57
]y, we shall have to see to that question with
which we started, viz., whether the Son and
the Holy Spirit were also " sent " before; and
if it be so, then what difference there is be-
tween that sending and the one of which we
read in the Gospel; or whether neither of
them were sent, except when either the Son
was made of the Virgin Mary, or when the
Holy Spirit appeared in a visible form, whether
as a dove or in tongues of fire. *
5. 1 confess, however, that it reaches fur-
ther than my purpose can carry me to inquire
whether the angels, secretly working by the
spiritual quality of their body abiding still in
them, assume somewhat from the inferior and
more bodily elements, which, being fitted to
themselves, they may change and turn like a
garment into any corporeal appearances they
will, and those appearances themselves also
real, as real water was changed by our Lord
into real wine; 2 or whether they transform
their own bodies themselves into that which
they would, suitably to the particular act.
But it does not signify to the present question
which of these it is. And although I be not
able to understand these things by actual ex-
perience, seeing that I am a man, as the
angels do who do these things, and know
them better than I know them, viz., how far
my body is changeable by the operation of
my will; whether it be by my own experience of
myself, or by that which I have gathered from
others; yet it is not necessary here to say
which of these alternatives I am to believe
upon the authority of the divine Scriptures,
lest I be compelled to prove it, and so my
discourse become too long upon a subject
which does not concern the present question.
6. Our present inquiry then is, whether the
angels were then the agents both in showing
those bodily appearances to the eyes of men,
and in sounding those words in their ears,
when the sensible creature itself, serving the
Creator at His beck, was turned for the time
into whatever was needful; as it is written in
the book of Wisdom, " For the creature that
serveth Thee, who art the Maker, increaseth
his strength against the unrighteous for their
punishment, and abateth his strength for the
benefit of such as put their trust in Thee.
Therefore, even then was it altered into all
fashions, and was obedient to Thy grace, that
nourisheth all things according to the desire
of them that longed for Thee." 3 For the
power of the will of God reaches through the
spiritual creature even to visible and sensible
effects of the corporeal creature. For where
does not the wisdom of the omnipotent God
1 See above, Book ii. chap. vii. n. 13.
2 John ii. g. 3 Wisd. xvi. 24, 25.
work that which He wills, which " reacheth
from one end to another mightily, and sweet-
ly doth order all things"? 4
CHAP. 2. THE WILL OF GOD IS THE HIGHER
CAUSE OF ALL CORPOREAL CHANGE. THIS IS
SHOWN BY AN EXAMPLE.
7. But there is one kind of natural order
in the conversion and changeableness of
bodies, which, although itself also serves the
bidding of God, yet by reason of its unbroken
continuity has ceased to cause wonder; as is
the case, for instance, with those things which
are changed either in very short, or at any
rate not long, intervals of time, in heaven, or
earth, or sea; whether it be in rising, or in
setting, or in change of appearance from time
to time; while there are other things, which,
although arising from that same order, yet
are less familiar on account of longer inter-
vals of time. And these things, although the
many stupidly wonder at them, yet are un-
derstood by those who inquire into this pres-
ent world, and in the progress of generations
become so much the less wonderful, as they
are the more often repeated and known by
more people. Such are the eclipses of the
sun and moon, and some kinds of stars, ap-
pearing seldom, and earthquakes, and unnat-
ural births of living creatures, and other simi-
lar things; of which not one takes place with-
out the will of God; yet, that it is so, is to
most people not apparent. And so the vanity
of philosophers has found license to assign
these things also to other causes, true causes
perhaps, but proximate ones, while they are not
able to see at all the cause that is higher than
all others, that is, the will of God; or again to
false causes, and to such as are not even put
forward out of any diligent investigation of
corporeal things and motions, but from their
own guess and error.
8. I will bring forward an example, if I can,
that this may be plainer. There is, we know,
in the human body, a certain bulk of flesh and
an outward form, and an arrangement and dis-
tinction of limbs, and a temperament of health ;
and a soul breathed into it governs this body,
and that soul a rational one; which, therefore,
although changeable, yet can be partaker of
that unchangeable wisdom, so that " it may
partake of that which is in and of itself; " 5 as
4 Wisd. viii. 1.
5 [The original is: " ut sit fiarticifiatio ejus in idipsum." The
English translator renders: " So that it may partake thereof in it-
self." The thought of Augustin is, that the believing soul though
mutable partakes of the immutable; and he designates the immut-
able as the iti idipsum: the self-existent. In that striking passage
in the Confessions, in which he describes the spiritual and extatic
meditations of himself and his mother, as they looked out upon
the Mediterranean from the windows at Ostia a scene well known
from Ary Schefer's painting he denominates God the idipsum: the
58
THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[Book III.
it is written in the Psalm concerning all saints,
of whom as of living stones is built that Jeru-
salem which is the mother of us all, eternal in
the heavens. For so it is sung, " Jerusalem
is builded as a city, that is partaker of that
which is in and of itself." 1 For "in and of it-
self," in that place, is understood of that
chiefest and unchangeable good, which is
God, and of His own wisdom and will. To
whom is sung in another place, "Thou shalt
change them, and they shall be changed; but
Thou art the same." 2
CHAP. 3. OF THE SAME ARGUMENT.
Let us take, then, the case of a wise man,
such that his rational soul is already partaker
of the unchangeable and eternal truth, so
that he consults it about all his actions, nor
does anything at all, which he does not by it
know ought to be done, in order that by be-
ing subject to it and obeying it he may do
rightly. Suppose now that this man, upon
counsel with the highest reason of the divine
righteousness, which he hears with the ear of
his heart in secret, and by its bidding, should
weary his body by toil in some office of
mercy, and should contract an illness; and
upon, consulting the physicians, were to be
told by one that the cause of the disease was
overmuch dryness of the body, but by an-
other that it was overmuch moisture; one of
the two no doubt would allege the true cause
and the other would err, but both would pro-
nounce concerning proximate causes only,
that is, corporeal ones. But if the cause of
that dryness were to be inquired into, and
found to be the self-imposed toil, then we
should have come to a yet higher cause,
which proceeds from the soul so as to affect
the body which the soul governs. Yet neither
would this be the first cause, for that doubt-
less was a higher cause still, and lay in the
unchangeable wisdom itself, by serving which
in love, and by obeying its ineffable com-
mands, the soul of the wise man had under-
taken that self-imposed toil; and so nothing
else but the will of God would be found most
truly to be the first cause of that illness.
But suppose now in that office of pious toil
this wise man had employed the help of
others to co-operate in the good work, who
did not serve God with the same will as him-
self, but either desired to attain the reward
of their own carnal desires, or shunned
merely carnal unpleasantnesses ; suppose,
too, he had employed beasts of burden, if the
" self same" (Confessions IX. x). Augustin refers to the same ab-
solute immutability of God, in this place. By faith, man is "a
partaker of a divine nature," (2 Pet. i. 4.) -W.G.T.S."]
1 Ps. cxxii. 3. Vulg. 2 Ps. cii. 26, 27.
completion of the work required such a pro-
vision, which beasts of burden would be cer-
tainly irrational animals, and would not there-
fore move their limbs under their burdens
because they at all thought of that good
work, but from the natural appetite of their
own liking, and for the avoiding of annoyance;
suppose, lastly, he had employed bodily
things themselves that lack all sense, but
were necessary for that work, as e.g. corn,
and wine, and oils, clothes, or money, or a
book, or anything of the kind; certainly, in
all these bodily things thus employed in this
work, whether animate or inanimate, what-
ever took place of movement, of wear and
tear, of reparation, of destruction, of renewal
or of change in one way or another, as
places and times affected them; pray, could
there be, I say, any other cause of all these
visible and changeable facts, except the invisi-
ble and unchangeable will of God, using all
these, both bad and irrational souls, and
lastly bodies, whether such as were inspired
and animated by those souls, or such as
lacked all sense, by means of that upright
soul as the seat of His wisdom, since prima-
rily that good and holy soul itself employed
them, which His wisdom had subjected to
itself in a pious and religious obedience ?
CHAP. 4. GOD USES ALL CREATURES AS HE
WILL, AND MAKES VISIBLE THINGS FOR THE
MANIFESTATION OF HIMSELF
9. What, then, we have alleged by way of
example of a single wise man, although of
one still bearing a mortal body and still see-
ing only in part, may be allowably extended
also to a family, where there is a society of
such men, or to a city, or even to the whole
world, if the chief rule and government of
human affairs were in the hands of the wise,
and of those who were piously and perfectly
subject to God; but because this is not the
case as yet (for it behoves us first to be exer-
cised in this our pilgrimage after mortal
fashion, and to be taught with stripes by
force of gentleness and patience), let us turn
our thoughts to that country itself that is
above and heavenly, from which we here are
pilgrims. For there the will of God, "who
maketh His angels spirits, and His ministers
a flaming fire," 3 presiding among spirits
which are joined in perfect peace and friend-
ship, and combined in one will by a kind of
spiritual fire of charity, as it were in an ele-
vated and holy and secret seat, as in its own
house and in its own temple, thence diffuses
itself through all things by certain most per-
3 Ps. civ. 4.
Chap. V.]
ON THE TRINITY.
59
fectly ordered movements of the creature;
first spiritual, then corporeal; and uses all
according to the unchangeable pleasure of its
own purpose, whether incorporeal things or
things corporeal, whether rational or irra-
tional spirits, whether good by His grace or
evil through their own will. But as the more
gross and inferior bodies are governed in due
order by the more subtle and powerful ones,
so all bodies are governed by the living spirit;
and the living spirit devoid of reason, by the
reasonable living spirit; and the reasonable
living spirit that makes default and sins, by
the living and reasonable spirit that is pious
and just; and that by God Himself, and so
the universal creature by its Creator, from
whom and through whom and in whom it is
also created and established. * And so it
comes to pass that the will of God is the first
and the highest cause of all corporeal appear-
ances and motions. For nothing is done
visibly or sensibly, unless either by command
or permission from the interior palace, invisi-
ble and intelligible, of the supreme Governor,
according to the unspeakable justice of re-
wards and punishments, of favor and retri-
bution, in that far-reaching and boundless
commonwealth of the whole creature.
10. If, therefore, the Apostle Paul, al-
though he still bare the burden of the body,
which is subject to corruption and presseth
down the soul, - and although he still saw
only in part and in an enigma, 3 wishing to
depart and be with Christ, 4 and groaning
within himself, waiting for the adoption, to
wit, the redemption of his body, 5 yet was
able to preach the Lord Jesus Christ signifi-
cantly, in one way by his tongue, in another
by epistle, in another by the sacrament of
His body and blood (since, certainly, we do
not call either the tongue of the apostle, or
the parchments, or the ink, or the significant
sounds which his tongue uttered, or the al-
phabetical signs written on skins, the body
and blood of Christ; but that only which we
take of the fruits of the earth and consecrate
by mystic prayer, and then receive duly to
our spiritual health in memory of the passion
of our Lord for us: and this, although it is
brought by the hands of men to that visible
form, yet is not sanctified to become so great
a sacrament, except by the spirit of God
working invisibly; since God works every-
thing that is done in that work through cor-
poreal movements, by setting in motion
primarily the invisible things of His servants,
whether the souls of men, or the services of
1 Col. i. 16.
4 Phil. i. 23.
- Wisd. ix. 15.
5 Rom. viii. 23.
3 1 Cor. xiii. 12.
hidden spirits subject to Himself): what
wonder if also in the creature of heaven and
earth, of sea and air, God works the sensible
and visible things which He wills, in order
to signify and manifest Himself in them, as
He Himself knows it to be fitting, without
any appearing of His very substance itself,
whereby He is, which is altogether un-
changeable, and more inwardly and secretly
exalted than all spirits whom He has created?
CHAP. 5. WHY MIRACLES ARE NOT USUAL
WORKS.
11. For since the divine power adminis-
ters the whole spiritual and corporeal creature,
the waters of the sea are summoned and
poured out upon the face of the earth on
certain days of every year. But when this
was done at the prayer of the holy Elijah;
because so continued and long a course of
fair weather had gone before, that men were
famished; and because at that very hour, in
which the servant of God prayed, the air it-
self had not, by any moist aspect, put forth
signs of the coming rain; the divine power
was apparent in the great and rapid showers
that followed, and by which that miracle was
granted and dispensed. 6 In like manner,
God works ordinarily through thunders and
lightnings: but because these were wrought
in an unusual manner on Mount Sinai, and
those sounds were not uttered with a confused
noise, but so that it appeared by most sure
proofs that certain intimations were given by
them, they were miracles. 7 Who draws up
the sap through the root of the vine to the
bunch of grapes, and makes the wine, except
God; who, while man plants and waters,
Himself giveth the increase ? s But when, at
the command of the Lord, the water was
turned into wine with an extraordinary quick-
ness, the divine power was made manifest,
by the confession even of the foolish. 9 Who
ordinarily clothes the trees with leaves and
flowers except God ? Yet, when the rod of
Aaron the priest blossomed, the Godhead in
some way conversed with doubting human-
ity. I0 Again, the earthy matter certainly
serves in common to the production and for-
mation both of all kinds of wood and of the
flesh of all animals: and who makes these
things, but He who said, Let the earth bring
them forth; 11 and who governs and guides by
the same word of His, those things which He
has created ? Yet, when He changed the
same matter out of the rod of Moses into the
flesh of a serpent, immediately and quickly,
6 1 Kings xviii. 45.
9 John ii. 9.
7 Ex. xix. 6.
10 Num. xvii.
8 1 Cor. iii. 7.
11 Gen. i. 24.
6o
THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[Book III.
that change, which was unusual, although of a
thing which was changeable, was a miracle. *
But who is it that gives life to every living
thing at its birth, unless He who gave life to
that serpent also for the moment, as there
was need. 2
CHAP. 6. DIVERSITY ALONE MAKES A MIRACLE.
And who is it that restored to the corpses
their proper souls when the dead rose again, 3
unless He who gives life to the flesh in the
mother's womb, in order that they may come
into being who yet are to die? But when
such things happen in a continuous kind of
river of ever-flowing succession, passing from
the hidden to the visible, and from the visible
to the hidden, by a regular and beaten track,
then they are called natural; when, for the
admonition of men, they are thrust in by an
unusual changeableness, then they are called
miracles.
CHAP. 7. GREAT MIRACLES WROUGHT BY
MAGIC ARTS.
12. I see here what may occur to a weak
judgment, namely, why such miracles are
wrought also by magic arts; for the wise men
of Pharaoh likewise made serpents, and did
other like things. Yet it is still more a mat-
ter of wonder, how it was that the power of
those magicians, which was able to make ser-
pents, when it came to very small flies, failed
altogether. For the lice, by which third
plague the proud people of Egypt were
smitten, are very short-lived little flies; yet
there certainly the magicians failed, saying,
"This is the ringer of God." 4 And hence
it is given us to understand that not even
those angels and powers of the air that trans-
gressed, who have been thrust down into that
lowest darkness, as into a peculiar prison,
from their habitation in that lofty ethereal
purity, through whom magic arts have what-
ever power they have, can do anything except
by power given from above. Now that power
is given either to deceive the deceitful, as it
was given against the Egyptians, and against
the magicians also themselves, in order that
in the seducing of those spirits they might
seem admirable by whom they were wrought,
but to be condemned by the truth of God; or
1 Ex. iv. 3.
2 [One chief reason why a miracle is incredible for the skeptic, is
the difficulty of working it. If the miracle were easy of execution
for man who for the skeptic is the measure of power his disbelief
of it would disappear. In reference to this objection, Augustin
calls attention to the fact, that so far as difficulty of performance
is concerned, the products of nature are as impossible to man as
supernatural products. Aaron could no more have made an almond
rod blossom and fructuate on an almond tree, than off it. That a
miracle is difficult to be wrought is, consequently, no good reason
for disbelieving its reality. W.G.T.S.]
3 Ezek. xxxvii. 1-10. 4 Ex. vii. and viii.
for the admonishing of the faithful, lest they
should desire to do anything of the kind as
though it were a great thing, for which reason
they have been handed down to us also by
the authority of Scripture; or lastly, for the
exercising, proving, and manifesting of the
patience of the righteous. For it was not by
any small power of visible miracles that Job
lost all that he had, and both his children
and his bodily health itself. 5
CHAP. 8. GOD ALONE CREATES THOSE THINGS
WHICH ARE CHANGED BY MAGIC ART.
13. Yet it is not on this account to be
thought that the matter of visible things is
subservient to the bidding of those wicked
angels; but rather to that of God, by whom
this power is given, just so far as He, who is
unchangeable, determines in His lofty and
spiritual abode to give it. For water and fire
and earth are subservient even to wicked men,
who are condemned to the mines, in order
that they may do therewith what they will,
but only so far as is permitted. Nor, in
truth, are those evil angels to be called crea-
tors, because by their means the magicians,
withstanding the servant of God, made frogs
and serpents; for it was not they who created
them. But, in truth, some hidden seeds of
all things that are born corporeally and visi-
bly, are concealed in the corporeal elements
of this world. For those seeds that are visi-
ble now to our eyes from fruits and living
things, are quite distinct from the hidden
seeds of those former seeds; from which, at
the bidding of the Creator, the water pro-
duced the first swimming creatures and fowl,
and the earth the first buds after their kind,
and the first living creatures after their kind. 6
For neither at that time were those seeds so
drawn forth into products of their several
kinds, as that the power of production was
exhausted in those products; but oftentimes,
suitable combinations of circumstances are
wanting, whereby they may be enabled to
burst forth and complete their species. For,
consider, the very least shoot is a seed; for,
if fitly consigned to the earth, it produces a
tree. But of this shoot there is a yet more
subtle seed in some grain of the same species,
and this is visible even to us. But of this
grain also there is further still a seed, which,
although we are unable to see it with our
eyes, yet we can conjecture its existence from
our reason; because, except there were some
such power in those elements, there would
not so frequently be produced from the earth
things which had not been sown there; nor
5 Job i. and ii.
6 Gen. i. 20-25.
Chap. VIII.]
ON THE TRINITY.
61
yet so many animals, without any previous
commixture of male and femalej whether on
the land, or in the water, which yet grow,
and by commingling bring forth others, while
themselves sprang up without any union of
parents. And certainly bees do not conceive
the seeds of their young by commixture, but
gather them as they lie scattered over the
earth with their mouth. 1 For the Creator of
these invisible seeds is the Creator of all
things Himself; since whatever comes forth
to our sight by being born, receives the first
beginnings of its course from hidden seeds,
and takes the successive increments of its
proper size and its distinctive forms from
these as it were original rules. As therefore
we do not call .parents the creators of men,
nor farmers the creators of corn, although
it is by the outward application of their actions
that the power 2 of God operates within for
the creating these things; so it is not right
to think not only the bad but even the good
angels to be creators, if, through the subtilty
of their perception and body, they know the
seeds of things which to us are more hidden,
and scatter them secretly through fit temper-
ings of the elements, and so furnish opportu-
nities of producing things, and of accelerating
their increase. But neither do the good
angels do these things, except as far as God
commands, nor do the evil ones do them
wrongfully, except as far as He righteously
permits. For the malignity of the wicked
one makes his own will wrongful; but the
power to do so, he receives rightfully,
whether for his own punishment, or, in the
case of others, for the punishment of the
wicked, or for the praise of the good.
14. Accordingly, the Apostle Paul, distin-
guishing God's creating and forming within,
from the operations of the creature which are
applied from without, and drawing a simili-
tude from agriculture, says, " I planted,
Apollos watered; but God gave the in-
crease." 3 As, therefore, in the case of spir-
itual life itself, no one except God can work
1 [Augustin is not alone in his belief that the bee is an excep-
tion to the dictum; otnne animal ex ovo. As late as 1744, Thorley,
an English " scientist, ' said that " the manner in which bees pro-
pagate their species is entirely hid from the eyes of all men; and
the most strict, diligent, and curious observers and inquisitors have
not been able to discover it. It is a secret, and will remain a mys-
tery. Dr. Butler says that they do not copulate as other living
creatures do." (Thorley : Melisselogia. Section viii.) The obser-
vations of Huber and others have disproved this opinion. Some
infer that ignorance of physics proves ignorance of philosophy and
theology. The difference between matter and mind is so great,
that erroneous opinions in one province are compatible with correct
ones in the other. It does not follow that because Augustin had
wrong notions about bees, and no knowledge at all of the steam en-
gine and telegraph, his knowledge of God and the soul was inferior
to that of a modern materialist. W.G.T.S.]
2 [The English translator renders " virtus " in its secondary
sense of "goodness." Augustin employs it here, in its primary
sense of " energy," " force." W.G.T.S.]
3 1 Cor. iii. 6.
righteousness in our minds, yet men also are
able to preach the gospel as an outward
means, not only the good in sincerity, but
also the evil in pretence; 4 so in the creation
of visible things it is God that works from
within; but the exterior operations, whether
of good or bad, of angels or men, or even of
any kind of animal, according to His own
absolute power, and to the distribution of
faculties, and the several appetites for things
pleasant, which He Himself has imparted,
are applied by Him to that nature of things
wherein He creates all things, in like man-
ner as agriculture is to the soil. Wherefore
I can no more call the bad angels, evoked
by magic arts, the creators of the frogs and
serpents, than I can say that bad men were
creators of the corn crop, which I see to have
sprung up through their labor.
15. Just as Jacob, again, was not the crea-
tor of the colors in the flocks, because he
placed the various colored rods for the several
mothers, as they drank, to look at in con-
ceiving. 5 Yet neither were the cattle them-
selves creators of the variety of their own
offspring, because the variegated image, im-
pressed through their eyes by the sight of
the varied rods, clave to their soul, but could
affect the body that was animated by the
spirit thus affected only through sympathy
with this commingling, so far as to stain with
color the tender beginnings of their offspring.
For that they are so affected from themselves,
whether the soul from the body, or the body
from the soul, arises in truth from suitable
reasons, which immutably exist in that high-
est wisdom of God Himself, which no extent
of place contains; and which, while it is itself
unchangeable, yet quits not one even of those
things which are changeable, because there is
not one of them that is not created by itself.
For it was the unchangeable and invisible
reason of the wisdom of God, by which all
things are created, which caused not rods,
but cattle, to be born from cattle; but that
the color of the cattle conceived should be in
any degree influenced by the variety of the
rods, came to pass through the soul of the
pregnant cattle being affected through their
eyes from without, and so according to its
own measure drawing inwardly within itself
the rule of formation, which it received from
the innermost power of its own Creator. How
great, however, may be the power of the soul
in affecting and changing corporeal substance
(although certainly it cannot be called the
creator of the body, because every cause of
changeable and sensible substance, and all its
4 Phil.
5 Gen. xxx. 41.
62
THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[Book III.
measure and number and weight, by which
are brought to pass both its being at all and
its being of such and such a nature, arise
from the intelligible and unchangeable life,
which is above all things, and which reaches
even to the most distant and earthly things),
is a very copious subject, and one not now
necessary. But I thought the act of Jacob
about the cattle should be noticed, for this
reason, viz. in order that it might be per-
ceived that, if the man who thus placed those
rods cannot be called the creator of the colors
in the lambs and kids; nor yet even the souls
themselves of the mothers, which colored the
seeds conceived in the flesh by the image of
variegated color, conceived through the eyes
of the body, so far as nature permitted it;
much less can it be said that the creators of
the frogs and serpents were the bad angelo,
through whom the magicians of Pharaoh then
made them.
CHAP. 9. THE ORIGINAL CAUSE OF ALL THINGS
IS FROM GOD.
16. For it is one thing to make and admin-
ister the creature from the innermost and
highest turning-point of causation, which He
alone does who is God the Creator; but quite
another thing to apply some operation from
without in proportion to the strength and
faculties assigned to each by Him, so that
what is created may come forth into being at
this time or at that, and in this or that way.
For all these things in the way of original
and beginning have already been created in
a kind of texture of the elements, but they
come forth when they get the opportunity. 1
For as mothers are pregnant with young, so
the world itself is pregnant with the causes of
things that are born; which are not created
in it, except from that highest essence, where
nothing either springs up or dies, either be-
gins to be or ceases. But the applying from
without of adventitious causes, which, although
they are not natural, yet are to be applied
according to nature, in order that those things
which are contained and hidden in the secret
bosom of nature may break forth and be out-
wardly created in some way by the unfolding
of the proper measures and numbers and
weights which they have received in secret
from Him "who has ordered all things in
1 [This is the same as the theological distinction between sub-
stances and their modifications. " The former," says Howe, " are
the proper object of creation strictly taken; the modifications of
things are not properly created, in the strictest sense of creation,
but are educed and brought forth out of those substantial things
that were themselves created, or made out of nothing. ' Germs
are originated ex nihilo, and fall under creation proper; their evo-
lution and development takes place according to the nature and in-
herent force of the germ, and falls under providence, in distinction
from creation. See the writer's Theological Essays, 115-137. W.
G. T. S.]
measure and number and weight:" 2 this is
not only in tlje power of bad angels, but also
of bad men, as I have shown above by the
example of agriculture.
17. But lest the somewhat different condi-
tion of animals should trouble any one, in
that they have the breath of life with the
sense of desiring those things that are ac-
cording to nature, and of avoiding those things
that are contrary to it; we must consider also,
how many men there are who know from what
herbs or flesh, or from what juices or liquids
you please, of whatever sort, whether so
placed or so buried, or so bruised or so
mixed, this or that animal is commonly born;
yet who can be so foolish as to dare to call
himself the creator of these animals ? Is it,
therefore, to be wondered at, if just as any,
the most worthless of men, can know whence
such or such worms and flies are produced;
so the evil angels in proportion to the subtlety
of their perceptions discern in the more hid-
den seeds of the elements whence frogs and
serpents are produced, and so through certain
and known opportune combinations applying
these seeds by secret movements, cause them
to be created, but do not create them ? Only
men do not marvel at those tilings that are
usually done by men. But if any one chance
to wonder at the quickness of those growths,
in that those living beings were so quickly
made, let him consider how even this may be
brought about by men in proportion to the
measure of human capability. For whence is
it that the same bodies generate worms more
quickly in summer than in winter, or in hot-
ter than in colder places ? Only these things
are applied by men with so much the more
difficulty, in proportion as their earthly and
sluggish members are wanting in subtlety of
perception, and in rapidity of bodily motion.
And hence it arises that in the case of any
kind of angels, in proportion as it is easier for
them to draw out the proximate causes from
the elements, so much the more marvellous
is their rapidity in works of this kind.
18. But He only is the creator who is the
chief former of these things. Neither can
any one be this, unless He with whom prima-
rily rests the measure, number, and weight of
all things existing; and He is God the one
Creator, by whose unspeakable power it comes
to pass, also, that what these angels were able
to do if they were permitted, they are there-
fore not able to do because they are not per-
mitted. For there is no other reason why they
who made frogs and serpents were not able
to make the most minute flies, unless because
2 Wisd. xi. 20.
Chap. X.]
ON THE TRINITY.
6
the greater power of God was present prohibit-
ing them, through the Holy Spirit; which
even the magicians themselves confessed, say-
ing, " This is the finger of God." 1 But what
they are able to do by nature, yet cannot do,
because they are prohibited; and what the
very condition of their nature itself does not
suffer them to do; it is difficult, nay, impossi-
ble, for man to search out, unless through
that gift of God which the apostle mentions
when he says, " To another the discerning of
spirits." 2 For we know that a man can walk,
yet that he cannot do so if he is not permitted ;
but that he cannot fly, even if he be permitted.
So those angels, also, are able to do certain
things if they are permitted by more power-
ful angels, according to the supreme com-
mandment of God; but cannot do certain other
things, not even if they are permitted by them;
because He does not permit from whom they
have received such and such a measure of
natural powers : who, even by His angels,
does not usually permit what He has given
them power to be able to do.
19. Excepting, therefore, those corporeal
things which are done in the order of nature
in a perfectly usual series of times, as e.g.,
the rising and setting of the stars, the gener-
ations and deaths of animals, the innumerable
diversities of seeds and buds, the vapors and
the clouds, the snow and the rain, the light-
nings and the thunder, the thunderbolts and
the hail, the winds and the fire, cold and heat,
and all like things; excepting also those which
in the same order of nature occur rarely, such
as eclipses, unusual appearances of stars, and
monsters, and earthquakes, and such like;
all these, I say, are to be excepted, of which
indeed the first and chief cause is only the
will of God; whence also in the Psalm, when
some things of this kind had been mentioned,
"Fire and hail, snow and vapor, stormy wind,"
lest any one should think those to be brought
about either by chance or only from corporeal
causes, or even from such as are spiritual,
but exist apart from the will of God, it is
added immediately, " fulfilling His word." 3
CHAP. IO. IN HOW MANY WAYS THE CREATURE
IS TO BE TAKEN BY WAY OF SIGN. THE
EUCHARIST.
Excepting, therefore, all these things as I
just now said, there are some also of another
kind; which, although from the same corpo-
real substance, are yet brought within reach
of our senses in order to announce something
from God, and these are properly called mira-
1 Ex. vii. 12, and viii. 7, 18, 19.
3 Ps. cxlviii. 8.
2 1 Cor. xii. 10.
cles and signs; yet is not the person of God
Himself assumed in all things which are an-
nounced to us by the Lord God. When, how-
ever, that person is assumed, it is sometimes
made manifest as an angel; sometimes in that
form which is not an angel in his own proper
being, although it is ordered and ministered
by an angel. Again, when it is assumed in
that form which is not an angel in his own
proper being; sometimes in this case it is a
body itself already existing, assumed afte"
some kind of change, in order to make that
message manifest; sometimes it is one that
comes into being for the purpose, and that
being accomplished, is discarded. Just as,
also, when men are the messengers, sometimes
they speak the words of God in their own per-
son, as when it is premised, " The Lord
said," or, "Thus saith the Lord," 4 or any
other such phrase, but sometimes without any
such prefix, they take upon themselves the
very person of God, as e.g.: " I will instruct
thee, and teach thee in the way wherein thou
shalt go: " 5 so, not only in word, but also in
act, the signifying of the person of God is
imposed upon the prophet, in order that he
may bear that person in the ministering of
the prophecy; just as he, for instance, bore
that person who divided his garment into
twelve parts, and gave ten of them to the ser-
vant of King Solomon, to the future king of
Israel. 6 Sometimes, also, a thing which was
not a prophet in his own proper self, and which
existed already among earthly things, was as-
sumed in order to signify this; as Jacob, when
he had seen the dream, upon waking up did
with the stone, which when asleep he had
under his head. 7 Sometimes a thing is made
in the same kind, for the mere purpose; so
as either to continue a little while in exist-
ence, as that brazen serpent was able to do
which was lifted up in the wilderness, 8 and as
written records are able to do likewise; or so
as to pass away after having accomplished its
ministry, as the bread made for the purpose
is consumed in the receiving of the sacrament.
20. But because these things are known to
men, in that they are done by men, they may
well meet with reverence as being holy things,
but they cannot cause wonder as being mira-
cles. And therefore those things which are
done by angels are the more wonderful to us,
in that they are more difficult and more un-
known; but they are known and easy to them
as being their own actions. An angel speaks
in the person of God to man, saying, " I am
the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac,
4 Jer. xxxi. 1, 2.
6 1 Kings xi. 30, 31.
s Num. xxi. 9.
5 Ps. xxxii. 8.
7 Gen. xxviii. iE
<M
THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[Book III.
and the God of Jacob; " the Scripture having
said just before, " The angel of the Lord ap-
peared to him." I And a man also speaks in
the person of God, saying, " Hear. O my
people, and I will testify unto thee, O Israel:
1 am the Lord thy God." 2 A rod was taken
to serve as a sign, and was changed into a ser-
pent by angelical power; 3 but although that
power is wanting to man, yet a stone was taken
also by man for a similar sign. 4 There is a
wide difference between the deed of the angel
and the deed of the man. The former is both
to be wondered at and to be understood, the
latter only to be understood. That which is
understood from both, is perhaps one and the
same; but those things from which it is under-
stood, are different. Just as if the name of
God were written both in gold and in ink; the
former would be the more precious, the latter
the more worthless; yet that which is signified
in both is one and the same. And although
the serpent that came from Moses' rod signi-
fied the same thing as Jacob's stone, yet
Jacob's stone signified something better than
did the serpents of the magicians. For as the
anointing of the stone signified Christ in the
flesh, in which He was anointed with the oil
of gladness above His fellows; 5 so the rod of
Moses, turned into a serpent, signified Christ
Himself made obedient unto death, even the
death of the cross. 6 Whence it is said, '* And
as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilder-
ness, even so must the Son of man be lifted
up, that whosoever believeth in Him should
not perish, but have everlasting life; " 7 just
as by gazing on that serpent which was lifted
up in the wilderness, they did not perish by
the bites of the serpents. For " our old man
is crucified with Him, that the body of sin
might be destroyed." 8 For by the serpent
death is understood, which was wrought by
the serpent in paradise, 9 the mode of speech
expressing the effect by the efficient. There-
fore the rod passed into the serpent, Christ
into death; and the serpent again into the rod,
whole Christ with His body into the resurrec-
tion; which body is the Church; 10 and this
shall be in the end of time, signified by the
tail, which Moses held, in order that it might
return into a rod." But the serpents of the
magicians, like those who are dead in the
world, unless by believing in Christ they shall
have been as it were swallowed up by, 12 and
have entered into, His body, will not be able
to rise again in Him. Jacob's stone, there-
fore, as I said, signified something better than
did the serpents of the magicians; yet the
1 Ex. iii. 6, 2.
4 Gen. xxviii. 18.
7 John iii. 14, 15.
Col. i. 24.
" Ps. lxxxi. 8, ro.
5 Ps. xlv. 7.
8 Rom. vi. 6.
11 Ex. iv. 4.
3 Ex. vii. 10.
6 Phil. ii. 9.
9 Gen. iii.
12 Ex. vii. 12.
deed of the magicians was much more won-
derful. But these things in this way are no
hindrance to the understanding of the matter;
just as if the name of a man were written in
gold, and that of God in ink.
21. What man, again, knows how the angels
made or took those clouds and fires in order
to signify the message they were bearing, even
if we supposed that the Lord or the Holy Spirit
was manifested in those corporeal forms ?
Just as infants do not know of that which is
placed upon the altar and consumed after the
performance of the holy celebration, whence
or in what manner it is made, or whence it is
taken for religious use. And if they were
never to learn from their own experience or
that of others, and never to see that species of
thing except during the celebration of the sac-
rament, when it is being offered and given;
and if it were told them by the most weighty
authority whose body and blood it is; they
will believe nothing else, except that the Lord
absolutely appeared in this form to the eyes
of mortals, and that that liquid actually flowed
from the piercing of a side, 13 which resembled
this. But it is certainly a useful caution to
myself, that I should remember what my own
powers are, and admonish my brethren that
they also remember what theirs are, lest hu-
man infirmity pass on beyond what is safe.
For how the angels do these things, or rather,
how God does these things by His angels, and
how far He wills them to be done even by the
bad angels, whether by permitting, or com-
manding, or compelling, from the hidden seat
of His own supreme power; this I can neither
penetrate by the sight of the eyes, nor make
clear by assurance of reason, nor be carried
on to comprehend it by reach of intellect, so
as to speak thereupon to all questions that
may be asked respecting these matters, as cer-
tainly as if I were an angel, or a prophet, or
an apostle. " For the thoughts of mortal
men are miserable, and our devices are but
uncertain. For the corruptible body presseth
down the soul, and the earthly tabernacle
weigheth down the mind, that museth upon
many things. And hardly do we guess aright
at things that are upon earth, and with labor
do we find the things that are before us; but
the things that are in heaven, who hath
searched out ? " But because it goes onto
say, "And Thy counsel who hath known, ex-
cept Thou give wisdom, and send Thy Holy
Spirit from above;" 14 therefore we refrain in-
deed from searching out the things which are
in heaven, under which kind are contained
both angelical bodies according to their proper
J 3 John xix. 34.
14 Wisd. ix. 14-17.
Chap. 1 1. J
ON THE TRINITY.
65
dignity, and any corporeal action of those
bodies; yet, according to the Spirit of God
sent to us from above, and to His grace im-
parted to our minds, I dare to say confidently,
that neither God the Father, nor His Word,
nor His Spirit, which is the one God, is in any
way changeable in regard to that which He is,
and whereby He is that which He is; and
much less is in this regard visible. Since
there are no doubt some things changeable,
yet not visible, as are our thoughts, and mem-
ories, and wills, and the whole incorporeal
creature; but there is nothing that is visible
that is not also changeable.
CHAP. II. THE ESSENCE OF GOD NEVER AP-
PEARED IN ITSELF. DIVINE APPEARANCES TO
THE FATHERS WROUGHT BY THE MINISTRY OF
ANGELS. AN OBJECTION DRAWN FROM THE
MODE OF SPEECH REMOVED. THAT THE AP-
PEARING OF GOD TO ABRAHAM HIMSELF, JUST
AS THAT TO MOSES, WAS WROUGHT BY AN-
GELS. THE SAME THING IS PROVED BY THE
LAW BEING GIVEN TO MOSES BY ANGELS.
WHAT HAS BEEN SAID IN THIS BOOK, AND
WHAT REMAINS TO BE SAID IN THE NEXT.
Wherefore the substance, or, if it is better
so to say, the essence of God, 1 wherein we
understand, in proportion to our measure, in
however small a degree, the Father, the Son,
and the Holy Spirit, since it is in no way
changeable, can in no way in its proper self be
visible.
22. It is manifest, accordingly, that all
those appearances to the fathers, when God
was presented to them according to His own
dispensation, suitable to the times, were
wrought through the creature. And if we
cannot discern in what manner He wrought
them by ministry of angels, yet we say that
they were wrought by angels; but not from
our own power of discernment, lest we should
seem to any one to be wise beyond our meas-
ure, whereas we are wise so as to think soberly,
as God hath dealt to us the measure of faith; 2
and we believe, and therefore speak. 3 For
the authority is extant of the divine Script-
ures, from which our reason ought not to turn
aside; nor by leaving the solid support of the
divine utterance, to fall headlong over the
precipice of its own surmisings, in matters
wherein neither the perceptions of the body
rule, nor the clear reason of the truth shines
forth. Now, certainly, it is written most
clearly in the Epistle to the Hebrews, when
1 [" Substance," from sul> stans, is a passive term, denoting la-
tent and potential being. " Essence," from esse, is an active
term, denoting energetic being. The schoolmen, as Augustin does
here, preferred the latter term to the former, though employing
both to designate the divine nature. W. G. T. S.]
- Rom. xii. 3. 32 Cor. iv. 13,
the dispensation of the New Testament was to
be distinguished from the dispensation of the
Old, according to the fitness of ages and of
times, that not only those visible things, but
also the word itself, was wrought by angels.
For it is said thus: "But to which of the
angels said He at any time, Sit on my right
hand, until I make thine enemies thy foot-
stool ? Are they not all ministering spirits,
sent forth to minister for them who shall be
heirs of salvation ? " 4 Whence it appears that
all those things were not only wrought by
angels, but wrought also on our account, that
is, on account of the people of God, to whom
is promised the inheritance of eternal life. As
it is written also to the Corinthians, " Now all
these things happened unto them in a figure:
and they are written for our admonition, upon
whom the ends of the world arecome." 5 And
then, demonstrating by plain consequence that
as at that time the word was spoken by the
angels, so now by the Son; " Therefore," he
says, " we ought to give the more earnest heed
to the things which we have heard, lest at any
time we should let them slip. For if the
word spoken by angels was steadfast, and
every transgression and disobedience received
a just recompense of reward; how shall we
escape, if we neglect so great salvation?"
And then, as though you asked, What salva-
tion ? in order to show that he is now speak-
ing of the New Testament, that is, of the word
which was spoken not by angels, but by the
Lord, he says, "Which at the first began to
be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto
us by them that heard Him; God also bear-
ing them witness, both with signs and wonders,
and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy
Ghost, according to His own will." 6
23. But some one may say, Why then is it
written, "The Lord said to Moses;" and
not, rather, The angel said to Moses ? Be-
cause, when the crier proclaims the words of
the judge, it is not usually written in the
record, so and so the crier said, but so and
so the judge. In like manner also, when the
holy prophet speaks, although we say, The
prophet said, we mean nothing else to be un-
derstood than that the Lord said; and if we
were to say, The Lord said, we should not
put the prophet aside, but only intimate who
spake by him. And, indeed, these Scrip-
tures often reveal the angel to be the Lord,
of whose speaking it is from time to time
said, "the Lord said," as we have shown al-
ready. But on account of those who, since
the Scripture in that place specifies an angel,
will have the Son of God Himself and in
4 Heb. i. 13, 14.
5 1 Cor. x. 11.
6 Heb. ii. 1-4.
66
THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[Book III.
Himself to be understood, because He is
called an angel by the prophet, as announcing
the will of His Father and of Himself; I have
therefore thought fit to produce a plainer
testimony from this epistle, where it is not
said by an angel, but " by angels."
24. For Stephen, too, in the Acts of the
Apostles, relates these things in that manner
in which they are also written in the Old
Testament: "Men, brethren, and fathers,
hearken,'-' he says; "The God of glory ap-
peared unto our father Abraham, when he
was in Mesopotamia." 1 But lest any one
should think that the God of glory appeared
then to the eyes of any mortal in that which
He is in Himself, he goes on to say that an
angel appeared to Moses. " Then fled
Moses," he says, "at that saying, and was
a stranger in the land of Midian, where he
begat two sons. And when forty years were
expired, there appeared to him in the wilder-
ness of mount Sinai an angel of the Lord in
a flame of fire in a bush. When Moses saw
it, he wondered at the sight: and as he drew
near to behold it, the voice of the Lord came
unto him, saying, I am the God of thy
fathers, the God of Abraham, and the God
of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. Then
Moses trembled, and durst not behold.
Then said the Lord to him, Put off thy shoes
from thy feet," 2 etc. Here, certainly, he
speaks both of angel and of Lord; and of the
same as the God of Abraham, and the God
of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; as is written
in Genesis.
25. Can there be any one who will say that
the Lord appeared to Moses by an angel,
but to Abraham by Himself ? Let us not
answer this question from Stephen, but from
the book itself, whence Stephen took his
narrative. For, pray, because it is written,
"And the Lord God said unto Abraham; " 3
and a little after, "And the Lord God ap-
peared unto Abraham; " 4 were these things,
for this reason, not done by angels?
Whereas it is said in like manner in another
place, "And the Lord appeared to him in the
plains of Mamre, as he sat in the tent door
in the heat of the day; " and yet it is added
immediately, "And he lift up his eyes and
looked, and, lo, three men stood by him:" 5
of whom we have already spoken. For how
will these people, who either will not rise
from the words to the meaning, or easily
throw themselves down from the meaning to
the words, how, I say, will they be able to
explain that God was seen in three men, ex-
1 Acts vii. 2.
" Ex. ii. 15 and iii. 7, and Acts vii. 29-33.
3 Gen. xii. 1. 4 Gen. xvii. 1.
5 Gen. xviii. 1, 2.
cept they confess that they were angels, as
that which follows also shows ? Because it is
not said an angel spoke or appeared to him,
will they therefore venture to say that the
vision and voice granted to Moses was
wrought by an angel because it is so written,
but that God appeared and spake in His own
substance to Abraham because there is no
mention made of an angel ? What of the
fact, that even in respect to Abraham an
angel is not left unmehtioned ? For when his
son was ordered to be offered up as a sacri-
fice, we read thus: "And it came to pass
after these things that God did tempt Abra-
ham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he
said, Behold, here I am. And He said,
Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac,
whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land
of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt-
offering upon one of the mountains that I will
tell thee of." Certainly God is here men-
tioned, not an angel. But a little afterwards
Scripture hath it thus: "And Abraham
stretched forth his hand, and took the knife
to slay his son. And the angel of the Lord
called unto him out of heaven, and said,
Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I.
And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the
lad, neither do thou anything unto him."
What can be answered to this ? Will they
say that God commanded that Isaac should
be slain, and that an angel forbade it ? and
further, that the father himself, in opposition
to the decree of God, who had commanded
that he should be slain, obeyed the angel,
who had bidden him spare him ? Such an
interpretation is to be rejected as absurd.
Yet not even for it, gross and abject as it is,
does Scripture leave any room, for it imme-
diately adds: ' For now I know that thou
fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld
thy son, thine only son, on account of me." 5
What is "on account of me," except on ac-
count of Him who had commanded him to be
slain? Was then the God of Abraham the
same as the angel, or was it not rather God
by an angel ? Consider what follows. Here,
certainly, already an angel has been most
clearly spoken of; yet notice the context:
"And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked,
and behold behind him a ram caught in a
thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and
took the ram, and offered him up for a
burnt-offering in the stead of his son. And
Abraham called the name of that place, The
Lord saw: 7 as it is said to this day, In the
mount the Lord was seen." 8 Just as that
6 Propter urc.
8 Dominus visus est.
7 Domimis vidit.
Chap. XL]
ON THE TRINITY.
6 7
which a little before God said by an angel,
"For now I know that thou fearest God;"
not because it was to be understood that God
then came to know, but that He brought it
to pass that through God Abraham himself
came to know what strength of heart he had
to obey God, even to the sacrificing of his
only son: after that mode of speech in which
the effect is signified by the efficient, as cold
is said to be sluggish, because it makes men
sluggish; so that He was therefore said to
know, because He had made Abraham him-
self to know, who might well have not dis-
cerned the firmness of his own faith, had it
not been proved by such a trial. So here,
too, Abraham called the name of the place
"The Lord saw," that is, caused Himself to
be seen. For he goes on immediately to
say, "As it is said to this day, In the mount
the Lord was seen." Here you seethe same
angel is called Lord: wherefore, unless be-
cause the Lord spake by the angel ? But if
we pass on to that which follows, the angel
altogether speaks as a prophet, and reveals
expressly that Godj is speaking by the angel.
"And the angel of the Lord," he says,
"called unto Abraham out of heaven the
second time, and said, By myself I have
sworn, saith the Lord; for because thou hast
done this thing, and hast not withheld thy
son, thine only son, on account of me," 1 etc.
Certainly these words, viz. that he by whom
the Lord speaks should say, " Thus saith the
Lord/' are commonly used by the prophets
also. Does the Son of God say of the Father,
" The Lord saith," while He Himself is that
Angel of the Father ? What then ? Do they
not see how hard pressed they are about these
three men who appeared to Abraham, when
it had been said before, " The Lord appeared
to him?" Were they not angels because
they are called men ? Let them read Daniel,
saying, " Behold the man Gabriel." 2
26. But why do we delay any longer to
stop their mouths by another most clear and
most weighty proof, where not an angel in
the singular nor men in the plural are spoken
of, but simply angels; by whom not any par-
ticular word was wrought, but the Law itself
is most distinctly declared to be given; which
certainly none of the faithful doubts that God
gave to Moses for the control of the children
of Israel, or yet, that it was given by angels.
So Stephen speaks: "Ye stiff-necked," he
says, " and uncircumcised in heart and ears,
ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your
fathers did, so do ye. Which of the prophets
have not your fathers persecuted ? and they
1 Gen. xxii.
- Dan. ix. 21.
have slain them which showed before of the
coming of the Just One; of whom ye have
been now the betrayers and murderers: who
have received the Law by the disposition of
angeis, 3 and have not kept it." 4 What is
more evident than this ? What more strong
than such an authority ? The Law, indeed,
was given to that people by the disposition of
angels; but the advent of our Lord Jesus
Christ was by it prepared and pre-announced;
and He Himself, as the Word of God, was in
some wonderful and unspeakable manner in
the angels, by whose disposition the Law
itself was given. And hence He said in the
Gospel, " For had ye believed Moses, ye
would have believed me; for he wrote of
me." 3 Therefore then the Lord was speak-
ing by the angels; and the son of God, who
was to be the Mediator of God and men,
from the seed of Abraham, was preparing
His own advent by the angels, that He might
find some by whom He would be received,
confessing themselves guilty, whom the Law
unfulfilled had made transgressors. And
hence the apostle also says to the Galatians,
" Wherefore then serveth the Law? It was
added because of transgressions, till the seed
should come to whom the promise was made,
which [seed] was ordered 6 through angels in
the hand of a mediator;" 7 that is, ordered
through angels in His own hand. For He
was not born in limitation, but in power. But
you learn in another place that he does not
mean any one of the angels as a mediator,
but the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, in so far
as He deigned to be made man: " For there
is one God," he says, " and one Mediator
between God and man, the man Christ
Jesus." 8 Hence that passover in the killing
of the lamb: 9 hence all those things which are
figuratively spoken in the Law, of Christ to
come in the flesh, and to suffer, but also to
rise again, which Law was given by the dis-
position of angels; in which angels, were cer-
tainly the Father, and the Son, and the Holy
Spirit; and in which, sometimes the Father,
sometimes the Son, sometimes the Holy
Spirit, and sometimes God, without any dis-
tinction of person, was figuratively signified
by them, although appearing in visible and
sensible forms, yet by His own creature, not
by His substance, in order to the seeing of
which, hearts are cleansed through all those
things which are seen by the eyes and heard
by the ears.
27. But now, as I think, that which we had
undertaken to show in this book has been
3 In cdictis angclorum. 4 Acts vii. 51-53.
5 John v. 46. * 6 Disposition. 7 Gal. iii. 19.
8 1 Tim. ii. 5. 9 Ex. xii.
68
THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
Book III.
sufficiently discussed and demonstrated, ac-
cording to our capacity; and it has been es-
tablished, both by probable reason, so far as
a man, or rather, so far as I am able, and by
strength of authority, so far as the divine dec-
larations from the Holy Scriptures have been
made clear, that those words and bodily ap-
pearances which were given to these ancient
fathers of ours before the incarnation of the
Saviour, when God was said to appear, were
wrought by angels: whether themselves speak-
ing or doing something in the person of God,
as we have shown that the prophets also were
wont to do, or assuming from the creature
that which they themselves were not, wherein
God might be shown in a figure to men;
which manner of showing also, Scripture
teaches by many examples, that the prophets,
too, did not omit. It remains, therefore, now
for us to consider, since both in the Lord
as born of a virgin, and in the Holy Spirit de-
scending in a corporeal form like a dove. J
1 Matt. iii. 16.
and in the tongues like as of fire, which ap-
peared with a sound from heaven on the day
of Pentecost, after the ascension of the Lord, 2
it was not the Word of God Himself by His
own substance, in which He is equal and co-
eternal with the Father, nor the Spirit of the
Father and of the Son by His own substance,
in which He Himself also is equal and co-
eternal with both, but assuredly a creature,
such as could be formed and exist in these
fashions, which appeared to corporeal and
mortal senses, it remains, I say, to consider
what difference there is between these mani-
festations and those which were proper to the
Son of God and to the Holy Spirit, although
wrought by the visible creature; 3 which sub-
ject we shall more conveniently begin in an-
other book.
2 Acts ii. 1-4.
3 [The reference here is to the difference between a theophany.
and an incarnation; already alluded to, in the note on p. 149. W.
G. T. S.]
BOOK IV.
EXPLAINS FOR WHAT THE SON OF GOD WAS SENT, VIZ. THAT BY CHRIST'S DYING FOR SINNERS, WE
WERE TO BE CONVINCED HOW GREAT IS GOD'S LOVE FOR US, AND ALSO WHAT MANNER OF
MEN WE ARE WHOM HE LOVED. THAT THE WORD CAME IN THE FLESH, TO THE PURPOSE
ALSO OF ENABLING US TO BE SO CLEANSED AS TO CONTEMPLATE AND CLEAVE TO GOD. THAT
OUR DOUBLE DEATH WAS ABOLISHED BY HIS DEATH, BEING ONE AND SINGLE. AND HERE-
UPON IS DISCUSSED, HOW THE SINGLE OF OUR SAVIOUR HARMONIZES TO SALVATION WITH
OUR DOUBLE; AND THE PERFECTION IS TREATED AT LENGTH OF THE SENARY NUMBER, TO
WHICH THE RATIO ITSELF OF SINGLE TO DOUBLE IS REDUCIBLE. THAT ALL ARE GATHERED
TOGETHER FROM MANY INTO ONE BY THE ONE MEDIATOR OF LIFE, VIZ. CHRIST, THROUGH
WHOM ALONE IS WROUGHT THE TRUE CLEANSING OF THE SOUL. FURTHER IT IS DEMON-
STRATED THAT THE SQN OF GOD, ALTHOUGH MADE LESS BY BEING SENT, ON ACCOUNT OF
THE FORM OF A SERVANT WHICH HE TOOK, IS NOT THEREFORE LESS THAN THE FATHER AC-
CORDING TO THE FORM OF GOD, BECAUSE HE WAS SENT BY HIMSELF: AND THAT THE SAME
ACCOUNT IS TO BE GIVEN OF THE SENDING OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.
PREFACE. THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD IS TO BE
SOUGHT FROM GOD.
i. The knowledge of things terrestrial
and celestial is commonly thought much of
by men. Yet those doubtless judge better
who prefer to that knowledge, the knowledge
of themselves; and that mind is more praise-
worthy which knows even its own weakness,
than that which, without regard to this,
searches out, and even comes to know, the
ways of the stars, or which holds fast such
knowledge already acquired, while ignorant
of the way by which itself to enter into its
own proper health and strength. But if any
one has already become awake towards God,
kindled by the warmth of the Holy Spirit,
and in the love of God has become vile in
his own eyes; and through wishing, yet not
having strength to come in unto Him, and
through the light He gives, has given heed
to himself, and has found himself, and has
learned that his own filthiness cannot mingle
with His purity; and feels it sweet to weep
and to entreat Him, that again and again He
will have compassion, until he have put off
all his wretchedness; and to pray confidently,
as having already received of free gift the
pledge of salvation through his only Saviour
and Enlightener of man: such an one, so act-
ing, and so lamenting, knowledge does not puff
up, because charity edifieth; 1 for he has pre-
ferred knowledge to knowledge, he has pre-
ferred to know his own weakness, rather than
to know the walls of the world, the foun-
dations of the earth, and the pinnacles of
heaven. And by obtaining this knowledge,
he has obtained also sorrow; 2 but sorrow for
straying away from the desire of reaching his
own proper country, and the Creator of it,
his own blessed God. And if among men
such as these, in the family of Thy Christ,
O Lord my God, I groan among Thy poor,
give me out of Thy bread to answer men who
do not hunger and thirst after righteousness,
but are sated and abound. 3 But it is the vain
image of those things that has sated them,
not Thy truth, which they have repelled and
shrunk from, and so fall into their own van-
ity. I certainly know how many figments
the human heart gives birth to. And what
is my own heart but a human heart ? But I
1 i Cor. viii. i.
2 Eccles. i. 18.
3 Matt. v. 6.
ro
THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[Book IV.
pray the God of my heart, that I may not
vomit forth (eructuem) into these writings any
of these figments for solid truths, but that
there may pass into them only what the breath
of His truth has breathed into me; cast out
though I am from the sight of His eyes, 1 and
striving from afar to return by the way which
the divinity of His only-begotten Son has
made by His humanity. And this truth,
changeable though I am, I so far drink in, as
far as in it I see nothing changeable: neither
in place and time, as is the case with bodies;
nor in time alone, and in a certain sense
place, as with the thoughts of our own spirits;
nor in time alone, and not even in any sem-
blance of place, as with some of the reason-
ings of our own minds. For the essence of
God, whereby He is, has altogether nothing
changeable, neither in eternity, nor in truth,
nor in will; since there truth is eternal, love
eternal; and there love is true, eternity true;
and there eternity is loved, and truth is
loved.
CHAP. I. WE ARE MADE PERFECT BY ACKNOWL-
EDGEMENT OF OUR OWN WEAKNESS. THE IN-
CARNATE WORD DISPELS OUR DARKNESS.
2. But since we are exiled from the un-
changeable joy, yet neither cut off nor torn
away from it so that we should not seek
eternity, truth, blessedness, even in those
changeable and temporal things (for we wish
neither to die, nor to be deceived, nor to be
troubled); visions have been sent to us from
heaven suitable to our state of pilgrimage, in
order to remind us that what we seek is not
here, but that from this pilgrimage we must
return thither, whence unless we originated
we should not here seek these things. And
first we have had to be persuaded how much
God loved us, lest from despair we should not
dare to look up to Him. And we needed
to be shown also what manner of men we are
whom He loved, lest being proud, as if of
our own merits, we should recede the more
from Him, and fail the more in our own
strength. And hence He so dealt with us,
that we might the rather profit by His strength,
and that so in the weakness of humility the
virtue of charity might be perfected. And
this is intimated in the Psalm, where it is
said, "Thou, O God, didst send a spontane-
ous rain, whereby Thou didst make Thine
inheritance perfect, when it was weary." 2
For by "spontaneous rain " nothing else is
meant than grace, not rendered to merit, but
given freely, 3 whence also it is called grace;
1 PS. XXXI. 22.
3 Gratis.
2 Ps. lxviii. 9. Pluviam voluntariam.
for He gave it, not because we were worthy,,
but because He willed. And knowing this,
we shall not trust in ourselves; and this is to
be made " weak." But He Himself makes us
perfect, who says also to the Apostle Paul,
' My grace is sufficient for thee, for my
strength is made perfect in weakness." 4
Man, then, was to be persuaded how much
God loved us, and what manner of men we
were whom He loved; the former, lest we
should despair; the latter, lest we should be
proud. And this most necessary topic the apos-
tle thus explains: " But God commendeth,"
he says, " His love towards us, in that, while
we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
Much more then, being now justified by His
blood, we shall be saved from wrath through
Him. For if, when we were enemies, we
were reconciled to God by the death of His
Son; much more, being reconciled, we shall
be saved by His life. " 5 Also in another
place: " What," he says, " shall we then say
to these things ? If God be for us, who can
be against us ? He that spared not His own
Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how
has He not with Him also freely given us all
things?" 6 Now that which is declared to
us as already done, was shown also to the
ancient righteous as about to be done; that
through the same faith they themselves also
might be humbled, and so made weak; and
might be made weak, and so perfected.
3. Because therefore the Word of God is
One, by which all things were made, which is
the unchangeable truth, all things are simul-
taneously therein, potentially and unchangea-
bly; not only those things which are now in
this whole creation, but also those which have
been and those which shall be. And therein
they neither have been, nor shall be, but
only arc; and all things are life, and all
things are one; or rather it is one being and
one life. For all things were so made by
Him, that whatsoever was made in them was
not made in Him, but was life in Him.
Since," in the beginning," the Word was not
made, but " the Word was with God, and the
Word was God, and all things were made by
Him; " neither had all things been made by
Him, unless He had Himself been before all
things and not made. But in those things
which were made by Him, even body, which
is not life, would not have been made by
Him, except it had been life in Him before it
was made. For "that which was made was
already life in Him; " and not life of any
kind soever: for the soul also is the life of
the body, but this too is made, for it is
4 2 Cor. xii. 0.
6 Rom. viii. 31
5 Rom. v. 8-10. Dona'jit.
32.
Chap. III.]
ON THE TRINITY
71
changeable; and by what was it made, except
by the unchangeable Word of God ? For
"all things were made by Him; and without
Him was not anything made that was made."
" What, therefore, was made was already life
in Him; " and not any kind of life, but " the
life [which] was the light of men;" the light
certainly of rational minds, by which men
differ from beasts, and therefore are men.
Therefore not corporeal light, which is the
light of the flesh, whether it shine from
heaven, or whether it be lighted by earthly
fires; nor that of human flesh only, but also
that of beasts, and down even to the minutest
of worms. For all these things see that
light: but that' life was the light of men; nor
is it far from any one of us, for in it "we
live, and move, and have our being." x
CHAP. 2. HOW WE ARE RENDERED APT FOR
THE PERCEPTION OF TRUTH THROUGH THE
INCARNATE WORD.
4. But "the light shineth in darkness, and
the darkness comprehended it not." Now
the " darkness " is the foolish minds of men,
made blind by vicious desires and unbelief.
And that the Word, by whom all things were
made, might care for these and heal them,
" The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among
us." For our enlightening is the partaking
of the Word, namely, of that life which is the
light of men. But for this partaking we were
utterly unfit, and fell short of it, on account
of the uncleanness of sins. Therefore we
were to be cleansed. And further, the one
cleansing of the unrighteous and of the proud
is the blood of the Righteous One, and the
humbling of God Himself; 2 that we might
be cleansed through Him, made as He was
what we are by nature, and what we are not
by sin, that we might contemplate God,
which by nature we are not. For by nature
we are not God: by nature we are men, by
sin we are not righteous. Wherefore God,
made a righteous man, interceded with God
for man the sinner. For the sinner is not
congruous to the righteous, but man is con-
gruous to man. By joining therefore to us
the likeness of His humanity, He took away
the unlikeness of our unrighteousness; and
by being made partaker of our mortality, He
made us partakers of His divinity. For the
death of the sinner springing from the neces-
sity of comdemnation is deservedly abolished
by the death of the Righteous One springing
from the free choice of His compassion, while
His single [death and resurrection] answers
1 Acts xvii. 27, 28.
12
2 John i. 1, 14.
to our double [death and resurrection]. 3 For
this congruity, or suitableness, or concord, or
consonance, or whatever more appropriate
word there may be, whereby one is [united]
to two, is of great weight in all compacting,
or better, perhaps, co-adaptation, of the
creature. For (as it just occurs to me) what
I mean is precisely that co-adaptation which
the Greeks call app-ovia. However this is not
the place to set forth the power of that con-
sonance of single to double which is found
especially in us, and which is naturally so
implanted in us (and by whom, except by
Him who created us?), that not even the ig-
norant can fail to perceive it, whether when
singing themselves or hearing others. For
by this it is that treble and bass voices are in
harmony, so that any one who in his note
departs from it, offends extremely, not only
trained skill, of which the most part of men
are devoid, but the very sense of hearing.
To demonstrate this, needs no doubt a long
discourse; but any one who knows it, may
make it plain to the very ear in a rightly or-
dered monochord.
CHAP. 3. THE ONE DEATH AND RESURRECTION
OF THE BODY OF CHRIST HARMONIZES WITH
OUR DOUBLE DEATH AND RESURRECTION OF
BODY AND SOUL, TO THE EFFECT OF SALVA-
TION. IN WHAT WAY THE SINGLE DEATH OF
CHRIST IS BESTOWED UPON OUR DOUBLE
DEATH.
5. But for our present need we must dis-
cuss, so far as God gives us power, in what
manner the single of our Lord and Saviour
Jesus Christ answers to, and is, so to say, in
harmony with our double to the effect of sal-
vation. We certainly, as no Christian doubts,
are dead both in soul and body: in soul,
because of sin; in body, because of the pun-
ishment of sin, and through this also in body
because of sin. And to both these parts of
ourselves, that is, both to soul and to body,
there was need both of a medicine and of resur-
rection, that what had been changed for the
worse might be renewed for the better. Now
the death of the soul is ungodliness, and the
death of the body is corruptibility, through
which comes also a departure of the soul from
the body. For as the soul dies when God
leaves it, so the body dies when the soul
leaves it; whereby the former becomes fool-
ish, the latter lifeless. For the soul is raised
up again by repentance, and the renewing of
life is begun in the body still mortal by faith,
by which men believe on Him who justi-
3 [This singleness and doubleness is explained in chapter 3.
W. G. T. S.]
72
THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[Book IV.
fies the ungodly; 1 and it is increased and
strengthened by good habits from day to day,
as the inner man is renewed more and more. 2
But the body, being as it were the outward
man, the longer this life lasts is so much the
more corrupted, either by age or by disease,
or by various afflictions, until it come to that
last affliction which all call death. And its
resurrection is delayed until the end; when
also our justification itself shall be perfected
ineffably. For then we shall be like Him,
for we shall see Him as He is. 3 But now, so
long as the corruptible body presseth down
the soul, 4 and human life upon earth is all
temptation, 5 in His sight shall no man living
be justified, 6 in comparison of the righteous-
ness in which we shall be made equd with
the angels, and of the glory which shall be
revealed in us. But why mention more proofs
respecting the difference between the death
of the soul and the death of the body, when
the Lord in one sentence of the Gospel has
made either death easily distinguishable by
any one from the other, where He says, " Let
the dead bury their dead " ? 7 For burial was
the fitting disposal of a dead body. But by
those who were to bury it He meant those
who were dead in soul by the impiety of un-
belief, such, namely, as are awakened when
it is said, "Awake thou that sleepest, and
arise from the dead, and Christ shall, give
thee light." 8 And there is a death which
the apostle denounces, saying of the widow,
"But she that liveth in pleasure is dead
while she liveth." 9 Therefore the soul,
which was before ungodly and is now godly,
is said to have come alive again from the
dead and to live, on account of the righteous-
ness of faith. But the body is not only said
to be about to die, on account of that depar-
ture of the soul which will be; but on account
of the great infirmity of flesh and blood it is
even said to be now dead, in a certain place
in the Scriptures, namely, where the apostle
says, that " the body is dead because of sin,
but the spirit is life because of righteous-
ness." 10 Now this life is wrought by faith,
" since the just shall live by faith," " But
what follows ? " But if the spirit of Him that
raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you,
He that raised up Christ from the dead shall
also quicken your mortal bodies by His Spirit
which dwelleth in you." I2
6. Therefore on this double death of ours
our Saviour bestowed His own single death;
1 Rom. iv. 5.
3 1 John iii. 1.
S Job. vii. 1.
7 Matt. viii. 22.
9 1 Tim. v. 6.
Rom. i. 17.
2 2 Cor. iv. 16.
4 Wisd. ix. 15.
6 Ps. cxliii. 2.
8 Eph. v. 14.
10 Rom. viii. 10.
12 Rom. viii. 10,
and to cause both our resurrections, He ap-
pointed beforehand and set forth in mystery
and type His own one resurrection. For He
was not a sinner or ungodly, that, as though
dead in spirit, He should need to be renewed
in the inner man, and to be recalled as it were
to the life of righteousness by repentance;
but being clothed in mortal flesh, and in that
alone dying, in that alone rising again, in
that alone did He answer to both for us;
since in it was wrought a mystery as regards
the inner man, and a type as regards the
outer. For it was in a mystery as regards
our inner man, so as to signify the death of
our soul, that those words were uttered, not
only in the Psalm, but also on the cross:
" My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken
me ? " I3 To which words the apostle agrees,
saying, " Knowing this, that our old man is
crucified with Him, that the body of sin might
be destroyed, that henceforth we should not
serve sin;" since by the crucifixion of the
inner man are understood the pains of re-
pentance, and a certain wholesome agony
of self-control, by which death the death of
ungodliness is destroyed, and in which death
God has left us. And so the body of sin is
destroyed through such a cross, that now we
should not yield our members as instruments
of unrighteousness unto sin. 14 Because, if
even the inner man certainly is renewed day
by day/ 5 yet undoubtedly it is old before it is
renewed. For that is done inwardly of which
the same apostle speaks: "Put off the old
man, and put on the new;" which he goes
on to explain by saying, " Wherefore, putting
away lying, speak every man truth. " l6 But
where is lying put away, unless inwardly, that
he who speaketh the truth from his heart may
inhabit the holy hill of God ? 17 But the resur-
rection of the body of the Lord is shown to
belong to the mystery of our own inner resur-
rection, where, after He had risen, He says
to the woman, " Touch me not, for I am not
yet ascended to my Father;" 18 with which
mystery the apostle's words agree, where he
says, "If ye then be risen with Christ, seek
those things which are above, where Christ
sitteth on the right hand of God; set your
thoughts 19 on things above." 20 For not to
touch Christ, unless when He had ascended
to the Father, means not to have thoughts 2I
of Christ after a fleshly manner. Again, the
death of the flesh of our Lord contains a type
of the death of our outer man, since it is by
such suffering most of all that He exhorts
'3 Ps. xxii. 1, and Matt, x.xvii. 46.
J 4 Rom. vi. 6, 13. J 5 2 Cor. iv. 16.
16 Eph. iv. 22-25. I7 Ps. xv. 1, 3.
18 Tohn xx. 17. 19 Sapite.
20 Col. iii. 1, 2. 2I Sapere.
Chap. IV.]
ON THE TRINITY.
/ 3
His servants that they should not fear those
who kill the body, but are not able to kill the
soul. 1 Wherefore the apostle says, " That I
may fill up that which is behind of the afflic-
tions of Christ in my flesh."- And the
Tesurrection of the body of the Lord is found
to contain a type of the resurrection of our
outward man, because He says to His disci-
ples, " Handle me, and see; for a spirit hath
not flesh and bones, as ye see me have." 3
And one of the disciples also, handling His
scars, exclaimed, " My Lord and my God! ''*
And whereas the entire integrity of that flesh
was apparent, this was shown in that which
He had said when exhorting His disciples:
" There shall not a hair of your head
perish.'' 5 For how comes it that first is
said, "Touch me not, for I am not yet as-
cended to my Father;" 6 and how comes it
that before He ascends to the Father, He
actually is touched by the disciples; unless
because in the former the mystery of the
inner man was intimated, in the latter a type
was given of the outer man ? Or can any one
possibly be so without understanding, and so
turned away from the truth, as to dare to say
that He was touched by men before He as-
cended, but by women when He had as-
cended ? It was on account of this type,
which went before in the Lord, of our future
resurrection in the body, that the apostle
says, " Christ the first-fruits; afterward they
that are Christ's." 7 For it was the resurrec-
tion of the body to which this place refers,
on account of which he also says, "Who has
changed our vile body, that it may be fash-
ioned like unto His glorious body." 8 The
one death therefore of our Saviour brought
salvation to our double death, and His one
resurrection wrought for us two resurrections;
since His body in both cases, that is, both in
His death and in His resurrection, was min-
istered to us by a kind of healing suitable-
ness, both as a mystery of the inner man,
and as a type of the outer.
CHAP. 4. THE RATIO OF THE SINGLE TO THE
DOUBLE COMES FROM THE PERFECTION OF THE
SENARY NUMBER. THE PERFECTION OF THE
SENARY NUMBER IS COMMENDED IN THE
SCRIPTURES. THE YEAR ABOUNDS IN THE
SENARY NUMBER.
7. Now this ratio of the single to the double
arises, no doubt, from the ternary number,
since one added to two makes three; but the
whole which these make reaches to the senary,
1 Matt. x. 28.
3 Luke xxiv. 39.
5 Luke xxi. 18.
7 1 Cor. xv. 23.
2 Col. i. 24.
4 John xx. 28.
6 John. xx. 17.
8 Phil. iii. 21.
for one and two and three make six. And
this number is on that account called perfect,
because it is completed in its own parts: for
it has these three, sixth, third, and half; nor
is there any other part found in it, which we
can call an aliquot part. The sixth part of
it, then, is one; the third part, two; the half,
three. But one and two and three complete
the same six. And Holy Scripture com-
mends to us the perfection of this number,
especially in this, that God finished His works
in six days, and on the sixth day man was
made in the image of God. 9 And the Son of
God came and was made the Son of man,
that He might re-create us after the image of
God, in the sixth age of the human race.
For that is now the present age, whether a
thousand years apiece are assigned to each
age, or whether we trace out memorable and
remarkable epochs or turning-points of time
in the divine Scriptures, so that the first age
is to be found from Adam until Noah, and the
second thence onwards to Abraham, and then
next, after the division of Matthew the evan-
gelist, from Abraham to David, from David to
the carrying away to Babylon, and from thence
to the travail of the Virgin, 10 which three ages
joined to those other two make five. According-
ly, the nativity of the Lord began the sixth,
which is now going onwards until the hidden
end of time. We recognize also in this senary
number a kind of figure of time, in that
threefold mode of division, by which we
compute one portion of time before the Law;
a second, under the Law; a third, under
grace. In which last time we have received
the sacrament of renewal, that we may be
renewed also in the end of time, in every
part, by the resurrection of the flesh, and so
may be made whole from our entire infirmity,
not only of soul, but also of body. And
thence that woman is understood to be a type
of the church, who was made whole and up-
right by the Lord, after she had been bowed
by infirmity through the binding of Satan.
For those words of the Psalm lament such
hidden enemies: "They bowed down my
soul." 11 And this woman had her infirmity
eighteen years, which is thrice six. And the
months of eighteen years are found in num-
ber to be the cube of six, viz. six times six
times six. Nearly, too, in the same place in
the Gospel is that fig tree, which was con-
victed also by the third year of its miserable
barrenness. But intercession was made for
it, that it might be let alone that year, that
year, that if it bore fruit, well; if otherwise,
it should be cut down. 12 For both three years
9 Gen. i. 27.
" Ps. lvii. 6.
10 Matt. i. 17.
12 Luke xiii. 6-17.
74
THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[Book IV.
belong to the same threefold division, and
the months of three years make the square
of six, which is six times six.
8. A single year also, if the whole twelve
months are taken into account, which are
made up of thirty days each (for the month
that has been kept from of old is that which
the revolution of the moon determines),
abounds in the number six. For that which
six is, in the first order of numbers, which
consists of units up to ten, that sixty is in
the second order, which consists of tens up
to a hundred. Sixty days, then, are a sixth
part of the year. Further, if that which
stands as the sixth of the second order is
multiplied by the sixth of the first order,
then we make six times sixty, i.e. three hun-
dred and sixty days, which are the whole
twelve months. But since, as the revolution
of the moon determines the month for men,
so the year is marked by the revolution of
the sun; and five days and a quarter of a day
remain, that the sun may fulfill its course and
end the year; for four quarters make one
day, which must be intercalated in every
fourth year, which they call bissextile, that
the order of time may not be disturbed: if
we consider, also, these five days and a quar-
ter themselves, the number six prevails in
them. First, because, as it is usual to com-
pute the whole from a part, we must not call
it five days, but rather six, taking the quarter
days for one day. Next, because five days
themselves are the sixth part of a month;
while the quarter of a day contains six hours.
For the entire day, i.e. including its night, is
twenty-four hours, of which the fourth part,
which is a quarter of a day, is found to be six
hours. So much in the course of the year
does the sixth number prevail.
CHAP. 5. THE NUMBER SIX IS ALSO COMMEND-
ED IN THE BUILDING UP OF THE BODY OF
CHRIST AND OF THE TEMPLE AT JERUSALEM.
9. And not without reason is the number
six understood to be put for a year in the
building up of the body of the Lord, as a
figure of which He said that He would raise
up in three days the temple destroyed by the
Jews. For they said, " Forty and six years
was this temple in building." 1 And six
times forty-six makes two hundred and
seventy-six. And this number of days com-
pletes nine months and six days, which are
reckoned, as it were, ten months for the
travail of women; not because all come to the
sixth dry after the ninth month, but because
the perfection itself of the body of the Lord
John ii. 20.
is found to have been brought in so many
days to the birth, as the authority of the
church maintains upon the tradition of the
elders. For He is believed to have been
conceived on the 25th of March, upon which
day also He suffered; so the womb of the
Virgin, in which He was conceived, where
no one of mortals was begotten, corresponds
to the new grave in which He was buried,
wherein was never man laid, 2 neither before
nor since. But He was born, according to
tradition, upon December the 25th. If, then
you reckon from that day to this you find two
hundred and seventy- six days which is forty-
six times six. And in this number of years
the temple was built, because in that number
of sixes the body of the Lord was perfected;
which being destroyed by the suffering of
death, He raised again on the third day.
For " He spake this of the temple of His
body," 3 as is declared by the most clear and
solid testimony of the Gospel; where He said,
" For as Jonas was three days and three
nights in the whale's belly, so shall the Son
of man be three days and three nights in the
heart of the earth." 4
CHAP. 6. THE THREE DAYS OF THE RESURREC-
TION, IN WHICH ALSO THE RATIO OF SINGLE
TO DOUBLE IS APPARENT.
10. Scripture again witnesses that the
space of those three days themselves was
not whole and entire, but the first day is
counted as a whole from its last part, and the
third day is itself also counted as a whole
from its first part; but the intervening day,
i.e. the second day, was absolutely a whole
with its twenty-four hours, twelve of the day
and twelve of the night. For He was cruci-
fied first by the voices of the Jews in the third
hour, when it was the sixth day of the week.
Then He hung on the cross itself at the sixth
hour, and yielded up His spirit at the ninth
hour. 5 But He was buried, "now when the
even was come," as the words of the evan-
gelist express it; 6 which means, at the end
of the day. Wheresoever then you begin,
even if some other explanation can be given,
so as not to contradict the Gospel of John, 7
but to understand that He was suspended on
the cross at the third hour, still you cannot
make the first day an entire day. It will be
reckoned then an entire day from its last
part, as the third from its first part. For
the night up to the dawn, when the resurrec-
tion of the Lord was made known, belongs to
the third day; because God (who commanded
2 John xix. 41, 42. 3 John il. 19-21. 4 Matt. xii. 40.
5 Matt, xxvii. 23-50. 6 Mark xv. 42-46. 7 John xix. 14.
Chap. VIII.]
ON THE TRINITY.
75
the light to shine out of darkness, 1 that
through the grace of the New Testament and
the partaking of the resurrection of Christ the
words might be spoken to us " For ye were
sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in
the Lord " -) intimates to us in some way that
the day takes its beginning from the night.
For as the first days of all were reckoned
from light to night, on account of the future
fall of man; 3 so these on account of the
restoration of man, are reckoned from dark-
ness to light. From the hour, then, of His
death to the dawn of the resurrection are forty
hours, counting in also the ninth hour itself.
And with this number agrees also His life
upon earth of forty days after His resurrec-
tion. And this number is most frequently
used in Scripture to express the mystery of
perfection in the fourfold world. For the
number ten has a certain perfection, and that
multiplied by four makes forty. But from
the evening of the burial to the dawn of the
resurrection are thirty-six hours which is six
squared. And this is referred to that ratio
of the single to the double wherein there is
the greatest consonance of co-adaptation.
For twelve added to twenty-four suits the
ratio of single added to double and makes
thirty-six: namely a whole night with a whole
day and a whole night, and this not without
the mystery which I have noticed above.
For not unfitly do we liken the spirit to the
day and the body to the night. For the body
of the Lord in His death and resurrection
was a figure of our spirit and a type of our
body. In this way, then, also that ratio of
the single to the double is apparent in the
thirty-six hours, when twelve are added to
twenty-four. As to the reasons, indeed, why
these numbers are so put in the Holy Script-
ures, other people may trace out other rea-
sons, either such that those which I have
given are to be preferred to them, or such as
are equally probable with mine, or even more
probable than they are; but there is no one
surely so foolish or so absurd as to contend
that they are so put in the Scriptures for no
purpose at all, and that there are no mystical
reasons why those numbers are there men-
tioned. But those reasons which I have here
given, I have either gathered from the au-
thority of the church, according to the tra-
dition of our forefathers, or from the testi-
mony of the divine Scriptures, or from the
nature itself of numbers and of similitudes.
No sober person will decide against reason,
no Christian against the Scriptures, no peace-
able person against the church.
CHAP. 7. IN WHAT MANNER WE ARE GATHERED
FROM MANY INTO ONE THROUGH ONE MEDIA-
TOR.
11. This mystery, this sacrifice, this priest,
this God, before He was sent and came, be-
ing made 0$ a woman of Him, all those
things which appeared to our fathers in a
sacred and mystical way by angelical mira-
cles, or which were done by the fathers them-
selves, were similitudes; in order that every
creature by its acts might speak in some way
of that One who was to be, in whom there
was to be salvation in the recovery of all from
death. For because by the wickedness of
ungodliness we had recoiled and fallen away
in discord from the one true and supreme
God, and had in many things become vain,
being distracted through many things and
cleaving fast to many things; it was needful,
by the decree and command of God in His
mercy, that those same many things should
join in proclaiming the One that should come,
and that One should come so proclaimed by
these many things, and that these many
things should join in witnessing that this One
had come; and that so, freed from the bur-
den of these many things, we should come
to that One, and dead as we were in our souls
by many sins, and destined to die in the flesh
on account of sin
One who, without
, that we should
sin, died in the
ove that
flesh for
us; and by believing in Him now raised again,
and by rising again with Him in the spirit
through faith, that we should be justified by
being made one in the one righteous One;
and that we should not despair of our own
resurrection in the flesh itself, when we con-
sider that the one Head had gone before us
the rrftny members; in whom, being now
cleansed through faith, and then renewed by
sight, and through Him as mediator recon-
ciled to God, we are to' cleave to the One, to
feast upon the One, to continue one.
CHAP. 8. IN WHAT MANNER CHRIST WILLS
THAT ALL SHALL BE ONE IN HIMSELF.
12. So the Son of God Himself, the Word
of God, Himself also the Mediator between
God and men, the Son of man, 4 equal to the
Father through the unity of the Godhead,
and partaker with us by the taking upon
Him of humanity, interceding for us with the
Father in that He was man, 5 yet not conceal-
ing that He was God, one with the Father,
among other things speaks thus: 'Neither
pray I for these alone," He says, "but for
them also which shall believe on me through
their word; that they all may be one; as
1 2 Cor. iv. 6.
3 Gen. i. 4, 5.
2 Eph. v. 8.
4 1 Tim. ii. 5.
5 Rom. viii. 34.
76
THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[Book IV.
Thou, Father, art in me, and I in Thee, that
they also may be one in us: that the world
may believe that Thou hast sent me. And
the glory which Thou gavest me I have
given them; that they may be one, even as
we are one."'
CHAP. 9. THE SAME ARGUMENT CONTINUED.
He did not say, I and they are one thing; 2
although, in that He is the head of the church,
which is His body, 3 He might have said, I
and they are, not one thing, 4 but one per-
son, 5 because the head and the body is one
Christ; but in order to show His own God-
head consubstantial with the Father (for
which reason He says in another place, "I
and my Father are one " 6 ), in His own kind,
that is, in the consubstantial parity of the
same nature, He wills His own to be one, 7
but in Himself; since they could not be so in
themselves, separated as they are one from
another by divers pleasures and desires
and uncleannesses of sin; whence they are
cleansed through the Mediator, that they
may be one 8 in Him, not only through the
same nature in which all become from mortal
men equal to the angels, but also through
the same will most harmoniously conspiring
to the same blessedness, and fused in some
way by the fire of charity into one spirit.
For to this His words come, " That they may
be one, even as we are one; '' namely, that
as the Father and Son are one, not only in
equality of substance, but also in will, so
those also may be one, between whom and
God the Son is mediator, not only in that
they are of the same nature, but also through
the same union of love. And then He goes
on thus to intimate the truth itself, trrat He
is the Mediator, through whom we are recon-
ciled to God, by saying, " I in them, and
Thou in me, that they may be made perfect
in one." 9
CHAP. IO. AS CHRIST IS THE MEDIATOR OF LIFE,
SO THE DEVIL IS THE MEDIATOR OF DEATH.
13. Therein is our true peace and firm
bond of union with our Creator, that we
should be purified and reconciled through
the Mediator of life, as we had been polluted
and alienated, and so had departed from
Him, through the mediator of death. For
as the devil through pride led man through
pride to death; so Christ through lowliness
led back man through obedience to life.
1 John xvii. 20-22.
3 Eph. i. 22, 23.
5 Units.
7 Una m.
9 John xvii. 23.
2 Utiuin.
4 Unit 711.
6 John x. 30; unuin.
8 Unit in.
Since, as the one fell through being lifted up,
and cast down [man] also who consented to
him; so the other was raised up through be-
ing abased, and lifted up [man] also who be-
lieved in Him. For because the 'devil had
not himself come thither whither he had led
the way (inasmuch as he bare indeed in his
ungodliness the death of the spirit, but had
not undergone the death of the flesh, be-
cause he had not assumed the covering of the
flesh), he appeared to man to be a mighty
chief among the legions of devils, through
whom he exercises his reign of deceits; so
puffing up man the more, who is eager for
power more than righteousness, through the
pride of elation, or through false philosophy;
or else entangling him through sacrilegious
rites, in which, while casting down headlong
by deceit and illusion the minds of the more
curious and prouder sort, he holds him cap-
tive also to magical trickery; promising too
the cleansing of the soul, through those initia-
tions which they call zzXzzai, by transform-
ing himself into an angel of light, 10 through
divers machinations in signs and prodigies of
lying.
CHAP. II. MIRACLES WHICH ARE DONE BY DE-
MONS ARE TO BE SPURNED.
14. For it is easy for the most worthless
spirits to do many tilings by means of aerial
bodies, such as to cause wonder to souls
which are weighed down by earthly bodies,
even though they be of the better inclined.
For if earthly bodies themselves, when
trained by a certain skill and practice, ex-
hibit to men so great marvels in theatrical
spectacles, that they who never saw such
things scarcely believe them when told; why
should it be hard for the devil and his angels
to make out of corporeal elements, through
their own aerial bodies, things at which the
flesh marvels; or even by hidden inspirations
to contrive fantastic appearances to the de-
luding of men's senses, whereby to deceive
them, whether awake or asleep, or to drive
them into frenzy? But just as it may hap-
pen that one who is better than they in life
and character may gaze at the most worthless
of men, either walking on a rope, or doing
by various motions of the body many things
difficult of belief, and yet he may not at all
desire to do such things, nor think those men
on that account to be preferred to himself;
so the faithful and pious soul, not only if it
sees, but even if on account of the frailty of
the flesh it shudders at, the miracles of de-
mons, yet will not for that either deplore its
own want of power to do such things, or judge
10 2 Cor. xi. 14.
Chap. XIII.]
ON THE TRINITY.
77
them on this account to be better than itself;
especially since it is in the company of the
holy, who, whether they are men or good
angels, accomplish, through the power of God,
to whom all things are subject, wonders
which are far greater and the very reverse of
deceptive.
CHAP. 12. THE DEVIL THE MEDIATOR OF
DEATH, CHRIST OF LIFE.
15. In no wise therefore are souls cleansed
and reconciled to God by sacrilegious imita-
tions, or curious arts that are impious, or
magical incantations; since the false media-
tor does not translate them to higher things,
but rather blocks and cuts off the way thither
through the affections, malignant in propor-
tion as they are proud, which he inspires into
those of his own company; which are not
able to nourish the wings of virtues so as to
fly upwards, but rather to heap up the weight
of vices so as to press downwards; since the
soul will fall down the more heavily, the
more it seems to itself to have been carried
upwards. Accordingly, as the Magi did
when warned of God, J whom the star led to
adore the low estate of the Lord; so we also
ought to return to our country, not by the
way by which we came, but by another way
which the lowly King has taught, and which
the proud king, the adversary of that lowly
King, cannot block up. For to us, too, that
we may adore the lowly Christ, the " heavens
have declared the glory of God, when their
sound went into all the earth, and their words
to the ends of the world." 2 A way was made
for us to death through sin in Adam. For,
" By one man sin entered into the world, and
death by sin; and so death passed upon all
men, in whom all have sinned." 3 Of this
way the devil was the mediator, the persuader
to sin, and the caster down into death. For
he, too, applied his one death to work out
our double death. Since he indeed died in
the spirit through ungodliness, but certainly
did not die in the flesh: yet both persuaded
us to ungodliness, and thereby brought it to
pass that we deserved to come into the death
of the flesh. We desired therefore the one
through wicked persuasion, the other followed
us by a just condemnation; and therefore it
is written, " God made not death," 4 since He
was not Himself the cause of death; but yet
death was inflicted on the sinner, through
His most just retribution. Just as the judge
inflicts punishment on the guilty; yet it is not
the justice of the judge, but the desert of the
1 Matt. ii. 12.
3 Rom. v. 12 in quo.
2 Ps. xix. 1, 4
4 Wisd. i. 13.
crime, which is the cause of the punishment.
Whither, then, the mediator of death caused
us to pass, yet did not come himself, that is,
to the death of the flesh, there our Lord God
introduced for us the medicine of correction,
which He deserved not, by a hidden and ex-
ceeding mysterious decree of divine and pro-
found justice. In order, therefore, that as by
one man came death, so by one man might
come also the resurrection of the dead; 5 be-
cause men strove more to shun that which
they could not shun, viz. the death of the
flesh, than the death of the spirit, i.e. pun-
ishment more than the desert of punishment
(for not to sin is a thing about which either men
are not solicitous or are too little solicitous;
but not to die, although it be not within reach
of attainment, is yet eagerly sought after);
the Mediator of life, making it plain that
death is not to be feared, which by the condi-
tion of humanity cannot now be escaped, but
rather ungodliness, which can be guarded
against through faith, meets us at the end to
which we have come, but not by the way by
which we came. For we, indeed, came to
death through sin; He through righteousness:
and, therefore, as our death is the punish-
ment of sin, so His death was made a sacri-
fice for sin.
CHAP. 13. THE DEATH OF CHRIST VOLUNTA-
RY. HOW THE MEDIATOR OF LIFE SUBDUED
THE MEDIATOR OF DEATH. HOW THE DEVIL
LEADS HIS OWN TO DESPISE THE DEATH OF
CHRIST.
16. Wherefore, since the spirit is to be pre-
ferred to the body, and the death of the
spirit means that God has left it, but the
death of the body that the spirit has left it;
and since herein lies the punishment in the
death of the body, that the spirit leaves the
body against its will, because it left God will-
ingly; so that, whereas the spirit left God
because it would, it leaves the body although
it would not; nor leaves it when it would,
unless it has offered violence to itself, where-
by the body itself is slain: the spirit of the
Mediator showed how it was through no
punishment of sin that He came to the death
of the flesh, because He did not leave it
against His will, but because He willed, when
He willed, as He willed. For because He is
so commingled [with the flesh] by the Word
of God as to be one, He says: " I have power
to lay down my life, and I have power to take
it again. No man taketh it from me, but I
lay down my life that I might take it again." 6
And, as the Gospel tells us, they who were
5 1 Cor. xv. 21, 22.
6 John x. 17, 18.
7*
THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[Book IV.
present were most astonished at this, that
after that [last] word, in which He set forth
the figure of our sin, He immediately gave
up His spirit. For they who are hung on
the cross are commonly tortured by a pro-
longed death. Whence it was that the legs
of the thieves were broken, in order that they
might die directly, and be taken down from
the cross before the Sabbath. And that He
was found to be dead already, caused won-
der. And it was this also, at which, as we
read, Pilate marvelled, when the body of the
Lord was asked of him for burial. 1
17. Because that deceiver then, who was
a mediator to death for man, and feignedly
puts himself forward as to life, under the
name of cleansing by sacrilegious rites and
sacrifices, by which the proud are led away,
can neither share in our death, nor rise
again from his own: he has indeed been able
to apply his single death to our double one;
but he certainly has not been able to apply a
single resurrection, which should be at once
a mystery of our renewal, and a type of that
waking up which is to be in the end. He
then who being alive in the spirit raised again
His own flesh that was dead, the true Media-
tor of life, has cast out him, who is dead in
the spirit and the mediator of death, from
the spirits of those who believe in Himself,
so'that he should not reign within, but should
assault from without, and yet not prevail.
And to him, too, He offered Himself to be
tempted, in order that He might be also a
mediator to overcome his temptations, not
only by succor, but also by example. But
when the devil, from the first, although striv-
ing through every entrance to creep into His
inward parts, was thrust out, having finished
all his alluring temptation in the wilderness
after the baptism; 2 because, being dead in the
spirit, he forced no entrance into Him who
was alive in the spirit, he betook himself,
through eagerness for the death of man in
any way whatsoever, to effecting that death
which he could, and was permitted to effect
it upon that mortal element which the living
Mediator had received from us. And where
he could do anything, there in every respect
he was conquered; and wherein he received
outwardly the power of slaying the Lord in
the flesh, therein his inward power, by which
he held ourselves, was slain. For it was
brought to pass that the bonds of many sins
in many deaths were loosed, through the one
death of One which no sin had preceded.
Which death, though not due, the Lord there-
fore rendered for us, that the death which
1 Mark xv. 37, 39, 43, 44, and John xix. 30-34.
- Matt. iv. i-ii.
was due might work us no hurt. For He
was not stripped of the flesh by obligation of
any authority, but He stripped Himself. For
doubtless He who was able not to die, if He
would not, did die because He would: and
so He made a show of principalities and
powers, openly triumphing over them in Him-
self. 3 For whereas by His death the one
and most real sacrifice was offered up for us,
whatever fault there was, whence principalities
and powers held us fast as of right to pay
its penalty, He cleansed, abolished, extin-
guished; and by His own resurrection He also
called us whom He predestinated to a new
life; and whom He called, them He justified;
and whom He justified, them He glorified. 4
And so the devil, in that very death of the
flesh, lost man, whom he was possessing as
by an absolute right, seduced as he was by
his own consent, and over whom he ruled,
himself impeded by no corruption of flesh
and blood, through that frailty of man's
mortal body, whence he was both too poor
and too weak; he who was proud in propor-
tion as he was, as it were, both richer and
stronger, ruling over him who was, as it were,
both clothed in rags and full of troubles.
For whither he drove the sinner to fall,
himself not following, there by following he
compelled the Redeemer to descend. And
so the Son of God deigned to become our
friend in the fellowship of death, to which
because he came not, the enemy thought
himself to be better and greater than our T
selves. For our Redeemer says, "Greater
love hath no man than this, that a man lay
down his life for his friends." 5 Wherefore
also the devil thought himself superior to the
Lord Himself, inasmuch as the Lord in His
sufferings yielded to him; for of Him, too, is
understood what is read in the Psalm, " For
Thou hast made Him a little lower than the
angels: " 6 so that He, being Himself put to
death, although innocent, by the unjust one
acting against us as it were by just right,
might by a most just right overcome him, and
so might lead captive the captivity wrought
through sin, 7 and free us from a captivity
that was just on account of sin, by blotting
out the handwriting, and redeeming us who
were to be justified although sinners, through
His own righteous blood unrighteously
poured out.
18. Hence also the devil mocks those who
are his own until this very day, to whom he
presents himself as a false mediator, as though
they would be cleansed or rather entangled
and drowned by his rites, in that he very
3 Col. ii. 15.
6 Ps. viii. 5.
4 Rom. viii. 30.
7 Eph. iv. 8.
5 John xv. 1 j.
Chap. XV.]
ON THE TRINITY.
79
easily persuades the proud to ridicule and
despise the death of Christ, from which the
more he himself is estranged, the more is he
believed by them to be the holier and more
divine. Yet those who have remained with
him are very few, since the nations acknowl-
edge and with pious humility imbibe the price
paid for themselves, and in trust upon it
abandon their enemy, and gather together
to their Redeemer. For the devil does not
know how the most excellent wisdom of God
makes use of both his snares and his fury to
bring about the salvation of His own faithful
ones, beginning from the former end, which
is the beginning of the spiritual creature, even
to the latter end, which is the death of the
body, and so " reaching from the one end to
the other, mightily and sweetly ordering all
things." 1 For wisdom " passeth and goeth
through all things by reason of her pureness,
and no defiled thing can fall into her." 2
And since the devil has nothing to do with
the death of the flesh, whence comes his ex-
ceeding pride, a death of another kind is pre-
pared in the eternal fire of hell, by which not
only the spirits that have earthly, but also
those who have aerial bodies, can be tor-
mented. But proud men, by whom Christ is
despised, because He died, wherein He
bought us with so great a price, 3 both bring
back the former death, and also men, to that
miserable condition of nature, which is de-
rived from the first sin, and will be cast down
-into the latter death with the devil. And
they on this account preferred the devil to
Christ, because the former cast them into
that former death, whither he himself fell not
through the difference of his nature, and
whither on account of them Christ descended
through His great mercy: and yet they do
not hesitate to believe themselves better than
the devils, and do not cease to assail and de-
nounce them with every sort of malediction,
while they know them at any rate to have
nothing to do with the suffering of this kind
of death, on account of which they despise
Christ. Neither will they take into account
that the case may possibly be, that the Word
of God, remaining in Himself, and in Him-
self in no way changeable, may yet, through
the taking upon Him of a lower nature, be
able to suffer somewhat of a lower kind, which
the unclean spirit cannot suffer, because he
has not an earthly body. And so, whereas
they themselves are better than the devils,
yet, because they bear a body of flesh, they
can so die, as the devils certainly cannot
die, who do not bear such a body. They
1 Wisd. viii. i.
; Wisd. vii. 24, 25.
3 1 Cor. vi. 20.
presume much on the deaths of their own
sacrifices, which they do not perceive that
they sacrifice to deceitful and proud spirits;
or if they have come to perceive it, think their
friendship to be of some good to themselves,
treacherous and envious although they are,
whose purpose is bent upon nothing else ex-
cept to hinder our return.
CHAP. 14. CHRIST THE MOST PERFECT VICTIM
FOR CLEANSING OUR FAULTS. IN EVERY SAC-
RIFICE FOUR THINGS ARE TO BE CONSIDERED.
19. They do not understand, that not even
the proudest of spirits themselves could re-
joice in the honor of sacrifices, unless a true
sacrifice was due to the one true God, in
whose stead they desire to be worshipped:
and that this cannot be rightly offered except
by a holy and righteous priest; nor unless
that which is offered be received from those
for whom it is offered; and unless also it be
without fault, so that it may be offered for
cleansing the faulty. This at least all desire
who wisn sacrifice to be offered for themselves
to God. Who then is so righteous and holy
a priest as the only Son of God, who had no
need to purge His own sins by sacrifice, 4
neither original sins, nor those which are
added by human life ? And what could be
so fitly chosen by men to be offered for them
as human flesh ? And what so fit for this
immolation as mortal flesh? And what so
iclean for cleansing the faults of mortal men
as the flesh born in and from the womb of a
virgin, without any infection of carnal con-
cupiscence ? And what could be so accepta-
bly offered and taken, as the flesh of our sac-
rifice, made the body of our priest? In such
wise that, whereas four things are to be con-
sidered in every sacrifice, to whom it is
offered, by whom it is offered, what is offered,
for whom it is offered, the same One and true
Mediator Himself, reconciling us to God by
the sacrifice of peace, might remain one with
Him to whom He offered, might make those
one in Himself for whom He offered, Him-
self might be in one both the offerer and the
offering.
CHAP. 15. THEY ARE PROUD WHO THINK THEY
ARE ABLE, BY THEIR OWN RIGHTEOUSNESS,
TO BE CLEANSED SO AS TO SEE GOD.
20. There are, however, some who think
themselves capable of being cleansed by their
own righteousness, so as to contemplate God,
and to dwell in God; whom their very pride
itself stains above all others. For there is no
4 Heb. vii.
So
THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[Book IV.
sin to which the divine law is more opposed,
and over which that proudest of spirits, who
is a mediator to things below, but a barrier
against things above, receives a greater right
of mastery: unless either his secret snares be
avoided by going another way, or if he rage
openly by means of a sinful people (which
Amalek, being interpreted, means), and for-
bid by fighting the passage to the land of
promise, he be overcome by the cross of the
Lord, which is prefigured by the holding out
of the hands of Moses. 1 For these persons
promise themselves cleansing by their own
righteousness for this reason, because some
of them have been able to penetrate with the
eye of the mind beyond the whole creature,
and to touch, though it be in ever so small
a part, the light of the unchangeable truth; a
thing which they deride many Christians for
being not yet able to do, who, in the mean-
time, live by faith alone. But of what use is
it for the proud man, who on that account is
ashamed to embark upon the ship of wood, 2
to behold from afar his country beyond the
sea? Or how can it hurt the humble man
not to behold it from so great a distance,
when he is actually coming to it by that wood
upon which the other disdains to be borne ?
CHAP. 1 6. THE OLD PHILOSOPHERS ARE NOT
TO BE CONSULTED CONCERNING THE RESUR-
RECTION AND CONCERNING THINGS TO COME.
21. These people also blame us for believ*
ing the resurrection of the flesh, and rather
wish us to believe themselves concerning these
things. As though, because they have been
able to understand the high and unchangeable
substance by the things which are made, 3 for
this reason they had a claim to be consulted
concerning the revolutions of mutable things,
or concerning the connected order of the
ages. For pray, because they dispute most
truly, and persuade us by most certain proofs,
that all things temporal are made after a
science that is eternal, are they therefore
able to see clearly in the matter of this
science itself, or to collect from it, how many
kinds of animals there are, what are the seeds
of each in their beginnings, what measure in
their increase, what numbers run through
their conceptions, births, ages, settings;
what motions in desiring things according to
their nature, and in avoiding the contrary ?
Have they not sought out all these things,
not through that unchangeable wisdom, but
i Ex. xvii. 8-16.
2 [The wood of the cross is meant. One of the ancient symbols
of the church was a ship. W. G. T. S.
3 Rom. i. 20.]
through the actual history of places and times,
or have trusted the written experience of
others ? Wherefore it is the less to be won-
dered at, that they have utterly failed in
searching out the succession of more length-
ened ages, and in finding any goal of that
course, down which, as though down a river,
the human race is sailing, and the transition
thence of each to its own appropriate end.
For these are subjects which historians could
not describe, inasmuch as they are far in the
future, and have been experienced and related
by no one. Nor have those philosophers,
who have profited better than others in that
high and eternal science, been able to grasp
such subjects with the understanding; other-
wise they would not be inquiring as they
could into past things of the kind, such as
are in the province of historians, but rather
would foreknow also things future; and those
who are able to do this are called by them
soothsayers, but by us prophets:
CHAP. 17. IN HOW MANY WAYS THINGS FU-
TURE ARE FOREKNOWN. NEITHER PHILOSO-
PHERS, NOR THOSE WHO WERE DISTINGUISH-
ED AMONG THE ANCIENTS, ARE TO BE CON-
SULTED CONCERNING THE RESURRECTION OF
THE DEAD.
22. although the name of prophets, too,
is not altogether foreign to their writings.
But it makes the greatest possible difference,
whether things future are conjectured by ex-
perience of things past (as physicians also
have committed many things to writing in
the way of foresight, which they themselves
have noted by experience; or as again hus-
bandmen, or sailors, too, foretell many things;
for if such predictions are made a long while
before, they are thought to be divinations),
or whether such things have already started
on their road to come to us, and being seen
coming far off, are announced in proportion
to the acuteness of the sense of those who
see them, by doing which the aerial powers
are thought to divine (just as if a person
from the top of a mountain were to see far
off some one coming, and were to announce
it beforehand to those who dwelt close by in
the plain); or whether they are either fore-
announced to certain men, or are heard by
them and again transmitted to other men, by
means of holy angels, to whom God shows
those things by His Word and His Wisdom,
wherein both things future and things past
consist; or whether the minds of certain men
themselves are so far borne upwards by the
Holy Spirit, as to behold, not through the
angels, but of themselves, the immoveable
Chap. XVIII.
ON THE TRINITY.
8l
causes of things future, in that very highest
pinnacle of the universe itself. [And I say,
behold,] for the aerial powers, too, hear these
things, either by message through angels, or
through men; and hear only so much as He
judges to be fitting, to whom all things are
subject. Many things, too, are foretold by
a kind of instinct and inward impulse of such
as know them not: as Caiaphas did not know
what he said, but being the high priest, he
prophesied. 1
23. Therefore, neither concerning the
successions of ages, nor concerning the re-
surrection of the dead, ought we to consult
those philosophers, who have understood as
much as they could the eternity of the Crea-
tor, in whom "we live, and move, and have
our being.'' 2 Since, knowing God through
those things which are made, they have not
glorified Him as God, neither were thankful;
but professing themselves wise, they became
fools. 3 And whereas they were not fit to fix
the eye of the mind so firmly upon the
eternity of the spiritual and unchangeable
nature, as to be able to see, in the wisdom
itself of the Creator and Governor of the uni-
verse, those revolutions of the ages, which in
that wisdom were already and were always,
but here were about to be so that as yet they
were not; or, again, to see therein those
changes for the better, not of the souls only,
but also of the bodies of men, even to the
perfection of their proper measure; whereas
then, I say, they were in no way fit to see
these things therein, they were not even
judged worthy of receiving any announce-
ment of them by the holy angels; whether
externally through the senses of the body, or
by interior revelations exhibited in the spirit;
as these things actually were manifested to
our fathers, who were gifted with true piety,
and who by foretelling them, obtaining cred-
ence either by present signs, or by events
close at hand, which turned out as they had
foretold, earned authority to be believed re-
specting things remotely future, even to the
end of the world. But the proud and deceit-
ful powers of the air, even if they are found
to have said through their soothsayers some
things of the fellowship and citizenship of the
saints, and of the true Mediator, which they
heard from the holy prophets or the angels,
did so with the purpose of seducing even the
faithful ones of God, if they could, by these
alien truths, to revolt to their own proper
falsehoods. But God did this by those who
knew not what they said, in order that the
truth might sound abroad from all sides, to
1 John xi. 51.
- Acts xvii. 28.
3 Rom. i. 21, 22.
aid the faithful, to be a witness against the
ungodly.
CHAP. 18. THE SON OF GOD BECAME INCAR-
NATE IN ORDER THAT WE BEING CLEANSED
BY FAITH MAY BE RAISED TO THE UN-
CHANGEABLE TRUTH.
24. Since, then, we were not fit to take
hold of things eternal, and since the foulness
of sins weighed us down, which we had con-
tracted by the love of temporal things, and
which were implanted in us as it were natur-
ally, from the root of mortality, it was need-
ful that we should be cleansed. But cleansed
we could not be, so as to be tempered together
with things eternal, except it were through
things temporal, wherewith we were already
tempered together and held fast. For health
is at the opposite extreme from disease; but
the intermediate process of healing does not
lead us to perfect health, unless it has some
congruity with the disease. Things tem-
poral that are useless merely deceive the
sick; things temporal that are useful take up
those that need healing, and pass them on
healed, to things eternal. And the rational
mind, as when cleansed it owes contemplation
to things eternal; so, when needing cleans-
ing, owes faith to things temporal. One
even of those who were formerly esteemed
wise men among the Greeks has said. The
truth stands to faith in the same relation in
which eternity stands to that which has a be-
ginning. And he is no doubt right in saying
so. For what we call temporal, he describes
as having had a beginning. And we also
ourselves come under this kind, not only in
respect to the body, but also in respect to the
changeableness of the soul. For that is not
properly called eternal which undergoes any
degree of change. Therefore, in so far as
we are changeable, in so far we stand apart
from eternity. But life eternal is promised
to us through the truth, from the clear
knowledge of which, again, our faith stands
as far apart as mortality does from eternity.
We then now put faith in things done in time
on our account, and by that faith itself' we
are cleansed; in order that when we have
come to sight, as truth follows faith, so
eternity may follow upon- mortality. And
therefore, since our faith will become truth,
when we have attained to that which is prom-
ised to us who believe: and that which is
promised us is eternal life; and the Truth
(not that which shall come to be according as
our faith shall be, but that truth which is al-
ways, because in it is eternity, the Truth
then) has said, " And this is life eternal, that
82
THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[Book IV.
they might know Thee the only true God, and
Jesus Christ, whom Thou hast sent: " x when
our faith by seeing shall come to be truth,
then eternity shall possess our now changed
mortality. And until this shall take place,
and in order that it may take place, because
we adapt the faith of belief to things which
have a beginning, as in things eternal we hope
for the truth of contemplation, lest the faith
of mortal life should be at discord with the
truth of eternal life, the Truth itself, co-
eternal with the Father, took a beginning
from earth, 2 when the Son of God so came as
to become the Son of man, and to take to
Himself our faith, that He might thereby lead
us on to His own truth, who so undertook our
mortality, as not to lose His own eternity.
For truth stands to faith in the relation in
which eternity stands to that which has a be-
ginning. Therefore, we must needs so be
cleansed, that we may come to have such a
beginning as remains eternal, that we may
not have one beginning in faith, and another
in truth. Neither could we pass to things
eternal from the condition of having a begin-
ning, unless we were transferred, by union of
the eternal to ourselves through our own be-
ginning,' to His own eternity. Therefore our
faith has, in some measure, now followed
thither, whither He in whom we have believed
has ascended; born, 3 dead, risen again, taken
up. Of these four things, we knew the first
two in ourselves. For we know that men
both have a beginning and die. But the re-
maining two, that is, to be raised, and to be
taken up, we rightly hope will be in us, be-
cause we have believed them done in Him.
Since, therefore, in Him that, too, which had
a beginning has passed over to eternity, in
ourselves also it will so pass over, when faith
shall have arrived at truth. For to those who
thus believe, in order that they might remain
in the word of faith, and being thence led on
to the truth, and through that to eternity,
might be freed from death, He speaks thus:
" If ye continue in my word, then are ye my
disciples indeed." And as though they would
ask, With what fruit? He proceeds to say,
"And ye shall know the truth." And again,
as though they would say, Of what good is
truth to mortal men? "And the truth," He
says, "shall make you free." 4 From what,
except from death, from corruption, from
changeableness ? Since truth remains im-
mortal, incorrupt, unchangeable. But true
immortality, true incorruptibility, true un-
changeableness, is eternity itself.
1 John xvii. 3.
3 Onus.
2 Ps. lxxxv. II.
4 John viii. 31. 32.
CHAP. 19. IN WHAT MANNER THE SON WAS
SENT AND PROCLAIMED BEFOREHAND. HOW
IN THE SENDING OF HIS BIRTH IN THE FLESH
HE WAS MADE LESS WITHOUT DETRIMENT TO
HIS EQUALITY WITH THE FATHER.
25. Behold, then, why the Son of God was
sent; nay, rather behold what it is for the
Son of God to be sent. Whatever things they
were which were wrought in time, with a
view to produce faith, whereby we might be
cleansed so as to contemplate truth, in things
that have a beginning, which have been put
forth from eternity, and are referred back to
eternity: these were either testimonies of this
mission, or they were the mission itself of the
Son of God. But some of these testimonies
announced Him beforehand as to come, some
testified that He had come already. For that
He was made a creature by whom the whole
creation was made, must needs find a witness
in the whole creation. For except one were
preached by the sending of many [witnesses]
one would not be bound to, the sending away
of many. And unless there were such testi-
monies as should seem to be great to those
who are lowly, it would not be believed, that
He being great should make men great, who
as lowly was sent to the lowly. For the
heaven and the earth and all things in them
are incomparably greater works of the Son of
God, since all things were made by Him, than
the signs and the portents which broke forth
in testimony of Him. But yet men, in order
that, being lowly, they might believe these
great things to have been wrought by Him,
trembled at those lowly things, as if they had
been great.
26. " When, therefore, the fullness of time
was come, God sent forth His Son, made of
a woman, made under the Law; " 5 to such a
degree lowly, that He was " made; " in this
way therefore sent, in that He was made.
If, therefore, the greater sends the less, we
too, acknowledge Him to have been made
less; and in so far less, in so far as made;
and in so far made, in so far as sent. For
" He sent forth His Son made of a woman."
And yet, because all things were made by
Him, not only before He was made and sent,
but before all things were at all, we confess
the same to be equal to the sender, whom we
call less, as having been sent. In what way,
then, could He be seen by the fathers, when
certain angelical visions were shown to them,
before that fullness of time at which it was
fitting He should be sent, and so before He
was sent, at a time when not yet sent He was
seen as He is equal with the Father? For
S Gal. iv. 4.
Chap. XX.]
ON THE TRINITY.
8
o
how does He say to Philip, by whom He was
certainly seen as by all the rest, and even by
those by whom He was crucified in the flesh,
"Have I been so long time with you, and
yet hast thou not known me, Philip ? he that
hath seen me, hath seen the Father also;''
unless because He was both seen and yet not
seen ? He was seen, as He had been made
in being sent; He was not seen, as by Him
all things were made. Or how does He say
this too, " He that hath my commandments,
and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me;
and he that loveth me shall be loved of my
Father, and I will love him, and will manifest
myself to him," 1 at a time when He was
manifest before the eyes of men; unless be-
cause He was offering that flesh, which the
Word was made in the fullness of time, to
be accepted by our faith; but was keeping-
back the Word itself, by whom all things
were made, to be contemplated in eternity by
the mind when cleansed by faith ?
CHAP. 20. THE SENDER AND THE SENT EQUAL.
WHY THE SON IS SAID TO BE SENT BY THE
FATHER. OF THE MISSION OF THE HOLY
SPIRIT. HOW AND BY WHOM HE WAS SENT.
THE FATHER THE BEGINNING OF THE WHOLE
GODHEAD.
27. But if the Son is said to be sent by the
Father on this account, that the one is the
Father, and the other the Son, this does not
in any manner hinder us from believing the
Son to be equal, and consubstantial, and co-
eternal with the Father, and yet to have been
sent as Son by the Father. Not because the
one is greater, the other less; but because
the one is Father, the other Son; the one be-
getter, the other begotten; the one, He from
whom He is who is sent; the other, He who
is from Him who sends. For the Son is
from the Father, not the Father from the
Son. And according to this manner we can
now understand that the Son is not only said
to have been sent because "the Word was
made flesh," 2 but therefore sent that the
Word might be made flesh, and that He
might perform through His bodily presence
those things which were written; that is, that
not only is He understood to have been sent
as man, which the Word was made but the
Word, too, was sent that it might be made
man; because He was not sent in respect to
any inequality of power, or substance, or any-
thing that in Him was not equal to the Father;
but in respect to this, that the Son is from
the Father, not the Father from the Son; for
the Son is the Word of the Father, which is
1 John xiv. 9, 21.
2 John i. 3, 18, 14.
also called His wisdom. What wonder,
therefore, if He is sent, not because He is
unequal with the Father, but because He is
" a pure emanation (manatid) issuing from
the glory of the Almighty God ? " For there,
that which issues, and that from which it
issues, is of one and the same substance.
For it does not issue as water issues from an
aperture of earth or of stone, but as light
issues from light. For the words, " For she
is the brightness of the everlasting light/'
what else are they than, she is light of ever-
lasting light ? For what is the brightness of
light, except light itself ? and so co-eternal,
with the light, from which the light is. But
it is preferable to say, "the brightness of
light," rather than" the light of light;" lest
that which issues should be thought to be
darker than that from which it issues. For
when one hears of the brightness of light as
being light itself, it is more easy to believe
that the former shines by means of the latter,
than that the latter shines less. But because
there was no need of warning men not to
think that light to be less, which begat the
other (for no heretic ever dared say this,
neither is it to be believed that any one will
dare to do so), Scripture meets that other
thought, whereby that light .which issues
might seem darker than that from which it
issues; and it has removed this surmise by
saying, "It is the brightness of that light,"
namely, of eternal light, and so shows it to
be equal. For if it were less, then it would
be its darkness, not its brightness; but if it
were greater, then it could not issue from
it, for it could not surpass that from which it
is educed. Therefore, because it issues
from it, it is not greater than it is; and be-
cause it is not its darkness, but its brightness,
it is not less than it is: therefore it is equal.
Nor ought this to trouble us, that it is called
a pure emanation issuing from the glory of
the Almighty God, as if itself were not omni-
potent, but an emanation from the Omnipo-
tent; for soon after it is said of it, "And
being but one, she can do all things." 3 But
who is omnipotent, unless He who can do all
things? It is sent,therefore,by Him from whom
it issues; for so she is sought after by him who
loved and desired her. " Send her," he
says, "out of Thy holy heavens, and from
the throne of Thy glory, that, being present,
she may labor with me;" 4 that is, may teach
me to labor [heartily] in order that I may
not labor [irksomely]. For her labors are
virtues. But she is sent in one way that she
may be with man; she has been sent in an-
other way that she herself may be man. For,
3 Wisd, vii. 25-27,
4 Wisd. ix. 10.
34
THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[Book IV.
"entering into holy souls, she maketh them
friends of God and prophets;" 1 so she also
fills the holy angels, and works all things
fitting: for such ministries bv them. - But
when the fullness of time was come, she was
sent, 3 not to fill angels, nor to be an angel,
except in so far as she announced the counsel
of the Father, which was her own also; nor,
again, to be with men or in men, for this too
took place before, both in the fathers and in
the prophets; but that the Word itself should
be made flesh, that is, should be made man.
In which future mystery, when revealed, was
to be the salvation of those wise and holy
men also, who, before He was born of the
Virgin, were born of women; and in which,
when done and made known, is the salvation
of all who believe, and hope, and love. For
this is "the great mystery of godliness,
which 4 was manifest in the flesh, justified in
the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the
Gentiles, believed on in the world, received
up into glory." 5
28. Therefore the Word of God is sent by
Him, of whom He is the Word; He is sent
by Him, from whom He was begotten {gem-
tum); He sends who begot, That is sent
which is begotten. And He is then sent to
each one, when He is apprehended and per-
ceived by each, in so far as He can be appre-
hended and perceived, in proportion to the
comprehension of the rational soul, either
advancing towards God, or already perfect in
God. The Son, therefore, is not properly said
to have been sent in that He is begotten of
the Father; but either in that the Word made
flesh appeared to the world, whence He says,
" I came forth from the Father, and am
come into the world; " 6 or in that from time
to time, He is perceived by the mind of each,
according to the saying, " Send her, that,
being present with me, she may labor with
me." 7 What then is born (natum) from
eternity is eternal, " for it is the brightness
of the everlasting light;" but what is sent
from time to time, is that which is appre-
hended by each. But when the Son of God
was made manifest in the flesh, He was sent
into this world in the fullness of time, made
of a woman. " For after that, in the wisdom
of God, the world by wisdom knew not God "
(since " the light shineth in darkness, and
the darkness comprehended it not"), it
" pleased God by the foolishness of preach-
ing to save them that believe ," 8 and that the
1 Wisd. vii. 27.
- [The allusion is to the Wisdom of Proverbs, and of the Book of
Wisdom, which Augustin regards as canonical, as his frequent ci-
tations show. W. G. T. S.J
3 Gal. iv. 4. 4 Quod, scil. sacrament um.
5 1 Tim. iii. 16.
7 Wisd. ix. 10.
6 John xvi. 28.
1 Cor. i. 21.
Word should be made flesh, and dwell among
us. 9 But when from time to time He comes
forth and is perceived by the mind of each,
He is said indeed to be sent, but not into
this world; for He does not appear sensibly,
that is, He does not present Himself to the
corporeal senses. For we ourselves, too, are
not in this world, in respect to our grasping
with the mind as far as we can that which is
eternal; and the spirits of all the righteous
are not in this world, even of those who are
still living in the flesh, in so far as they have
discernment in things divine. But the Father
is not said to be sent, when from time to
time He is apprehended by any one, for He
has no one of whom to be, or from whom to
proceed; since Wisdom says, " I came out of
the mouth of the Most High," 10 and it is said
of the Holy Spirit, " He proceedeth from the
Father,"" but the Father is from no one.
29. As, therefore, the Father begat, the
Son is begotten; so the Father sent, the Son was
sent. But in like manner as He who begat and
He who was begotten, so both He who sent and
He who was sent, are one, since the Father and
the Son are one. 12 So also the Holy Spirit is
one with them, since these three are one.
For as to be born, in respect to the Son r
means to be from the Father; so to be sent,
in respect to the Son, means to be known to
be from the Father. And as to be the gift
of God in respect to the Holy Spirit, means
to proceed from the Father; so to be sent,
is to be known to proceed from the Father.
Neither can we say that the Holy Spirit does
not also proceed from the Son, for the same
Spirit is not without reason said to be the
Spirit both of the Father and of the Son. IJ
Nor do I see what else He intended to sig-
nify, when He breathed on the face of the
disciples, and said, " Receive ye the Holy
Ghost. " M For that bodily breathing, pro-
ceeding from the body with the feeling of
bodily touching, was not the substance of the
Holy Spirit, but a declaration by a fitting
sign, that the Holy Spirit proceeds not only
from the Father, but also from the Son. For
the veriest of madmen would not say, that it
was one Spirit which He gave when He
breathed on them, and another which Fie
sent after His ascension. 13 For the Spirit of
God is one, the Spirit of the Father and of
the Son, the Holy Spirit, who worketh all in
all. 16 But that He was given twice was cer-
tainly a significant economy, which we will
9 John i. 5, 14.
10 Kcclus. xxiv. 3. Iz John xv. 26. ,2 John x. 30.
'3 [Augustin here, as in previous instances, affirms the procession
of the Spirit from the Father and Son. W. (',. T.S.]
'4 John xx. 22. '5 Aits ii. 1-4.
10 1 Cor. xii. 6.
Chap. XXL]
ON THE TRINITY.
85
discuss in its place, as far as the Lord may
grant. That then which the Lord says,
" Whom I will send unto you from the
Father," 1 shows the Spirit to be both of the
Father and of the Son; because, also, when
He had said, " Whom the Father will send,"
He added also, "in my name." 2 Yet He
did not say, Whom the Father will send from
me, as He said, " Whom / will send unto
you from the Father," showing, namely,
that the Father is the beginning (principium)
of the whole divinity, or if it is better so ex-
pressed, deity. 3 He, therefore, who proceeds
from the Father and from the Son, is re-
ferred back to Him from whom the Son was
born {natus). And that which the evangelist
says, " For the Holy Ghost was not yet given,
because that Jesus was not yet glorified;" 4
how is this to be understood, unless because
the special giving or sending of the Holy
Spirit after the glorification of Christ was to
be such as it had never been before ? For it
was not previously none at all, but it had not
besn such as this. For if the Holy Spirit
was not given before, wherewith were the
prophets who spoke filled ? Whereas the
Scripture plainly says, and shows in many
places, that they spake by the Holy Spirit.
Whereas, also, it is said of John the Baptist,
''And he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost,
even from his mother's womb." And his
father Zacharias is found to have been filled
with the Holy Ghost, so as to say such things
of him. And Mary, too, was filled with the
Holy Ghost, so as to foretell such things of
the Lord, whom she was bearing in her
womb. 5 And Simeon and Anna were filled
with the Holy Spirit, so as to acknowledge
the greatness of the little child Christ. 6 How,
then, was " the Spirit not yet given, since
Jesus was not yet glorified," unless because
that giving, or granting, or mission of the
Holy Spirit was to have a certain speciality
of its own in its very advent, such as never
was before ? For we read nowhere that men
spoke in tongues which they did not know,
John
[The
xv. 26. 2 John xiv. 26.
3 [The term "beginning" is employed " relatively, and not
according to substance," as Augustin says. The Father is " the
beginning of the whole deity," with reference to the personal dis-
tinctions of Father, Son , and Spirit the Son being from the Father,
and the Spirit from Father and Son. The trinitarian relations or
modes of the essence, " begin " with the first person, not the
second or the third. The phrase "whole deity," in the above
statement, is put for "trinity," not for "essence." Augustin
would nut say that the Father is the " beginning (principiutii) of
the divine essence considered abstractly, but only of the essence as
trinal. In this sense, Trinitarian writers denominate the Father
"fans trinitatis" and sometimes "fans deitatis." Turrettin
employs this latter phraseology (iii. xxx. i. 8); so does Owen {Com-
munion with Trinity, Ch. iii.): and Hooker (Polity, v. liv.) But in
this case, the guarding clause of Turretin is to be subjoined:
" fons deitatis, si modus subsistendi spectattti-y The phrase
" fons trinitatis" or " principium trinitatis" is less liable to
be misconceived, and more accurate than "fonsdeitatis, or "prin-
cipum di-itatis."~W. G. T. S.]
4 John vii. 39. 5 Luke i. 15, 41-79. 6 Luke ii. 25-38.
through the Holy Spirit coming upon them;
as happened then, when it was needful that
His coming should be made plain by visible
signs, in order to show that the whole world,
and all nations constituted with different
tongues, should believe in Christ through
the gift of the Holy Spirit, to fulfill that
which is sung in the Psalm, " There is no
speech nor language where their voice is not
heard; their sound is gone out through all
the earth, and their words to the end of the
world." ^
30. Therefore man was united, and in
some sense commingled, with the Word of
God, so as to be One Person, when the full-
ness of time was come, and the Son of God,
made of a woman, was sent into this world,
that He might be also the Son of man for the
sake of the sons of men. And this person
angelic nature could prefigure beforehand, so
as to pre-announce, but could not appropri-
ate, so as to be that person itself.
CHAP. 2 1. OF THE SENSIBLE SHOWING OF THE
HOLY SPIRIT, AND OF THE CO-ETERNITY OF
THE TRINITY. WHAT HAS BEEN SAID, AND
WHAT REMAINS TO BE SAID.
But with respect to the sensible showing
of the Holy Spirit, whether by the shape of
a dove, 8 or by fiery tongues, 9 when the sub-
jected and subservient creature by temporal
motions and forms manifested His substance
co-eternal with the Father and the Son, and
alike with them unchangeable, while it was not
united so as to be one person with Him, as
the flesh was which the Word was made; IO I
do not dare to say that nothing of the kind
was done aforetime. But I would boldly say,
that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, of one
and the same substance, God the Creator, .
the Omnipotent Trinity, work indivisibly;
but that this cannot be indivisibly manifested
by the creature, which is far inferior, and
least of all by the bodily creature: just as
the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit cannot be
named by our words, which certainly are
bodily sounds, except in their own proper in-
tervals of time, divided by a distinct separa-
tion, which intervals the proper syllables of
each word occupy. Since in their proper
substance wherein they are, the three are
one, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy
Spirit, the very same, by no temporal motion,
above the whole creature, without any inter-
val of time and place, and at once one and
the same from eternity to eternity, as it were
eternity itself, which is not without truth
7 Ps. xix. 3, 4.
9 Acts ii. 3.
8 Matt. iii. 16.
10 John i. 14.
86
THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[Book IV.
and charity. But, in my words, the Father,
Son, and Holy Spirit are separated, and can-
not be named at once, and occupy their own
proper places separately invisible letters.
And as, when I name my memory, and intel-
lect, and will, each name refers to each sev-
erally, but yet each is uttered by all three;
for there is no one of these three names that
is not uttered by both my memory and my
intellect and my will together [by the soul as
a whole]; so the Trinity together wrought
both the voice of the Father, and the flesh of
the Son, and the dove of the Holy Spirit,
while each of these things is referred severally
to each person. And by this similitude it is
in some degree discernible, that the Trinity,
which is inseparable in itself, is manifested
separably by the appearance of the visible
creature; and that the operation of the Trin-
ity is also inseparable in each severally of
those things which are said to pertain prop-
erly to the manifesting of either the Father,
or the Son, or the Holy Spirit.
31. If then I am asked, in what manner
either words or sensible forms and appear-
ances were wrought before the incarnation of
the Word of God, which should prefigure it
as about to come, I reply that God wrought
those things by the angels; and this I have
also shown sufficiently, as I think, by testi-
monies of the Holy Scriptures. And if I am
asked how the incarnation itself was brought
to pass, I reply that the Word of God itself
was made flesh, that is, was made man, yet
not turned and changed into that which was
made; but so made, that there should be
there not only the Word of God and the flesh
of man, but also the rational soul of man, and
that this whole should both be called God on
account of God, and man on account of man.
And if this is understood with difficulty, the
mind must be purged by faith, by more and
more abstaining from sins, and by doing good
works, and by praying with the groaning of
holy desires; that by profiting through the
divine help, it may both understand and love.
And if I am asked, how, after the incarnation
of the Word, either a voice of the Father was
produced, or a corporeal appearance by which
the Holy Spirit was manifested: I do not
doubt indeed that this was done through the
creature; but whether only corporeal and
sensible, or whether by the employment also
of the spirit rational or intellectual (for this
is the term by which some choose to call what
the Greeks name voep6), not certainly so as
to form one person (for who could possibly
say that whatever creature it was by which
the voice of the Father sounded, is in such
sense God the Father; or whatever creature
it was by which the Holy Spirit was mani-
fested in the form of a dove, or in fiery
tongues, is in such sense the Holy Spirit, as
the Son of God is that man who was made of
a virgin ?), but only to the ministry of bring-
ing about such intimations as God judged
needful; or whether anything else is to be
understood: is difficult to discover, and not
expedient rashly to affirm. Yet I see not how
those things could have been brought to pass
without the rational or intellectual creature.
But it is not yet the proper place to explain,
as the Lord may give me strength, why I so
think; for the arguments of heretics must first
be discussed and refuted, which they do not
produce from the divine books, but from their
own reasons, and by which, as they think,
they forcibly compel us so to understand the
testimonies of the Scriptures which treat of
the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit,
as they themselves will.
32. But now, as I think, it has been suffi-
ciently shown, that the Son is not therefore less-
because He is sent by the Father, nor the
Holy Spirit less because both the Father sent
Him and the Son. For these things are per-
ceived to be laid down in the Scriptures,
either on account of the visible creature; or
rather on account of commending to our
thoughts the emanation [within the God-
head] ; * but not on account of inequality, or
imparity, or unlikeness of substance; since,
even if God the Father had willed to appear
visibly through the subject creature, yet it
would be most absurd to say that He was sent
either by the Son, whom He begot, or by
the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from Him.
Let this, therefore, be the limit of the present
book. Henceforth in the rest we shall see,
the Lord helping, of what sort are those
crafty arguments of the heretics, and in what
manner they may be confuted.
1 [The original is: ^'propter principi! commendationem"
which the English translator renders: " On account of commend-
in? to our thoughts the principle [of the Godhead]." The techni-
cal use of "principium" is missed. Augustin says that the phrases,
" sending the Son," and " sending the Spirit," have reference to
the " visible creature " through which in the theophanies each was
manifested; but stdl more, to the fact that the Father is the " be-
ginning of the Son, and the Father and Son are the " beginning "
of the Spirit. This fact of a "beginning,' or emanation (manatio)
of one from another, is what is commended to our thoughts. W.
G. T. S.]
BOOK V.
PROCEEDS TO TREAT OF THE ARGUMENTS PUT FORWARD BY THE HERETICS, NOT FROM SCRIPT-
URE, BUT FROM THEIR OWN REASON. THOSE ARE REFUTED, WHO THINK THE SUBSTANCE
OF THE FATHER AND OF THE SON TO BE NOT THE SAME, BECAUSE EVERYTHING PREDICATED
OF GOD IS, IN THEIR OPINION, PREDICATED OF HIM ACCORDING TO SUBSTANCE ; AND THERE-
FORE IT FOLLOWS, THAT TO BEGET AND TO BE BEGOTTEN, OR TO BE BEGOTTEN AND UNBE-
GOTTEN, BEING DIVERSE, ARE DIVERSE SUBSTANCES J WHEREAS IT IS HERE DEMONSTRATED
THAT NOT EVERYTHING PREDICATED OF GOD IS PREDICATED ACCORDING TO SUBSTANCE, IN
SUCH MANNER AS HE IS CALLED GOOD AND GREAT ACCORDING TO SUBSTANCE, OR ANYTHING
ELSE THAT IS PREDICATED OF HIM IN RESPECT TO HIMSELF ; BUT THAT SOME THINGS ARE
ALSO PREDICATED OF HIM RELATIVELY, I. E. NOT IN RESPECT TO HIMSELF, BUT TO SOME-
THING NOT HIMSELF, AS HE IS CALLED FATHER IN RESPECT TO THE SON, AND LORD IN RE-
SPECT TO THE CREATURE THAT SERVETH HIM ; IN WHICH CASE, IF ANYTHING THUS PREDI-
CATED RELATIVELY, I. E. IN RESPECT TO SOMETHING NOT HIMSELF, IS EVEN PREDICATED AS
HAPPENING IN TIME, AS E. G. "LORD, THOU HAST BECOME OUR REFUGE," YET NOTHING
HAPPENS TO GOD SO AS TO WORK A CHANGE IN HIM, BUT HE HIMSELF REMAINS ABSOLUTELY
UNCHANGEABLE IN HIS OWN NATURE OR ESSENCE.
CHAP. I. WHAT THE AUTHOR ENTREATS FROM
GOD, WHAT FROM THE READER. IN GOD
NOTHING IS TO BE THOUGHT CORPOREAL OR
CHANGEABLE.
i. Beginning, as I now do henceforward,
to speak of subjects which cannot altogether
be spoken as they are thought, either by any
man, or, at any rate, not by myself; although
even our very thought, when we think of God
the Trinity, falls (as we feel) very far short
of Him of whom we think, nor comprehends
Him as He is; but He is seen, as it is written,
even by those who are so great as was the
Apostle Paul, "through a glass and in an
enigma:" 1 first, I pray to our Lord God
Himself, of whom we ought always to think,
and of whom we are not able to think
worthily, in praise of whom blessing is at all
times to be rendered, 2 and whom no speech
is sufficient to declare, that He will grant me
both help for understanding and explaining
that which I design, and pardon if in any-
thing I offend. For I bear in mind, not only
1 i Cor. xiii. 12.
13
2 Ps. xxxiv. i.
my desire, but also my infirmity. I ask also
of my readers to pardon me, where they may
perceive me to have had the desire rather
than the power to speak, what they either
understand better themselves, or fail to un-
derstand through the obscurity of my lan-
guage, just as I myself pardon them what
they cannot understand through their own
dullness.
2. And we shall mutually pardon one an-
other the more easily, if we know, or at any
rate firmly believe and hold, that whatever is
said of a nature, unchangeable, invisible and
having life absolutely and sufficient to itself,
must not be measured after the custom of
things visible, and changeable, and mortal, or
not self-sufficient. But although we labor,
and yet fail, to grasp and know even those
things which are within the scope of our cor-
poreal senses, or what we are ourselves in the
inner man; yet it is with no shamelessness
that faithful piety burns after those divine
and unspeakable things which are above:
piety, I say, not inflated by the arrogance of
its own power, but inflamed by the
grace
of
88
THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[Book V.
its Creator and Saviour Himself. For with
what understanding can man apprehend God,
who does not yet apprehend that very under-
standing itself of his own, by which he desires
to apprehend Him ? And if he does already
apprehend this, let him carefully consider
that there is nothing in his own nature better
than it; and let him see whether he can there
see any outlines of forms, or brightness of
colors, or greatness of space, or distance of
parts, or extension of size, or any movements
through intervals of place, or any such thing
at all. Certainly we find nothing of all this
in that, than which we find nothing better in
our own nature, that is, in our own intellect,
by which we apprehend wisdom according to
our capacity. What, therefore, we do not
find in that which is our own best, we ought
not to seek in Him who is far better than
that best of ours; that so we may understand
God, if we are able, and as much as we are
able, as good without quality, great without
quantity, a creator though He lack nothing,
ruling but from no position, sustaining all
things without "having'' them, in His
wholeness everywhere, yet without place,
eternal without time, making things that are
changeable, without change of Himself, and
without passion. Whoso thus thinks of God,
although he cannot yet find out in all ways
what He is, yet piously takes heed, as much
as he is able, to think nothing of Him that
He is not.
CHAP. 2. GOD THE ONLY UNCHANGEABLE ES-
SENCE.
3. He is, however, without doubt, a sub-
stance, or, if it be better so to call it, an
essence, which the Greeks call obcia. For as
wisdom is so called from the being wise, and
knowledge from knowing; so from being 1
comes that which we call essence. And who
is there that is, more than He who said to
His servant Moses, " I am that I am; " and,
" Thus shalt thou say unto the children of
Israel, He who is hath sent me unto you?" 2
But other things that are called essences or
substances admit of accidents, whereby a
change, whether great or small, is produced
in them. But there can be no accident of
this kind in respect to God; and therefore
He who is God is the only unchangeable sub-
stance or essence, to whom certainly being
itself, whence comes the name of essence,
most especially and most truly belongs. For
that which is changed does not retain its own
being; and that which can be changed, al-
though it be not actually changed, is able not
1 Esse.
s Ex. iii. 14.
to be that which it had been; and hence that
which not only is not changed, but also can-
not at all be changed, alone falls most truly,
without difficulty or hesitation, under the
category of being.
CHAP. 3. THE ARGUMENT OF THE ARIANS IS
REFUTED, WHICH IS DRAWN FROM THE WORDS
BEGOTTEN AND UNBEGOTTEN.
4. Wherefore, to being now to answer
the adversaries of our faith, respecting those
things also, which are neither said as they are
thought, nor thought as they really are:
among the many things which the Arians are
wont to dispute against the Catholic faith,
they seem chiefly to set forth this, as their
most crafty device, namely, that whatsoever
is said or understood of God, is said not ac-
cording to accident, but according to sub-
stance: and therefore, to be unbegotten be-
longs to the Father according to substance,
and to be begotten belongs to the Son ac-
cording to substance; but to be unbegotten
and to be begotten are different; therefore
the substance of the Father and that of the
Son are different. To whom we reply, If
whatever is spoken of God is spoken accord-
ing to substance, then that which is said, " I
and the Father are one," 3 is spoken accord-
ing to substance. Therefore there is one
substance of the Father and the Son. Or if
this is not said according to substance, then
something is said of God not according to
substance, and therefore we are no longer
compelled to understand unbegotten and be-
gotten according to substance. It is also
said of the Son, " He thought it not robbery
to be equal with God/' 4 We ask, equal ac-
cording to what? For if He is not said to
be equal according to substance, then they
admit that something may be said of God not
according to substance. Let them admit,
then, that unbegotten and begotten are not
spoken according to substance. And if they
do not admit this, on the ground that they
will have all things to be spoken of God ac-
cording to substance, then the Son is equal
to the Father according to substance.
CHAP. 4. THE ACCIDENTAL ALWAYS IMPLIES
SOME CHANGE IN THE THING.
5. That which is accidental commonly im-
plies that it can be lost by some change of
the thing to which it is an accident. For al-
though some accidents are said to be insepa-
rable, which in Greek are called a-fwpiffra, as
the color black is to the feather of a raven;
3 John x. 30.
4 Phil. ii. 6.
Chap. VI.]
ON THE TRINITY.
89
yet the feather loses that color, not indeed so
long as it is a feather, but because the feather
is not always. Wherefore the matter itself
is changeable; and whenever that animal or
that feather ceases to be, and the whole of
that body is changed and turned into earth,
it loses certainly that color also. Although
the kind of accident which is called separable
may likewise be lost, not by separation, but
by change; as, for instance, blackness is
called a separable accident to the hair of
men, because hair continuing to be hair can
grow white; yet, if carefully considered, it is
sufficiently apparent, that it is not as if any-
thing departed by separation away from the
head when it grows white, as though black-
ness departed thence and went somewhere,
and whiteness came in its place, but that the
quality of color there is turned and changed.
Therefore there is nothing accidental in
God, because there is nothing changeable or
that may be lost. But if you choose to call
that also accidental, which, although it may
not be lost, yet can be decreased or increased,
as, for instance, the life of the soul: for as
long as it is a soul, so long it lives, and be-
cause the soul is always, it always lives; but
because it lives more when it is wise, and less
when it is foolish, here, too, some change
comes to pass, not such that life is absent,
as wisdom is absent to the foolish, but such
that it is less; nothing of this kind, either,
happens to God, because He remains alto-
gether unchangeable.
CHAP. 5. NOTHING IS SPOKEN OF GOD AC-
CORDING TO ACCIDENT, BUT ACCORDING TO
SUBSTANCE OR ACCORDING TO RELATION.
6. Wherefore nothing in Him is said in
respect to accident, since nothing is accidental
to Him, and yet all that is said is not said
according to substance. For in created and
changeable things, that which is not said ac-
cording to substance, must, by necessary
alternative, be said according to accident.
For all things are accidents to them, which
can be either lost or diminished, whether
magnitudes or qualities; and so also is that
which is said in relation to something, as
friendships, relationships, services, like-
nesses, equalities, and anything else of the
kind; so also positions and conditions, *
places and times, acts and passions. But in
God nothing is said to be according to acci-
dent, because in Him nothing is changeable;
and yet everything that is said, is not said
according to substance. For it is said in re-
lation to something, as the Father in relation
1 Habitus.
to the Son and the Son in relation to the
Father, which is not accident; because both
the one is always Father, and the other is al-
ways Son: yet not "always," meaning from
the time when the Son was born \_natus~\, so
that the Father ceases not to be the Father
because the Son never ceases to be the Son,
but because the Son was always born, and
never began to be the Son. But if He had
begun to be at any time, or were at any time
to cease to be, the Son, then He would be
called Son according to accident. But if the
Father, in that He is called the Father, were
so called in relation to Himself, not to the
Son; and the Son, in that He is called the
Son, were so called in relation to Himself,
not to the Father; then both the one would
be called Father, and the other Son, according
to substance. But because the Father is not
called the Father except in that He has a Son,
and the Son is not called Son except in that
He has a Father, these things are not said
according to substance; because each of them
is not so called in relation to Himself, but
the terms are used reciprocally and in rela-
tion each to the other; nor yet according to
accident, because both the being called the
Father, and the being called the Son, is eter-
nal and unchangeable to them. Wherefore,
although to be the Father and to be the Son
is different, yet their substance is not differ-
ent; because they are so called, not accord-
ing to substance, but according to relation,
which relation, however, is not accident, be-
cause it is not changeable.
CHAP. 6. REPLY IS MADE TO THE CAVILS OF
THE HERETICS IN RESPECT TO THE SAME
WORDS BEGOTTEN AND UNBEGOTTEN.
7. But if they think they can answer this
reasoning thus, that the Father indeed is so
called in relation to the Son, and the Son in rela-
tion to the Father, but that they are said to be
unbegotten and begotten in relation to them-
selves, not in relation each to the other; for
that it is not the same thing to call Him un-
begotten as it is to call Him the Father, be-
cause there would be nothing to hinder our
calling Him unbegotten even if He had not
begotten the Son; and if any one beget a
son, he is not therefore himself unbegotten, for
men, who are begotten by other men, them-
selves also beget others; and therefore they
say the Father is called Father in relation to
the Son, and the Son is called Son in relation
to the Father, but unbegotten is said in rela-
tion to Himself, and begotten in relation to
Himself; and therefore, if whatever is said
in relation to oneself is said according to sub-
9 o
THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[Book V.
stance, while to be unbegotten and to be be-
gotten are different, then the substance is
different: if this is what they say, then they
do not understand that they do indeed say
something that requires more careful dis-
cussion in respect to the term unbegotten,
because neither is any one therefore a father
because unbegotten, nor therefore unbegotten
because he is a father, and on that account
he is supposed to be called unbegotten, not
in relation to anything else, but in respect to
himself; but, on the other hand, with a won-
derful blindness, they do not perceive that
no one can be said to be begotten except in
relation to something. For he is therefore a
son because begotten; and because a son,
therefore certainly begotten. And as is the
relation of son to father, so is the relation of
the begotten to the begetter; and as is the
relation of father to son, so is the relation of
the begetter to the begotten. And therefore
any one is understood to be a begetter under
one notion, but understood to be unbegotten
under another. For though both are said of
God the Father, yet the former is said in rela-
tion to the begotten, that is to the Son, which,
indeed, they do not deny; but that He is
called unbegotten, they declare to be said in
respect to Himself. They say then, If any-
thing is said to be a father in respect to itself,
which cannot be said to be a son in respect
to itself, and whatever is said in respect to
self is said according to substance; and He
is said to be unbegotten in respect to Him-
self, which the Son cannot be said to be;
therefore He is said to be unbegotten accord-
ing to substance; and because the Son cannot
be so said to be, therefore He is not of the
same substance. This subtlety is to be an-
swered by compelling them to say themselves
according to what it is that the Son is equal
to the Father; whether according to that
which is said in relation to Himself, or ac-
cording to that which is said in relation to the
Father. For it is not according to that which
is said in relation to the Father, since in re-
lation to the Father He is said to be Son, and
the Father is not Son, but Father. Since
Father and Son are not so called in relation
to each other in the same way as friends and
neighbors are; for a friend is so called rela-
tively to his friend, and if they love each
other equally, then the same friendship is in
both; and a neighbor is so called relatively
to a neighbor, and because they are equally
neighbors to each other (for each is neighbor
to the other, in the same degree as the other
is neighbor to him), there is the same neigh-
borhood in both. But because the Son is not
so called relatively to the Son, but to the
Father, it is not according to that which is
said in relation to the Father that the Son is
equal to the Father; and it remains that He
is equal according to that which is said in re-
lation to Himself. But whatever is said in
relation to self is said according to substance:
it remains therefore that He is equal accord-
ing to substance; therefore the substance of
both is the same. But when the Father is
said to be unbegotten, it is not said what He
is, but what He is not; and when a relative
term is denied, it is not denied according to
substance, since the relative itself is not
affirmed according: to substance.
CHAP. 7. THE ADDITION OF A NEGATIVE DOES
NOT CHANGE THE PREDICAMENT.
8. This is to be made clear by examples.
And first we must notice, that by the word
begotten is signified the same thing as is sig-
nified by the word son. For therefore a son,
because begotten, and because a son, therefore
certainly begotten. By the word unbegotten,
therefore, it is declared that he is not son. But
begotten and unbegotten are both of them
terms suitably employed; whereas in Latin
we can use the word " Alius," but the custom
of the language does not allow us to speak
of "infilius." It makes no difference, how-
ever, in the meaning if he is called " non
filius;" just as it is precisely the same thing
if he is called " non genitus," instead of
"ingenitus." For so the terms of both
neighbor and friend are used relatively, yet
we cannot speak of " invicinus " as we can of
" inimicus. " Wherefore, in speaking of this
thing or that, we must not consider what the
usage of our own language either allows or
does not allow, but what clearly appears
to be the meaning of the things themselves.
Let us not therefore any longer call it unbe-
gotten, although it can be so called in Latin;
but instead of this let us call it not begotten,
which means the same. Is this then any-
thing else than saying that he is not a son ?
Now the prefixing of that negative particle
does not make that to be said according to
substance, which, without it, is said rela-
tively; but that only is denied, which, with-
out it, was affirmed, as in the other predica-
ments. When we say he is a man, we denote
substance. He therefore who says he is not
a man, enunciates no other kind of predica-
ment, but only denies that. As therefore I
affirm according to substance in saying he is
a man, so I deny according to substance in
saying he is not a man. And when the ques-
tion is asked, how large he is ? and I say he
is quadrupedal, that is, four feet in measure,
Chap. VIII.]
ON THE TRINITY.
91
I affirm according to quantity, and he who
says he is not quadrupedal, denies according
to quantity. I say he is white, I affirm ac-
cording to quality; if I say he is not white,
I deny according to quality. I say he is
near, I affirm according to relation; if I say
he is not near, I deny according to relation.
I affirm according to position, when I say he
lies down; I deny according to position, when
I say he does not lie down. I speak accord-
ing to condition, 1 when I say he is armed; I
deny according to condition, when I say he
is not armed; and it comes to the same thing
as if I should say he is unarmed. I affirm
according to time, when I say he is of yester-
day; I deny according to time, when I say he
is not of yesterday. And when I say he is
at Rome, I affirm according to place; and I
deny according to place, when I say he is not
at Rome. I affirm according to the predica-
ment of action, when I say he smites; but if
I say he does not smite, I deny according to
action, so as to declare that he does not so
act. And when I say he is smitten, I affirm
according to the predicament of passion; and
I deny according to the same, when I say he
is not smitten. And, in a word, there is no
kind of predicament according to which we
may please to affirm anything, without being
proved to deny according to the same pre-
dicament, if we prefix the negative particle.
And since this is so, if I were to affirm ac-
cording to substance, in saying son, I should
deny according to substance, in saying not
son. But because I affirm relatively when I
say he is a son, for I refer to the father;
therefore I deny relatively if I say he is not
a son, for I refer the same negation to the
father, in that I wish to declare that he has
not a parent. But if to be called son is pre-
cisely equivalent to the being called begotten
(as we said before), then to be called not be-
gotten is precisely equivalent to the being
called not son. But we deny relatively when
we say he is not son, therefore we deny rela-
tively when we say he is not begotten.
Further, what is unbegotten, unless not be-
gotten ? We do not escape, therefore, from
the relative predicament, when he is called
unbegotten. For as begotten is not said in
relation to self, but in that he is of a begetter;
so when one is called unbegotten, he is not
so called in relation to himself, but it is
declared that he is not of a begetter. Both
meanings, however, turn upon the same
predicament, which is called that of relation.
But that which is asserted relatively does not
denote substance, and accordingly, although
1 Habitus.
begotten and unbegotten are diverse, they
do not denote a different substance; because,
as son is referred to father, and not son to
not father, so it follows inevitably that be-
gotten must be referred to begetter, and not-
begotten to not-begetter. 2
CHAP. 8. WHATEVER IS SPOKEN OF GOD AC-
CORDING TO SUBSTANCE, IS SPOKEN OF EACH
PERSON SEVERALLY, AND TOGETHER OF THE
TRINITY ITSELF. ONE ESSENCE IN GOD, AND
THREE, IN GREEK, HYPOSTASES, IN LATIN,
PERSONS.
9. Wherefore let us hold this above all,
that whatsoever is said of that most eminent
and divine loftiness in respect to itself, is
said in respect to substance, but that which
is said in relation to anything, is not said in
respect to substance, but relatively; and that
the effect of the same substance in Father
and Son and Hoi)'' Spirit is, that whatsoever
is said of each in respect to themselves, is to
be taken of them, not in the plural in sum,
but in the singular. For as the Father is
God, and the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit
is God, which no one doubts to be said in
respect to substance, yet we do not say that
the very supreme Trinity itself is three Gods,
but one God. So the Father is great, the
Son great, and the Holy Spirit great; yet not
three greats, but one great. For it is not
written of the Father alone, as they per-
versely suppose, but of the Father and the
Son and the Holy Spirit, "Thou art great:
Thou art God alone." 3 And the Father is
good, the Son good, and the Holy Spirit
good; yet not three goods, but one good, of
whom it is said, "None is good, save one,
that is, God.'' For the Lord Jesus, lest He
should be understood as man only by him
who said, "Good Master/' as addressing a
man, does not therefore say, There is none
good, save the Father alone; but, "None is
good, save one, that is, God." 4 For the
Father by Himself is declared by the name
of Father; but by the name of God, both
Himself and the Son and the Holy Spirit,
because the Trinity is one God. But posi-
tion, and condition, and places, and times,
2 The terms " unbegotten " and " begotten " are interchange-
able with the terms Father and Son. '1 his follows from the rela-
tion of a substantive to its adjective. In whatever sense a substan-
tive is employed, in the same sense must the adjective formed from
it be employed. Consequently, if the first person of the Trinity
may be called Father in a sense that implies deity, he may be
called Unbegotten in the same sense. And if the second person
may be called Son in a sense implying deity, he may be called Be-
gotten in the same sense. The Ancient church often employed the
adjective, and spoke of God the Unbegotten and God the Begotten
(Justin Martyr, AJ>ol. i. 25, 53; ii. 12, 13. Clem. Alex. Stromata
v. xii.). This phraseology sounds strange to the Modern church,
yet the latter really says the same thing when it speaks of God the
Father, and God the Son. W. G. T. S.]
3 Ps. lxxxvi. 10. 4 Luke xviii. 18, 19.
9 2
THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[Book V.
are not said to be in God properly, but meta-
phorically and through similitudes. For He
is both said to dwell between the cherubims, 1
which is spoken in respect to position; and to
be covered with the deep as with a garment, 2
which is said in respect to condition; and
*' Thy years shall have no end,'' 3 which is
said in respect of time; and, " If I ascend up
into heaven, Thou art there/' 4 which is said
in respect to place. And as respects action
(or making), perhaps it may be said most
truly of God alone, for God alone makes and
Himself is not made. Nor is He liable to
passions as far as belongs to that substance
whereby He is God. So the Father is om-
nipotent, the Son omnipotent, and the Holy
Spirit is omnipotent; yet not three omnipo-
tents, but one omnipotent: 5 "For of Him
are all things, and through Him are all things,
and in Him are all things; to whom be
glory." 6 Whatever, therefore, is spoken of
God in respect to Himself, is both spoken
singly of each person, that is, of the Father,
and the Son, and the Holy Spirit; and to-
gether of the Trinity itself, not plurally but
in the singular. For inasmuch as to God it
is not one thing to be, and another thing to
be great, but to Him it is the same thing to
be, as it is to be great; therefore, as we do
not say three essences, so we do not say three
greatnesses, but one essence and one great-
ness. I say essence, which in Greek is called
<>b<ria, and which we call more usually sub-
stance.
10. They indeed use also the word hypo-
stasis; but they intend to put a difference, I
know not what, between ubaio. and hypostasis:
so that most of ourselves who treat these
things in the Greek language, are accus-
tomed to say, fiiav ubffioy, T/)el$ vizoardaeis, or,
in Latin, one essence, three substances. 7
CHAP. 9. THE THREE PERSONS NOT PROPERLY
SO CALLED [IN A HUMAN SENSE].
But because with us the usage has already
obtained, that by essence we understand the
1 Ps. lxxx. 1. 2 Ps. civ. 6. 3 Ps. cii. 27. 4 Ps. cxxxix. 8.
5 [This phraseology appears in the analytical statements of the
so-called Athanasian creed (cap. 11-16), and affords ground for the
opinion that this symbol is a Western one, originating in the school
of Augustin. W. G. T. S.]
6 Rom. xi. 36.
7 [It is remarkable that Augustin, understanding thoroughly
the distinction between essence and person, should not have
known the difference between ovcria and vir6<TTa<ris. It would seem
as if his only moderate acquaintance with the Greek language
would have been more than compensated by his profound trini-
tarian knowledge.
In respect to the term " substantia'' when it was discrimi-
nated from "essentia," as it is here by Augustin it corresponds to
uTTocrTacrt?, of which it is the translation. In this case, God is one
essence in three substances. But when " substantia " was identi-
fied with " essentia" then to say that God is one essence in three
substances would be a self-contradiction. The identification of the
two terms led subsequently to the coinage, in the mediaeval Latin,
of the term " subsistantia," to denote V7rocTTa.(ri.?. W. G. T. S.]
same thing which is understood by substance;
we do not dare to say one essence, three sub-
stances, but one essence or substance and
three persons: as many writers in Latin, who
treat of these things, and are of authority, have
said, in that they could not find any other
more suitable way by which to enunciate in
words that which they understood without
words. For, in truth, as the Father is not
the Son, and the Son is not the Father, and
that Holy Spirit who is also called the gift of
God is neither the Father nor the Son, cer-
tainly they are three. And so it is said plu-
rally, "I and my Father are one." 8 For
He has not said, "is one," as the Sabellians
say; but, " are one." Yet, when the ques-
tion is asked, What three ? human language
labors altogether under great poverty of
speech. The answer, however, is given, three
" persons," not that it might be [completely
spoken, but that it might not be left [wholly
unspoken.
CHAP. IO. THOSE THINGS WHICH BELONG AB-
SOLUTELY TO GOD AS AN ESSENCE, ARE SPOK-
EN OF THE TRINITY IN THE SINGULAR, NOT
IN THE PLURAL.
11. As, therefore, we do not say three es-
sences, so we do not say three greatnesses,
or three who are great. For in things which
are great by partaking of greatness, to which
it is one thing to be, and another to be great,
as a great house, and a great mountain, and
a great mind; in these things, I say, great-
ness is one thing, and that which is great be-
cause of greatness is another, and a great
house, certainly, is not absolute greatness
itself. But that is absolute greatness by
which not only a great house is great, and
any great mountain is great, but also by which
every other thing whatsoever is great, which
is called great; so that greatness itself is one
thing, and those things are another which are
called great from it. And this greatness cer-
tainly is primarily great, and in a much more
excellent way than those things which are
great by partaking of it. But since God is
not great with that greatness which is not
Himself, so that God, in being great, is, as
it were, partaker of that greatness; other-
wise that will be a greatness greater than
God, whereas there is nothing greater than
God; therefore, He is great with that great-
ness by which He Himself is that same great-
ness. And, therefore, as we do not say three
essences, so neither do we say three great-
nesses; for it is the same thing to God to be,
and to be great. For the same reason neither
8 John x. 30.
Chap. XII.]
ON THE TRINITY.
93
do we say three greats, but one who is great;
since God is not great by partaking of great-
ness, but He is great by Himself being great,
because He Himself is His own greatness.
Let the same be said also of the goodness,
and of the eternity, and of the omnipotence
of God, and, in short, of all the predicaments
which can be predicated of God, as He is
spoken of in respect to Himself, not meta-
phorically and by similitude, but properly, if
indeed anything can be spoken of Him
properly, by the mouth of man.
CHAP. II. WHAT IS SAID RELATIVELY IN THE
TRINITY.
12. But whereas, in the same Trinity, some
things severally are specially predicated, these
are in no way said in reference to themselves
in themselves, but either in mutual reference,
or in respect to the creature; and, therefore,
it is manifest that such things are spoken rela-
tively, not in the way of substance. For
the Trinity is called one God, great, good,
eternal, omnipotent; and the same God
Himself may be called His own deity, His
own magnitude, His own goodness, His own
eternity, His own omnipotence: but the Trin-
ity cannot in the same way be called the
Father, except perhaps metaphorically, in
respect to the creature, on account of the
adoption of sons. For that which is written,
"Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God is one
Lord," J ought certainly not to be understood
as if the Son were excepted, or the Holy Spirit
were excepted; which one Lord our God we
rightly call also our Father, as regenerating
us by His grace. Neither can the Trinity in
any wise be called the Son, but it can be
called, in its entirety, the Holy Spirit, ac-
cording to that which is written, "God is a
Spirit;" 2 because both the Father is a spirit
and the Son is a spirit, and the Father is holy
and the Son is holy. Therefore, since the
Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are one
God, and certainly God is holy, and God is a
spirit, the Trinity can be called also the Holy
Spirit. But yet that Holy Spirit, who is not
the Trinity, but is understood as in the Trin-
ity, is spoken of in His proper name of the
Holy Spirit relatively, since He is referred
both to the Father and to the Son, because
the Holy Spirit is the Spirit both of the Father
and of the Son. But the relation is not itself
apparent in that name, but it is apparent
when He is called the gift of God; 3 for He
is the gift of the Father and of the Son, be-
cause "He proceeds from the Father,'' 4 as
1 Deut. vi. 4.
3 Acts viii. 20.
- John iv. 24.
4 John xv. 26.
the Lord says; and because that which the
apostle says, " Now, if any man have not the
Spirit of Christ, he is none of His," 5 he says
certainly of the Holy Spirit Himself. When
we say, therefore, the gift of the giver, and
the giver of the gift, we speak in both cases
relatively in reciprocal reference. Therefore
the Holy Spirit is a certain unutterable com-
munion of the Father and the Son; and on
that account, perhaps, He is so called, be-
cause the same name is suitable to both the
Father and the Son. For He Himself is
called specially that which they are called in
common; because both the Father is a spirit
and the Son a spirit, both the Father is holy
and the Son holy. 6 la order, therefore,
that the communion of both may be signified
from a name which is suitable to both, the
Holy Spirit is called the gift of both. And
this Trinity is one God, alone, good, great,
eternal, omnipotent; itself its own unity, deity,
greatness, goodness, eternity, omnipotence.
CHAP. 12. IN RELATIVE THINGS THAT ARE RE-
CIPROCAL, NAMES ARE SOMETIMES WANTING.
13. Neither ought it to influence us since
we have said that the Holy Spirit is so called
relatively, not the Trinity itself, but He who
is in the Trinity that the designation of
Him to whom Fie is referred, does not seem
to answer in turn to His designation. For
we cannot, as we say the servant of a master,
and the master of a servant, the son of a
father and the father of a son, so also say
here because these things are said relatively.
For we speak of the Holy Spirit of the Father;
but, on the other hand, we do not speak of
the Father of the Holy Spirit, lest the Holy
Spirit should be understood to be His Son.
So also we speak of the Holy Spirit of the
Son; but we do not speak of the Son of the
5 Rom. viii. 9.
6 [The reason which Augustinhere assigns, why the name Holy
Spirit is given to the third person namely, hecause spirituality is
a characteristic of both the Father and Son, from both of whom he
proceeds is not that assigned in the more developed trinitarianism.
The explanation in this latter is, that the third person is denomi-
nated the Spirit because of the peculiar manner in which the divine
essence is communicated to him namely, by spiration, or out-
breathing: spiritus quia spiratus. This is supported by the ety-
mological signification of Trvevfxa, which is breath; and by the sym-
bolical action of Christ in John xx. 22, which suggests the eternal
spiration, or out-breathing of the third person. The third trini-
tarian person is no more spiritual, in the sense of immaterial, than
the first and second persons, and if the term " Spirit " is to be
taken in this the ordinary signification, the" trinitarian relation,"
or personal peculiarity, as Augustin remarks, " is not itself appar-
ent in this name; " because it would mention nothing distinctive of
the third person, and not belonging to the first and second. I!ut
taken technically to denote the spiration or out-breathing by the
Father and Son, the trinitarian peculiarity is apparent in the name.
And the epithet " Holy " is similarly explained. The third
person is the Holy Spirit, not because he is any more holy than the
first and second, but because he is the source and author of holi-
ness in all created spirits. This is eminently and officially his
work. In this way also, the epithet "Holy" which in its ordinary
use would specify nothing peculiar to the third person, mentions
a characteristic that differentiates him from the Father and Son.
W. G. T. S.]
94
THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[Book V.
Holy Spirit, lest the Holy Spirit be under-
stood to be His Father. For it is the case in
many relatives, that no designation is to be
found by which those things which bear rela-
tion to each other may [in name] mutually
correspond to each other. For what is more
clearly spoken relatively than the word earn-
est ? Since it is referred to that of which it
is an earnest, and an earnest is always an
earnest of something. Can we, then, as we
say, the earnest of the Father and of the
Son, 1 say in turn, the Father of the earnest
or the Son of the earnest? But, on the other
hand, when we say the gift of the Father and
of the Son, we cannot indeed say the Father
of the gift, or the Son of the gift; but that
these may correspond mutually to each other,
we say the gift of the giver and the giver of
the gift; because here a word in use may be
found, there it cannot.
CHAP, 13. HOW THE WORD BEGINNING (PRIN-
CIPIUM) IS SPOKEN RELATIVELY IN THE TRIN-
ITY.
14. The Father is called so, therefore,
relatively, and He is also relatively said to
be the Beginning, and whatever else there
may be of the kind; but He is called the
Father in relation to the Son, the Beginning
in relation to all things, which are from Him.
So the Son is relatively so called; He is called
also relatively the Word and the Image.
And in all these appellations He is referred
to the Father, but the Father is called by
none of them. And the Son is also called
the Beginning; for when it was said to Him,
" Who art Thou ? " He replied, " Even the
Beginning, who also speak to you." 2 But is
He, pray, the Beginning of the Father? For
He intended to show Himself to be the
Creator when He said that He was the Be-
ginning, as the Father also is the beginning
of the creature in that all things are from
Him. For creator, too, is spoken relatively
to creature, as master to servant. And so,
when we say, both that the Father is the Be-
ginning, and that the Son is the Beginning,
we do not speak of two beginnings of the
creature; since both the Father and the Son
together is one beginning in respect to the
creature, as one Creator, as one God. But
if whatever remains within itself and produces
or works anything is a beginning to that
thing which it produces or works; then we
cannot deny that the Holy Spirit also is
rightly called the Beginning, since we do not
separate Him from the appellation of Creator:
and it is written of Him that He works; and
assuredly, in working, He remains within
Himself; for He Himself is not changed and
turned into any of the things which He
works. And see what it is that He works: "But
the manifestation of the Spirit,'' he says,
" is given to every man to profit withal. For
to one is given by the Spirit the word of wis-
dom; to another the word of knowledge by
the same Spirit; to another faith by the same
Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the
same Spirit; to another the working of mira-
cles; to another prophecy; to another the
discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds
of tongues; to another the interpretation of
tongues: but all these worketh that one and
the self-same Spirit, dividing to every man
severally as He will; " certainly as God for
who can work such great things but God ?
but " it is the same God which worketh all in
all." 3 For if we are asked point by point
concerning the Holy Spirit, we answer most
truly that He is God; and with the Father
and the Son together He is one God. There-
fore, God is spoken of as one Beginning in
respect to the creature, not as two or three
beginnings.
CHAP. 14. THE FATHER AND THE SON THE
ONLY BEGINNING (PRINCIPIUM) OF THE HOLY
SPIRIT.
15. But in their mutual relation to one an-
other in the Trinity itself, if the begetter is a
beginning in relation to that which he begets,
the Father is a beginning in relation to the
Son, because He begets Him; but whether
the Father is also a beginning in relation to
the Holy Spirit, since it is said, " He pro-
ceeds from the Father," is no small question.
Because, if it is so, He will not only be a
beginning to that thing which He begets or
makes, but also to that which He gives.
And here, too, that question comes to light,
as it can, which is wont to trouble many, Why
the Holy Spirit is not also a son, since He,
too, comes forth from the Father, as it is read
in the Gospel. 4 For the Spirit came forth,
not as born, but as given; and so He is not
called a son, because He was neither born,
as the Only-begotten, nor made, so that by
the grace of God He might be born into
adoption, as we are. For that which is born
of the Father, is referred to the Father only
when called Son, and so the Son is the Son
of the Father, and not also our Son; but that
which is given is referred both to Him who
gave, and to those to whom He gave; and so
the Holy Spirit is not only the Spirit of the
Father and of the Son who gave Him, but
1 2 Cor. v. 5, and Eph. i. 14. - John viii. 25.
3 1 Cor. xii. 6-11.
4 John xv. 26.
Chap. XVI.]
ON THE TRINITY.
95
He is also called ours, who have received
Him: as " The salvation of the Lord," l who
gives salvation, is said also to be our salva-
tion, who have received it. Therefore, the
Spirit is both the Spirit of God who gave
Him, and ours who have received Him.
Not, indeed, that spirit of ours by which w*e
are, because that is the spirit of a man which
is in him; but this Spirit is ours in another
mode, viz. that in which we also say, " Give
us this day our bread." 2 Although certainly
we have received that spirit also, which is
called the spirit of a man. " For what hast
thou," he says, "which thou didst not re-
ceive?" 3 But that is one thing, which we
have received that we might be; another,
that which we have received that we might
be holy. Whence it is also written of John,
that he "came in the spirit and power of
Elias; " 4 and by the spirit of Elias is meant
the Holy Spirit, whom Elias received. And
the same thing is to be understood of Moses,
when the Lord says to him, "And I will take of
thy spirit, and will put it upon them;" 5 that is,
I will give to them of the Holy Spirit, which
I have already given to thee. If, therefore,
that also which is given has him for a begin-
ning by whom it is given, since it has received
from no other source that which proceeds
from him; it must be admitted that the
Father and the Son are a Beginning of the
Holy Spirit, not two Beginnings; but as the
Father and Son are one God, and one Creator,
and one Lord relatively to the creature, so
are they one Beginning relatively to the Holy
Spirit. But the Father, the Son, and the
Holy Spirit is one Beginning in respect to
the creature, as also one Creator and one
God. 6
CHAP. 15. WHETHER THE HOLY SPIRIT WAS A
GIFT BEFORE AS WELL AS AFTER HE WAS
GIVEN.
16. But it is asked further, whether, as the
1 Ps. iii. S. 2 Matt. vi. 11. 3 1 Cor. iv. 7.
4 Luke i. 17. 5 Num. xi. 17.
6 [The term "beginning" (principiuni), when referring to the
relation of the Trinity, or of any person of the Trinity, to the crea-
ture, denotes creative energy, whereby a new substance is origin-
ated from nothing. This is the reference in chapter 13. liut when
the term refers to the relations of the persons of the 1'rinity to each
other, it denotes only a modifying energy, whereby an existing
uncreated substance is communicated by generation and spiration.
This is the reference in chapter 14.
When it is said that the Father is the " beginning" of the Son,
and the Father and Son are the " beginning " of the Spirit, it is not
meant that the substance of the Son is created e.r niliilo by the
Father, and the substance of the Spirit is created by the Fatherand
Son, but only that the Son by eternal generation receives from the
Father the one uncreated and undivided substance of the Godhead,
and the Spirit by eternal spiration receives the same numerical sub-
stance from the Father and Son. The term " beginning " relates
not to the essence, but to the personal peculiarity. Sonship orig-
inates in fatherhood; but deity is unoriginated. The Son as the
second person " begins" from the Father, because the Father com-
municates the essence to him. His sonship, not his deity or god-
hood, " begins " from the Father. And the same holds true of the
Son, by being born, has not only this, that
He is the Son, but that He is absolutely; and
so also the Holy Spirit, by being given, has
not only this, that He is given, but that He
is absolutely whether therefore He was, be-
fore He was given, but was not yet a gift; or
whether, for the very reason that God was
about to give Him, He was already a gift also
before He was given. But if He does not
proceed unless when He is given, and assur-
edly could not proceed before there was one
to whom He might be given; how, in that
case, was He [absolutely] in His very sub-
stance, if He is not unless because He is
given? just as the Son, by being born, not
only has this, that He is a Son, which is said
relatively, but His very substance absolutely,
so that He is. Does the Holy Spirit proceed
always, and proceed not in time, but from
eternity, but because He so proceeded that
He was capable of being given, was already a
gift even before there was one to whom He
might be given ? For there is a difference in
meaning between a gift and a thing that has
been given. For a gift may exist even before
it is given; but it cannot be called a thing
that has been given unless it has been given.
CHAP. 16. WHAT IS SAID OF GOD IN TIME, IS
SAID RELATIVELY, NOT ACCIDENTALLY.
17. Nor let it trouble us that the Holy
Spirit, although He is co-eternal with the
Father and the Son, yet is called something
which exists in time; as, for instance, this
very thing which we have called Him, a thing
that has been given. For the Spirit is a gift
eternally, but a thing that has been given in
time. For if a lord also is not so called un-
less when he begins to have a slave, that ap-
pellation likewise is relative and in time to
God; for the creature is not from all eternity,
of which He is the Lord. How then shall we
make it good that relative terms themselves
are not accidental, since nothing happens ac-
cidentally to God in time, because He is in-
capable of change, as we have argued in the
beginning of this discussion ? Behold ! to be
the Lord, is not eternal to God; otherwise we
should be compelled to say that the creature
also is from eternity, since He would not be
a lord from all eternity unless the creature
also was a servant from all eternity. But as
he cannot be a slave who has not a lord,
neither can he be a lord who has not a slave.
And if there be any one who says that God,
indeed, is alone eternal, and that times are
term " beginning" as applied to the Holy Spirit. The " procession"
of the Holy Spirit " begins" by spiration from the Father and Son,
but not his deity or godhood. W. G. T. S.]
9 6
THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[Book V
not eternal on account of their variety and
changeableness, but that times nevertheless
did not begin to be in time (for there was no
time before times began, and therefore it did
not happen to God in time that He should be
Lord, since He was Lord of the very times
themselves, which assuredly did not begin in
time): what will he reply respecting man,
who was made in time, and of whom assur-
edly He was not the Lord before he was of
whom He was to be Lord ? Certainly to be
the Lord of man happened to God in time.
And that all dispute may seem to be taken
away, certainly to be your Lord, or mine,
who have only lately begun to be, happened
to God in time. Or if this, too, seems uncer-
tain on account of the obscure question re-
specting the soul, what is to be said of His
being the Lord of the people of Israel ? since,
although the nature of the soul already ex-
isted, which that people had (a matter into
which we do not now inquire), yet that people
existed not as yet, and the time is apparent
when it began to exist. Lastly, that He
should be Lord of this or that tree, or of this
or that corn crop, which only lately began to
be, happened in time; since, although the
matter itself already existed, yet it is one
thing to be Lord of the matter [materia;), an-
other to be Lord of the already created nat-
ure {natural).' 1 For man, too, is lord of the
wood at one time, and at another he is lord
of the chest, although fabricated of that same
wood; which he certainly was not at the time
when he was already the lord of the wood.
How then shall we make it good that nothing
is said of God according to accident, except
because nothing happens to His nature by
which He may be changed, so that those
things are relative accidents which happen in
connection with some change of the things of
which they are spoken. As a friend is so
called relatively: for he does not begin to be
one, unless when he has begun to love; there-
fore some change of will takes place, in order
that he may be called a friend. And money,
when it is called a price, is spoken of rela-
tively, and yet it was not changed when it
began to be a price; nor, again, when it is
called a pledge, or any other thing of the
kind. If, therefore, money can so often be
spoken of relatively with no change of itself,
so that neither when it begins, nor when it
1 ["Matter" denotes the material as created ex nihilo; "nature"
the material as formed into individuals. In this reference, Augus-
tin speaks of " the nature of the soul " of the people of Israel as
existing while " as yet that people existed not " individually
having in mind their race-existence in Adam. W. G. T. S.
ceases to be so spoken of, does any change
take place in that nature or form of it, where-
by it is money; how much more easily ought
we to admit, concerning that unchangeable
substance of God, that something may be so
predicated relatively in respect to the crea-
ture, that although it begin to be so predi-
cated in time, yet nothing shall be under-
stood to have happened to the substance itself
of God, but only to that creature in respect
to which it is predicated ? " Lord," it is said,
" Thou hast been made our refuge." - God,
therefore, is said to be our refuge relatively,
for He is referred to us, and He then be-
comes our refuge when we flee to Him; pray
does anything come to pass then in His
nature, which, before we fled to Him, was
not? In us therefore some change does take
place; for we were worse before we fled to
Him, and we become better by fleeing to
Him: but in Him there is no change. So
also He begins to be our Father, when we are
regenerated through His grace, since He gave
us power to become the sons of God. 3 Our
substance therefore is changed for the better,
when we become His sons; and He at the
same time begins to be our Father, but with-
out any change of His own substance.
Therefore that which begins to be spoken of
God in time, and which was not spoken of
Him before, is manifestly spoken of Him
relatively; yet not according to any accident
of God, so that anything should have hap-
pened to Him, but clearly according to some
accident of that, in respect to which God
begins to be called something relatively.
When a righteous man begins to be a friend
of God, he himself is changed; but far be it
from us to say, that God loves any one in
time with as it were a new love, which was
not in Him before, with whom things gone
by have not passed away and things future
have been already done. Therefore He loved
all His saints before the foundation of the
world, as He predestinated them; but when
they are converted and find Him, then they
are said to begin to be loved by Him, that
what is said may be said in that way in which
it can be comprehended by human affections.
So also, when He is said to be wroth with the
unrighteous, and gentle with the good, they
are changed, not He: just as the light is
troublesome to weak eyes, pleasant to those
that are strong; namely, by their change, not
its own.
2 Ps. XC. I.
3 John i. i2.
BOOK VI.
THE QUESTION IS PROPOSED, HOW THE APOSTLE CALLS CHRIST " THE POWER OF GOD, AND THE
WISDOM OF GOD." AND AN ARGUMENT IS RAISED, WHETHER THE FATHER IS NOT WISDOM
HIMSELF, BUT ONLY THE FATHER OF WISDOM ; OR WHETHER WISDOM BEGAT WISDOM. BUT
THE ANSWER TO THIS IS DEFERRED FOR A LITTLE, WHILE THE UNITY AND EQUALITY OF THE
FATHER, AND OF THE SON, AND OF THE HOLY GHOST, ARE PROVED ; AND THAT WE OUGHT
TO BELIEVE IN A TRINITY, NOT IN A THREEFOLD (TRIPLICEM) GOD. LASTLY, THAT SAYING
OF HILARY IS EXPLAINED, ETERNITY IN THE FATHER, APPEARANCE IN THE IMAGE, USE IN THE
GIFT.
CHAP. I. THE SON, ACCORDING TO THE APOS-
TLE, IS THE POWER AND WISDOM OF THE
FATHER. HENCE THE REASONING OF THE
CATHOLICS AGAINST THE EARLIER ARIANS.
A DIFFICULTY IS RAISED, WHETHER THE
FATHER IS NOT WISDOM HIMSELF, BUT ONLY
THE FATHER OF WISDOM.
i. Some think themselves hindered from
admitting the equality of the Father, Son,
and Holy Spirit, because it is written, " Christ,
the power of God, and the wisdom of God;"
in that, on this ground, there does not appear
to be equality; because the Father is not
Himself power and wisdom, but the begetter
of power and wisdom. And, in truth, the
question is usually asked with no common
earnestness, in what way God can be called
the Father of power and wisdom. For the
apostle says, " Christ the power of God, and
the wisdom of God." 1 And hence some on
our side have reasoned in this way against
the Arians, at least against those who at first
set themselves up against the Catholic faith.
For Arius himself is reported to have said,
that if He is a Son, then He was born; if He
was born, there was a time when the Son was
not: not understanding that even to be born
is, to God, from all eternity; so that the Son
is co-eternal with the Father, as the bright-
ness which is produced and is spread around
by fire is co-eval with it, and would be co-
eternal, if fire were eternal. And therefore
some of the later Arians have abandoned that
opinion, and have confessed that the Son of
i Cor.
God did not begin to be in time. But among
the arguments which those on our side used
to hold against them who said that there was
a time when the Son was not, some were wont
to introduce such an argument as this: If the
Son of God is the power and wisdom of God,
and God was never without power and wis-
dom, then the Son is co-eternal with God the
Father; but the apostle says, "Christ the
power of God, and the wisdom of God; " and
a man must be senseless to say that God at
anytime had not power or wisdom; therefore
there was no time when the Son was not.
2. Now this argument compels us to say
that God the Father is not wise, except by
having the wisdom which He begat, not by
the Father in Himself being wisdom itself.
Further, if it be so, just as the Son also Him-
self is called God of God, Light of Light, we
must consider whether He can be called wis-
dom of wisdom, if God the Father is not
wisdom itself, but only the begetter of wis-
dom. And if we hold this, why is He not
the begetter also of His own greatness, and
of His own goodness, and of His own eter-
nity, and of His own omnipotence; so that
He is not Himself His own greatness, and
His own goodness, and His own eternity,
and His own omnipotence; but is great with
that greatness which He begat, and good with
that goodness, and eternal with that eternity,
and omnipotent with that omnipotence, which
was born of Him; just as He Himself is not
His own wisdom, but is wise with that
wisdom which was born of Him ? For we
need not be afraid of being compelled to say
9
THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[Book VI.
that there are many sons of God, over and
above the adoption of the creature, co-eternal
with the Father, if He be the begetter of His
own greatness, and goodness, and eternity,
and omnipotence. Because it is easy to reply
to this cavil, that it does not at all follow,
because many things are named, that He
should be the Father of many co-eternal sons;
just as it does not follow that He is the
Father of two sons, because Christ is said to
be the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
For that certainly is the power which is the
wisdom, and that is the wisdom which is the
power; and in like manner, therefore, of the
rest also; so that that is the greatness which
is the power, or any other of those things
which either have been mentioned above, or
may hereafter be mentioned.
CHAP. 2. WHAT IS SAID OF THE FATHER AND
SON TOGETHER, AND WHAT NOT.
3. But if nothing is spoken of the Father
as such, except that which is spoken of Him
in relation to the Son, that is, that He is His
father, or begetter, or beginning; and if also
the begetter is by consequence a beginning
to that which he begets of himself; but what-
ever else is spoken of Him is so spoken as
with the Son, or rither in the Son; whether
that He is great with that greatness which
He begat, or just with that justice which He
begat, or good with that goodness which He
begat, or powerful with that force or power
which He begat, or wise with that wisdom
which He begat: yet the Father is not said
to be greatness itself, but the begetter of
greatness; but the Son, as He is called the
Son as such, is not so called with the Father
but in relation to the Father, so is not great
in and by himself, but with the Father, of
whom He is the greatness; and so also is
called wise with the Father, of whom He
Himself is the wisdom; just as the Father is
called wise with the Son, because He is wise
with that wisdom which He begat; therefore
the one is not called without the other, what-
ever they are called in respect to themselves;
that is, whatever they are called that mani-
fests their essential nature, both are so called
together; if these things are so, then the
Father is not God without the Son, nor the
Son God without the Father, but both to-
gether are God. And that which is said, " In
the beginning was the Word," means that
the Word was in the Father, Or if "In the
beginning" is intended to mean, Before all
things; then in that which follows, "And the
Word was with God/' the Son alone is under-
stood to be the Word, not the Father and
Son together, as though both were one Word
(for He is the Word in the same way as He
is the Image, but the Father and Son are not
both together the Image, but the Son alone
is the Image of the Father: just as He is also
the Son of the Father, for both together are
not the Son). But in that which is added,
"And the Word was with God," there is
much reason to understand thus: "The
Word," which is the Son alone, "was with
God," which is not the Father alone, but God
the Father and the Son together. 1 But what
wonder is there, if this can be said in the case
of some twofold things widely different from
each other ? For what are so different as soul
and body ? Yet we can say the soul was with
a man, that is, in a man; although the soul
is not the body, and man is both soul and
body together. So that what follows in the
Scripture, "And the Word was God/' 2 may
be understood thus: The Word, which is not
the Father, was God together with the Father.
Are we then to say thus, that the Father is
the begetter of His own greatness, that is,
the begetter of His own power, or the be-
getter of His own wisdom; and that the Son
is greatness, and power, and wisdom; but
that the great, omnipotent, and wise God, is
both together? How then God <?/"God, Light
of Light ? For not ttoth together are God of
God, but only the Son is of God, that is to
say, of the Father; nor are both together
Light of Light, but the Son only is of Light,
that is, of the Father. Unless, perhaps, it
was in order to intimate and inculcate briefly
that the Son is co-eternal with the Father,
that it is said, God of God, and Light of
Light, or anything else of the like kind: as
if to say, This which is not the Son without
the Father, of this which is not the Father
without the Son; that is, this Light which is
not Light without the Father, of that Light,
viz. the Father, which is not Light without
the Son; so that, when it is said, God which
is not the Son without the Father, and of
God which is not the Father without the Son,
it may be perfectly understood that the Be-
getter did not precede that which He begot.
And if this be so, then this alone cannot be
said of them, namely, this or that of this or
that, which they are not both together. Just
as the Word cannot be said to be of the
1 [The term " God," in the proposition, " the Word was with
God,' - must refer to the Father, not to " the Father and Son to-
gether," because the Son could not be said to be " with " himself.
St. John says that " the word was God" (fobs). The absence of
the article with flebs denotes the abstract deity, or the divine na-
ture without reference to the persons in it. He also says that
" the Word was with God " (tov 6e'ov). The presence of the arti-
cle in this instance denotes one of the divine persons in the essence :
namely, the Father, with whom the Word was from eternity, and
upon whose " bosom " he was from eternity. (Johni. 18). W. G.
T. S.] 2 John i. 1.
Chap. IV.]
ON THE TRINITY.
99
Word, because both are not the Word to-
gether, but only the Son; nor image of image,
since they are not both together the image;
nor Son of Son, since both together are not
the Son, according to that which is said, " I
and my Father are one." 1 For "we are
one " means, what' He is, that am I also; ac-
cording to essence, not according to relation.
CHAP. 3. THAT THE UNITY OF THE ESSENCE
OF THE FATHER AND THE SON IS TO BE GATH-
ERED FROM THE WORDS, " WE ARE ONE."
THE SON IS EQUAL TO THE FATHER BOTH IN
WISDOM AND IN ALL OTHER THINGS.
4. And I know not whether the words,
" They are one," are ever found in Scripture
as spoken of things of which the nature is
different. But if there are more things than
one of the same nature, and they differ in
sentiment, they are not one, and that so far
as they differ in sentiment. For if the dis-
ciples were already one by the fact of being
men, He would not say, " That they may be
one, as we are one," - when commending
them to the Father. But because Paul and
Apollos were both alike men, and also of like
sentiments, "He that planteth," he says,
"and he that watereth are one." 3 When,
therefore, anything is so called one, that it
is not added in what it is one, and yet more
things than one are called one, then the same
essence and nature is signified, not differing
nor disagreeing. But when it is added in
what it is one, it may be meant that some-
thing is made one out of things more than
one, though they are different in nature. As
soul and body are assuredly not one; for
what are so different? unless there be added
or understood in what they are one, that is,
one man, or one animal [person]. Thence
the apostle says, " He who is joined to a har-
lot, is one body;" he does not say, they are
one or he is one; but he has added "body,"
as though it were one body composed by be-
ing joined together of two different bodies,
masculine and feminine. 4 And, "He that
'is joined unto the Lord," he says," is one
spirit: " he did not say, he that is joined unto
the Lord is one, or they are one; but he
added, "spirit" For the spirit of man and
the Spirit of God are different in nature; but
by being joined they become one spirit of
two different spirits, so that the Spirit of God
is blessed and perfect without the human
spirit, but the spirit of man cannot be blessed
without God. Nor is it without cause, I
think, that when the Lord said so much in
the Gospel according to John, and so often,
of unity itself, whether of His own with the
Father, or of ours interchangeably with our-
selves; He has nowhere said, that we are
also one with Himself, but, "that they may
be one as we also are one." 5 Therefore the
Father and the Son are one, undoubtedly ac-
cording to unity of substance; and there is
one God, and one great, and one wise, as we
have argued.
5. Whence then is the Father greater?
For if greater, He is greater by greatness;
but whereas the Son is His greatness, neither
assuredly is the Son greater than He who
begat Him, nor is the Father greater than
that greatness, whereby He is great; therefore
they are equal. For whence is He equal, if
not in that which He is, to whom it is not
one thing to be, and another to be great?
Or if the Father is greater in eternity, the
Son is not equal in anything whatsoever.
For whence equal ? If you say in greatness,
that greatness is not equal which is less eter-
nal, and so of all things else. Or is He per-
haps equal in power, but not equal in wis-
dom ? But how is that power which is less
wise, equal ? Or is He equal in wisdom, but
not equal in power ? But how is that wisdom
equal which is less powerful ? It remains,
therefore, that if He is not equal in anything,
He is not equal in all. But Scripture pro-
claims, that " He thought it not robbery to
be equal with God." 6 Therefore any ad-
versary of the truth whatever, provided he
feels bound by apostolical authority, must
needs confess that the Son is equal with God
in each one thing whatsoever. Let him
choose that which he will; from it he will be
shown, that He is equal in aM things which
are said of His substance.
CHAP. 4. THE SAME ARGUMENT CONTINUED.
6. For in like manner the virtues which are
in the human mind, although each has its
own several and different meaning, yet are in
no way mutually separable; so that, for in-
stance, whosoever were equal in courage, are
equal also in prudence, and temperance, and
justice. For if you say that such and such
men are equal in courage, but that one of
them is greater in prudence, it follows that
the courage of the other is less prudent, and
so neither are they equal in courage, since
the courage of the former is more prudent.
And so you will find it to be the case with
the other virtues, if you consider them one
by one. For the question is not of the
strength of the body, but of the courage of
1 John x. 30.
3 1 Cor. iii. 8.
2 John xvii. 11.
4 1 Cor. vi. 16, 17.
5 John xvii. 11.
6 Phil. ii. 6.
IOO
THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[Book VI.
the mind. How much more therefore is this
the case in that unchangeable and eternal sub-
stance, which is incomparably more simple
than the human mind is ? Since, in the human
mind, to be is not the same as to be strong,
or prudent, or just, or temperate; for a mind
can exist, and yet have none of these virtues.
But in God to be is the same as to be strong,
or to be just, or to be wise, or whatever is
said of that simple multiplicity, or multifold
simplicity, whereby to signify His substance.
Wherefore, whether we say God of God in
such way that this name belongs to each, yet
not so that both together are two Gods, but
one God; for they are in such way united
with each other, as according to the apostle's
testimony may take place even in diverse
and differing substances; for both the Lord
alone is a Spirit, and the spirit of a man alone
is assuredly a spirit; yet, if it cleave to the
Lord, "it is one spirit:" how much more
there, where there is an absolutely inseparable
and eternal union, so that He may not seem
absurdly to be called as it were the Son of
both, when He is called the Son of God, if
that which is called God is only said of both
together. Or perhaps it is, that whatever is
said of God so as to indicate His substance,
is not said except of both together, nay of the
Trinity itself together? Whether therefore
it be this or that (which needs a closer in-
quiry), it is enough for the present to see
from what has been said, that the Son is in
no respect equal with the Father, if He is
found to be unequal in anything which has
to do with signifying His substance, as we
have already shown. But the apostle has said
that He is equal. Therefore the Son is
equal with the Father in all things, and is of
one and the same substance.
CHAP. 5. THE HOLY SPIRIT ALSO IS EQUAL TO
THE FATHER AND THE SON IN ALL THINGS.
7. Wherefore also the Holy Spirit consists
in the same unity of substance, and in the
same equality. For whether He is the unity
of both, or the holiness, or the love, or there-
fore the unity because the love, and therefore
the love because the holiness, it is manifest
that He is not one of the two, through whom
the two are joined, through whom the Begot-
ten is loved by the Begetter, and loves Him
that begat Him, and through whom, not by
participation, but by their own essence,
neither by the gift of any superior, but by
their own, they are " keeping the unity of the
Spirit in the bond of peace; ,,z which we are
commanded to imitate by grace, both towards
1 Eph. iv. 3.
God and towards ourselves. " On which two
commandments hang all the law and the
prophets." 2 So those three are God, one,
alone, great, wise, holy, blessed. But we are
blessed from Him, and through Him, and in
Him; because we ourselves are one by His
gift, and one spirit with Him, because our
soul cleaves to Him so as to follow Him.
And it is good for us to cleave to God, since
He will destroy every man who is estranged
from Him. 3 Therefore the Holy Spirit, what-
ever it is, is something common both to the
Father and Son. But that communion itself
is consubstantial and co-eternal; and if it
may fitly be called friendship, let it be so
called; but it is more aptly called love. And
this is also a substance, since God is a sub-
stance, and " God is love," as it is written. *
But as He is a substance together with the
Father and the Son, so that substance is to-
gether with them great, and together with
them good, and together with them holy,
and whatsoever else is said in reference to
substance; since it is not one thing to God to
be, and another to be great or to be good,
and the rest, as we have shown above. For if
love is less great therein [i.e. in God] than
wisdom, then wisdom is loved in less degree
than according to what it is; love is therefore
equal, in order that wisdom may be loved
according to its being; but wisdom is equal
with the Father, as we have proved above;
therefore also the Holy Spirit is equal; and
if equal, equal in all things, on account of
the absolute simplicity which is in that sub-
stance. And therefore they are not more
than three: One who loves Him who is from
Himself, and One who loves Him from whom
He is, and Love itself. And if this last is
nothing, how is "God love"? If it is not
substance, how is God substance ?
CHAP. 6. HOW GOD IS A SUBSTANCE BOTH
SIMPLE AND MANIFOLD.
8. But if it is asked how that substance is
both simple and manifold: consider, first,
why the creature is manifold, but in no way
really simple. And first, all that is body is
composed certainly of parts; so that therein
one part is greater, another less, and the
whole is greater than any part whatever or
how great soever. For the heaven and the
earth are parts of the whole bulk of the
world; and the earth alone, and the heaven
alone, is composed of innumerable parts;
and its third part is less than the remainder,
and the half of it is less than the whole; and
the whole body of the world, which is usually
Matt. xxii. 37-40. 3 Ps. lxxvii. 28, 27. 4 1 John iv. 16.
Chap. VIII.]
ON THE TRINITY.
IOI
called by its two parts, viz. the heaven and
the earth, is certainly greater than the heaven
alone or the earth alone. And in each
several body, size is one thing, color another,
shape another; for the same color and the
same shape may remain with diminished
size; and the same shape and the same size
may remain with the color changed ; and
the same shape not remaining, yet the thing
may be just as great, and of the same color.
And whatever other things are predicated
together of body can be changed either all to-
gether, or the larger part of them without
the rest. And hence the nature of body is
conclusively proved to be manifold, and in
no respect simple. The spiritual creature
also, that is, the soul, is indeed the more
simple of the two if compared with the body;
but if we omit the comparison with the body,
it is manifold, and itself also not simple.
For it is on this account more simple than
the body, because it is not diffused in bulk
through extension of place, but in each body,
it is both whole in the whole, and whole in
each several part of it; and, therefore, when
anything takes place in any small particle
whatever of the body, such as the soul can
feel, although it does not take place in the
whole body, yet the whole soul feels it, since
the whole soul is not unconscious of it. But,
nevertheless, since in the soul also it is one
thing to be skillful, another to be indolent,
another to be intelligent, another to be of
retentive memory; since cupidity is one thing,
fear another, joy another, sadness another;
and since things innumerable, and in innu-
merable ways, are to be found in the nature
of the soul, some without others, and some
more, some less; it is manifest that its nature
is not simple, but manifold. For nothing
simple is changeable, but every creature is
changeable.
chap. 7. god is a trinity, but not triple
(triplex).
But God is truly called in manifold ways,
great, good, wise, blessed, true, and what-
soever other thing seems to be said of Him
not unworthily: but His greatness is the same
as His wisdom; for He is not great by bulk,
but by power; and His goodness is the same
as His wisdom and greatness, and His truth
the same as all those things; and in Him it
is not one thing to be blessed, and another
to be great, or wise, or true, or good, or in
a word to be Himself.
9. Neither, since He is a Trinity, is He
therefore to be thought triple {triplex) * other-
1 [The Divine Unity is trinal, not triple. The triple is com-
wise the Father alone, or the Son alone, will
be less than the Father and Son together.
Although, indeed, it is hard to see how we
can say, either the Father alone, or the Son
alone; since both the Father is with the Son,
and the Son with the Father, always and in-
separably: not that bth are the Father, or
both are the Son; but because they are always
one in relation to the other, and neither the
one nor the other alone. But because we
call even tke Trinity itself God alone, al-
though He is always with holy spirits and
souls, but say that He only is God, because
they are mot also God with Him; so we call
the Father the Father alone, not because He
is separate from the Son, but because they
are not both together the Father.
CHAP. 8. NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE TO THE
NATURE OF GOD.
Since, therefore, the Father alone, or the
Son alone, or the Holy Spirit alone, is as
oreat as is the Father and the Son and the
Holy Spirit together, 2 in no manner is He to
be called threefold. Forasmuch as bodies
increase by union of themselves. For al-
though he who cleaves to his wife is one body;
yet it is a greater body than if it were that of
the husband alone, or of the wife alone.
But in spiritual things, when the less adheres
to the greater, as the creature to the Creator,
the former becomes greater than it was, not
the latter. 3 For in those things which are
not great by bulk, to be greater is to be
better. And the spirit of any creature be-
comes better, when it cleaves to the Creator,
than if it did not so cleave; and therefore
also greater because better. "He," then,
" that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit: " 4
but yet the Lord does not therefore become
posed of three different substances. It has parts, and is complex.
The trinal is without parts, and is incomplex. It denotes one sim-
ple substance in three modes or forms. " We may speak of the
trinal, but not of the triple deity." Hollaz, in Hase's Hutterus,
i 7 2.-W. G. T. S.]
- [Each trinitarian person is as great as the Trinity, if reference
be had to the essence, but not if reference be had to the persons.
Each person has the entire essence, and the Trinity has the entire
essence. But each person has the essence with only one personal
characteristic; while the Trinity has the essence with all three per-
sonal characteristics. No trinitarian person is as comprehensive
as the triune Godhead, because he does not possess the two per-
sonal characteristics belonging to the other two persons. The
Father is God, but he is not God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.
W. G. T. S.]
3 [The addition of finite numbers, however great, to an infinite
number, does not increase the infinite. Similarly, any addition of
finite being to the Infinite Being is no increase. Cod plus the
universe is no larger an infinite than God minus the universe.
The creation of the universe adds nothing to the infinite being and
attributes of God. To add contingent being to necessary being,
does not make the latter any more necessary. To add imperfect
being to perfect being, does not make the latter more perfect. To
add finite knowledge to infinite knowledge, does not produce a
greater amount of knowledge. This truth has been overlooked by
Hamilton. Mansell, and others, in the argument against the per-
sonality of the Infinite, in which the Infinite is confounded with
the All, and which assumes that the All is greater than the Infinite
in other words, that God plus the universe is greater than God
minus the universe. W. G. T. S.] 4 Cor. vi. 17.
102
THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[Book VI.
greater, although he who is joined to the
Lord does so. In God Himself, therefore,
when the equal Son, or the Holy Spirit equal
to the Father and the Son, is joined to the
equal Father, God does not become greater
than each of them severally; because that
perfectness cannot increase. But whether t
be the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit
He is perfect, and God the Father the Son
and the Holy Spirit is perfect; and therefore
He is a Trinity rather than triple.
CHAP. 9. WHETHER ONE OR THE THREE PER-
SONS TOGETHER ARE CALLED THE ONLY GOD.
10. And since we are showing how we can
say the Father alone, because there is no
Father in the Godhead except Himself, we
must consider also the opinion which holds
that the only true God is not the Father
alone, but the Father and the Son and the
Holy Spirit. For if any one should ask
whether the Father alone is God, how can it
be replied that He is not, unless perhaps we
were to say that the Father indeed is God,
but that He is not God alone, but that the
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are God alone ?
But then what shall we do with that testi-
mony of the Lord ? For He was speaking to
the Father, and had named the Father as
Him to whom He was speaking, when He
says, "And this is life eternal, that they may
know Thee the one true God." 1 And this
the Arians indeed usually take, as if the Son
were not true God. Passing them by, how-
ever, we must see whether, when it is said to
the Father, " That they may know Thee the
one true God," we are forced to understand
it as if He wished to intimate that the Father
alone is the true God; lest we should not un-
derstand any to be God, except the three to-
gether, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Are we therefore, from the testimony of the
Lord, both to call the Father the one true
God, and the Son the one true God, and the
Holy Spirit the one true God, and the Father,
the Son, and the Holy Spirit together, that
is, the Trinity itself together, not three true
Gods but one true God ? Or because He
added, "And Jesus Christ whom Thou hast
sent," are we to supply " the one true God; "
so that the order of the words is this, " That
they may know Thee, and Jesus Christ whom
Thou hast sent, the one true God?" Why
then did He omit to mention the Holy Spirit ?
Is it because it follows, that whenever we
name One who cleaves to One by a harmony
so great that through this harmony both are
again,
t's, and
"The head of the
the head of the man is
although it is not mentioned ? For in that
place, too, the apostle seems as it were to
pass over the Holy Spirit; and yet there, too,
He is understood, where he says, "All are
yours, and ye are Christ's, and Christ is
God's." 2 And
woman is the man
Christ, and the head of Christ is God." 3
But again, if God is only all three together,
how can God be the head of Christ, that is,
the Trinity the head of Christ, since Christ
is in the Trinity in order that it may be the
Trinity? Is that which is the Father with
the Son, the head of that which is the Son
alone ? For the Father with the Son is God,
but the Son alone is Christ: especially since
it is the Word already made flesh that speaks;
and according to this His humiliation ai
the Father is
greater
than
He
ISO,
one, this harmony itself must be understood,
1 John xvii. 3.
He, as tie says,
" for my Father is greater than I; " 4 so that
the very being of God, which is one to Him
with the Father, is itself the head of the man
who is mediator, which He is alone. 5 For if
we rightly call the mind the chief thing of
man, that is, as it were the head of the human
substance, although the man himself together
with the mind is man; why is not the Word
with the Father, which together is God, much
more suitably and much more the head of
Christ, although Christ as man cannot be
understood except with the Word which was
made flesh ? But this, as we have already
said, we shall consider somewhat more care-
fully hereafter. At present the equality and
one and the same substance of the Trinity
has been demonstrated as briefly as possible,
that in whatever way that other question be
determined, the more rigorous discussion of
which we have deferred, nothing may hinder
us from confessing the absolute equality of
the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
CHAP. X. OF THE ATTRIBUTES ASSIGNED BV
HILARY TO EACH PERSON. THE TRINITY IS
REPRESENTED IN THINGS THAT ARE MADE.
11. A certain writer, when he would briefly
intimate the special attributes of each of the
persons in the Trinity, tells us that " Eternity
is in the Father, form in the Image, use in
the Gift." And since he was a man of no
mean authority in handling the Scriptures,
and in the assertion of the faith, for it is Hil-
ary who put this in his book (On the Trinity,
ii.); I have searched into the hidden meaning
of these words as far as I can, that is, of the
Father, and the Image, and the Gift, of eter-
nity, and of form, and of use. And I do not
think that he intended more by the word eter-
- 1 Cor. iii. 22, 23.
4 John xiv. 28.
3 i Cor. xi. 3.
5 1 Tim. ii. 5.
Chap. X.]
ON THE TRINITY.
103
nity, than that the Father has not a father
from whom He is; but the Son is from the
Father, so as to be, and so as to be co-eternal
with Him. For if an image perfectly fills the
measure of that of which it is the image, then
the image is made equal to that of which it is
the image, not the latter to its own image.
And in respect to this image he has named
form, I believe on account of the quality of
beauty, where there is at once such great fit-
ness, and prime equality, and prime likeness,
differing in nothing, and unequal in no re-
spect, and in no part unlike, but answering
exactly to Him whose image it is: where there
is prime and absolute life, to whom it is not
one thing to live, and another to be, but the
same thing to be and to live; and prime and
absolute intellect, to whom it is not one thing
to live, another to understand, but to under-
stand is to live, and is to be, and all things
are one: as though a perfect Word (John i.
1), to which nothing is wanting, and a certain
skill of the omnipotent and wise God, full of
all living, unchangeable sciences, and all one
in it, as itself is one from one, with whom it
is one. Therein God knew all things which
He made by it; and therefore, while times
pass away and succeed, nothing passes away
or succeeds to the knowledge of God. For
things which are created are not therefore
known by God, because they have been made;
and not rather have been therefore made,
even although changeable, because they are
known unchangeably by Him. Therefore
that unspeakable conjunction of the Father
and His image is not without fruition, with-
out love, without joy. Therefore that love,
delight, felicity, or blessedness, if indeed it
can be worthily expressed by any human
word, is called by him, in short, Use; and is
the Holy Spirit in the Trinity, not begotten,
but the sweetness of the begetter and of the
begotten, filling all creatures according to
their capacity with abundant bountifulness
and copiousness, that they may keep their
proper order and rest satisfied in their proper
place.
12. Therefore all these things which are
made by divine skill, show in themselves a
certain unity, and form, and order; for each
of them is both some one thing, as are the
several natures of bodies and dispositions of
souls; and is fashioned in some form, as are
the figures or qualities of bodies, and the
various learning or skill of souls; and seeks
or preserves a certain order, as are the sev-
eral weights or combinations of bodies and
the loves or delights of souls. When there-
fore we regard the Creator, who is understood
by the things that are made x we must needs
understand the Trinity of whom there appear
traces in the creature, as is fitting. For in
that Trinity is the supreme source of all things,
and the most perfect beauty, and the most
blessed delight. Those three, therefore, both
seem to be mutually determined to each other,
and are in themselves infinite. But here in
corporeal things, one thing alone is not as
much as three together, and two are some-
thing more than one; but in that highest
Trinity one is as much as the three together,
nor are two anything more than one. And
They are infinite in themselves. So both
each are in each, and all in each, and each
in all, and all in all, and all are one. Let
him who sees this, whether * in part, or
"through a glass and in an enigma," 2 re-
joice in knowing God ; and let him honor Him
as God, and give thanks; but let him who
does not see it, strive to see it through piety,
not to cavil at it through blindness. Since
God is one, but yet is a Trinity. Neither are
we to take the words, " of whom, and through
whom, and to whom are all things," as used
indiscriminately [i.e., to denote a unity with-
out distinctions]; nor yet to denote many
gods, for "to Him, be glory for ever and
ever. Amen." 3
1 Rom. i. 20.
3 Rom. xi. 36, in A.V.
- 1 Cor. xiii. 12. Darkly, A.V.
BOOK VII.
THE QUESTION IS EXPLAINED, WHICH HAD BEEN DEFERRED IN THE PREVIOUS BOOK, VIZ. THAT
GOD THE FATHER, WHO BEGAT THE SON, HIS POWER AND WISDOM, IS NOT ONLY THE FATHER
OF POWER AND WISDOM, BUT ALSO HIMSELF POWER AND WISDOM ; AND SIMILARLY THE HOLY
SPIRIT : YET THAT THERE ARE NOT THREE POWERS OR THREE WISDOMS, BUT ONE POWER
AND ONE WISDOM, AS THERE IS ONE GOD AND ONE ESSENCE. INQUIRY IS THEN MADE, WHY
THE LATINS SAY ONE ESSENCE, THREE PERSONS, IN GOD ; BUT THE GREEKS, ONE ESSENCE,
THREE SUBSTANCES OR HYPOSTASES : AND BOTH MODES OF EXPRESSION ARE SHOWN TO ARISE
FROM THE NECESSITIES OF SPEECH, THAT WE MIGHT HAVE AN ANSWER TO GIVE WHEN ASKED,
WHAT THREE, WHILE TRULY CONFESSING THAT THERE ARE THREE, VIZ. THE FATHER, AND
THE SON, AND THE HOLY SPIRIT.
CHAP. I. AUGUSTIN RETURNS TO THE QUES-
TION, WHETHER EACH PERSON OF THE TRINI-
TY BY ITSELF IS WISDOM. WITH WHAT DIF-
FICULTY, OR IN WHAT WAY, THE PROPOSED
QUESTION IS TO BE SOLVED.
i. Let us now inquire more carefully, so
far as God grants, into that which a little
before we deferred; whether each person
also in the Trinity can also by Himself and
not with the other two be called God, or
great, or wise, or true, or omnipotent, or just,
or anything else that can be said of God, not
relatively, but absolutely; or whether these
things cannot be said except when the Trinity
is understood. For the question is raised,
because it is written, " Christ the power of
God, and the wisdom of God," 1 whether
He is so the Father of His own wisdom and
His own power, as that He is wise with that
wisdom which He begat, and powerful with
that power which He begat; and whether,
since He is always powerful and wise, He
always begat power and wisdom. For if it
be so, then, as we have said, why is He not
also the Father of His own greatness by
which He is great, and of His own goodness
by which He is good, and of His own justice
by which He is just, and whatever else there
is ? Or if all these things are understood, al-
though under more names than one, to be in
1 i Cor. i. 24.
the same wisdom and power, so that that is
greatness which is power, that is goodness
which is wisdom, and that again is wisdom
which is power, as we have already argued;
then let us remember, that when I mention
any one of these, I am to be taken as if I
mentioned all. It is asked, then, whether
the Father also by Himself is wise, and is
Himself His own wisdom itself; or whether
He is wise in the same way as He speaks.
For He speaks by the Word which He begat,
not by the word which is uttered, and
sounds, and passes away, but by the Word
which was with God, and the Word was God,
and all things were made by Him: 2 by the
Word which is equal to Himself, by whom
He always and unchangeably utters Himself.
For He is not Himself the Word, as He is
not the Son nor the image. But in speak-
ing (putting aside those words of God in time
which are produced in the creature, for they
sound and pass away, in speaking then) by
that co-eternal Word, He is not understood
singly, but with that Word itself, without
whom certainly He does not speak. Is He
then in such way wise as He is one who
speaks, so as to be in such way wisdom, as
He is the Word, and so that to be the Word
is to be wisdom, that is, also to be power, so
that power and wisdom and the Word may be
- John i. i, 3.
Chap. I.J
ON THE TRINITY.
105
the same, and be so called relatively as the
Son and the image: and that the Father is
not singly powerful or wise, but together with
the power and wisdom itself which He begat
(genuii); just as He is not singly one who
speaks, but by that Word and together with
that Word which He begat; and in like way
great by that and together with that great-
ness, which He begat? And if He is not
great by one thing, and God by another, but
great by that whereby He is God, because it
is not one thing to Him to be great and an-
other to be God; it follows that neither is He
God singly, but by that and together with
that deity (deltas) which He begat; so that
the Son is the deity of the Father, as He is
the wisdom and power of the Father, and as
He is the Word and image of the Father.
And because it is not one thing to Him to
be, another to be God, the Son is also the
essence of the Father, as He is His Word and
image. And hence also except that He is
the Father [the Unbegotten] the Father is
not anything unless because He has the Son;
so that not only that which is meant by
Father (which it is manifest He is not called
relatively to Himself but to the Son, and
therefore is the Father because He has the
Son), but that which He is in respect to His
own substance is so called, because He begat
His own essence. For as He is great, only
with that greatness which He begat, so also
He is, only with that essence which He begat;
because it is not one thing to Him to be, and
another to be great. Is He therefore the
Father of His own essence, in the same way
as He is the Father of His own greatness, as
He is the Father of His own power and wis-
dom ? since His greatness is the same as His
power, and His essence the same as His
greatness.
2. This discussion has arisen from that
which is written, that " Christ is the power of
God, and the wisdom of God." Wherefore
our discourse is compressed into these narrow
limits, while we desire to speak things un-
speakable; that either we must say that
Christ is not the power of God and the wis-
dom of God, and so shamelessly and im-
piously resist the apostle; or we must ac-
knowledge that Christ is indeed the power of
God and the wisdom of God, but that His
Father is not the Father of His own power
and wisdom, which is not less impious; for
so neither will He be the Father of Christ,
because Christ is the power of God and the
wisdom of God; or that the Father is not
powerful with His own power, or wise with
His own wisdom: and who shall dare to say
this ? Or yet, again, that we must understand,
that in the Father it is one thing to be, an-
other thing to be wise, so that He is not by
that by which He is wise: a thing usually
understood of the soul, which is at some times
unwise, at others wise; as being by nature
changeable, and not absolutely and perfectly
simple. Or, again, that the Father is not
anything in respect to His own substance;
and that not only that He is the Father, but
that He is, is said relatively to the Son. How
then can the Son be of the same essence as
the Father, seeing that the Father, in respect
to Himself, is neither His own essence, nor
is at all in respect to Himself, but even His
essence is in relation to the Son ? But, on
the contrary, much more is He of one and
the same essence, since the Father and Son
are one and the same essence; seeing that
the Father has His being itself not in respect
to Himself, but to the Son, which essence
He begat, and by which essence He is what-
ever He is. Therefore neither [person] is
in respect to Himself alone; and both exist
relatively the one to the other. Or is the
Father alone not called Father of himself,
but whatever He is called, is called rela-
tively to the Son, but the Son is predicated
of in reference to Himself? And if it be so,
what is predicated of Him in reference to
Himself? Is it His essence itself? But the
Son is the essence of the Father, as He is the
power and wisdom of the Father, as He is
the Word of the Father, and the image of
the Father. Or if the Son is called essence
in reference to Himself, but the Father is
not essence, but the begetter of the essence,
and is not in respect to Himself, but is by
that very essence which He begat; as He is
great by that greatness which He begat:
therefore the Son is also called greatness in
respect to Himself; therefore He is also
called, in like manner, power, and wisdom,
and word, and image. But what can be more
absurd than that He should be called image
in respect to Himself? Or if image and word
are not the very same with power and wis-
dom, but the former are spoken relatively,
and the latter in respect to self, not to an-
other; then we get to this, that the Father is
not wise with that wisdom which He begat,
because He Himself cannot be spoken rela-
tively to it, and it cannot be spoken relatively
to Him. For all things which are said rela-
tively are said reciprocally; therefore it re-
mains that even in essence the Son is spoken
of relatively to the Father. But from this is
educed a most unexpected sense: that es-
sence itself is not essence, or at least that,
when it is called essence, not essence but
something relative is intimated. As when
io6
THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[Book VII.
we speak of a master, essence is not inti-
mated, but a relative which has reference to
a slave; but when we speak of a man, or any
such thing which is said in respect to self not
to something else, then essence is intimated.
Therefore when a man is called a master,
man himself is essence, but he is called mas-
ter relatively; for he is called man in respect
to himself, but master in respect to his slave.
But in regard to the point from which we
started, if essence itself is spoken relatively,
essence itself is not essence. Add further,
that all essence which is spoken of relatively,
is also something, although the relation be
taken away; as e.g. in the case of a man who
is a master, and a man who is a slave, and a
horse that is a beast of burden, and money
that is a pledge, the man, and the horse, and
the money are spoken in respect to them-
selves, and are substances or essences; but
master, and slave, and beast of burden, and
pledge, are spoken relatively to something.
But if there were not a man, that is, some
substance, there would be none who could be
called relatively a master; and if there were
no horse having a certain essence, there would
be nothing that could be called relatively a
beast of burden; so if money were not some
kind of substance, it could not be called rela-
tively a pledge. Wherefore, if the Father
also is not something in respect to Himself,
then there is no one at all that can be spoken
of relatively to something. For it is not as
it is with color. The color of a thing is re-
ferred to the thing colored, and color is not
spoken at all in reference to substance, but
is always of something that is colored; but
that thing of which it is the color, even if it
is referred to color in respect to its being
colored, is yet, in respect to its being a body,
spoken of in respect to substance. But in no
way may we think, in like manner, that the
Father cannot be called anything in respect
to His own substance, but that whatever He
is called, He is called in relation to the Son;
while the same Son is spoken of both in re-
spect to His own substance and in relation to
the Father, when He is called great greatness,
and powerful power, plainly in respect to Him-
self, and the greatness and power of the great
and powerful Father, by which the Father
is great and powerful. It is not so; but both
are substance, and both are one substance.
And as it is absurd to say that whiteness is
not white, so is it absurd to say that wisdom
is not wise; and as whiteness is called white
in respect to itself, so also wisdom is called
wise in respect to itself. But the whiteness
of a "body is not an essence, since the body
itself is the essence, and that is a quality of
it; and hence also a body is said from that
quality to be white, to which body to be is
not the same thing as to be white. For the
form in it is one thing, and the color another;
and both are not in themselves, but in a cer-
tain bulk, which bulk is neither form nor
color, but is formed and colored. True wis-
dom is both wise, and wise in itself. And
since in the case of every soul that becomes
wise by partaking of wisdom, if it again be-
comes foolish, yet wisdom in itself remains;
nor when that soul was changed into folly is
the wisdom likewise so changed; therefore
wisdom is not in him who becomes wise by it,
in the same manner as whiteness is in the
body which is by it made white. For when
the body has been changed into another color,
that whiteness will not remain, but will alto-
gether cease to be. But if the Father who
begat wisdom is also made wise by it, and to
be is not to Him the same as to be wise, then
the Son is His quality, not His offspring; and
there will no longer be absolute simplicity in
the Godhead. But far be it from being so,
since in truth in the Godhead is absolutely
simple essence, and therefore to be is there
the same as to be wise. But if to be is there
the same as to be wise, then the Father is
not wise by that wisdom which He begat;
otherwise He did not beget it, but it begat
Him. For what else do we say when we say,
that to Him to be is the same as to be wise,
unless that He is by that whereby He is wise?
Wherefore, that which is the cause to Him
of being wise, is itself also the cause to Him
that He is; and accordingly, if the wisdom
which He begat is the cause to Him of being
wise, it is also the cause to Him that He is;
and this cannot be the case, except either by
begetting or by creating Him. But no one
ever said in any sense that wisdom is either
the begetter or the creator of the Father; for
what could be more senseless ? Therefore
both the Father Himself is wisdom, and the
Son is in such way called the wisdom of the
Father, as He is called the light of the
Father; that is, that in the same manner as
light from light,and yet both one light, so we
are to understand wisdom of wisdom, and yet
both one wisdom; and therefore also one
essence, since, in God, to be, is the same as
to be wise. For what to be wise is to wisdom,
and to be able is to power, and to be eternal
is to eternity, and to.be just to justice, and
to be great to greatness, that being itself is
to essence. A.nd since in the Divine simplic-
ity, to be wise is nothing else than to be,
therefore wisdom there is the same as essence.
Chap. III.]
ON THE TRINITY.
107
CHAP. 2. THE FATHER AND THE SON ARE TO-
GETHER ONE WISDOM, AS ONE ESSENCE, AL-
THOUGH NOT TOGETHER ONE WORD.
3. Therefore the Father and the Son to-
gether are one essence, and one greatness,
and one truth, and one wisdom. But the
Father and Son both together are not one
Word, because both together are not one
Son. For as the Son is referred to the
Father, and is not so called in respect to
Himself, so also the Word is referred to
him whose Word it is, when it is called the
Word. Since He is the Son in that He is the
Word, and He is the Word in that He is the
Son. Inasmuch, therefore, as the Father
and the Son together are certainly not one
Son, it follows that the Father and the Son
together are not the one Word of both. And
therefore He is not the Word in that He is
wisdom; since He is not called the Word in
respect to Himself, but only relatively to
Him whose Word He is, as He is called the
Son in relation to the Father; but He is wis-
dom by that whereby He is essence. And
therefore, because one essence, one wisdom.
But since the Word is also wisdom, yet is
not thereby the Word because He is wisdom;
for He is understood to be the Word rela-
tively, but wisdom essentially: let us under-
stand, that when He is called the Word, it is
meant, wisdom that is bom, so as to be both
the Son and the Image; and that when these
two words are used, namely wisdom (is) bom,
in one of the two, namely bom, 1 both Word,
and Image, and Son, are understood, and in
all these names essence is not expressed,
since they are spoken relatively; but in the
other word, namely wisdom, since it is spoken
also in respect to substance, for wisdom is
wise in itself, essence also is expressed, and
that being of His which is to be wise. Whence
the Father and Son together are one wisdom,
because one essence, and singly wisdom of
wisdom, as essence of essence. And hence
they are not therefore not one essence, be-
cause the Father is not the Son, and the Son is
not the Father, or because the Father is un-
begotten, but the Son is begotten: since by
these names only their relative attributes are
expressed. But both together are one wis-
dom and one essence; in which to be, is the
same as to be wise. And both together are
not the Word or the Son, since to be is not
the same as to be the Word or the Son, as
we have already sufficiently shown that these
terms are spoken relatively.
1 [Augustin sometimes denominates the Son "begotten"
(genitus), and sometimes " born " (natus). Both terms signify
that the Son is ^/the Father; God of God, Light of Light, Essence
of Essence. W. G. T. S.]
CHAP. 3. WHY THE SON CHIEFLY IS INTIMATED
IN THE SCRIPTURES BY THE NAME OF WIS-
DOM, WHILE BOTH THE FATHER AND THE
HOLY SPIRIT ARE WISDOM. THAT THE HOLY
SPIRIT, TOGETHER WITH THE FATHER AND
THE SON, IS ONE WISDOM.
4. Why, then, is scarcely anything ever
said in the Scriptures of wisdom, unless to
show that it is begotten or created of God ?
begotten in the case of that Wisdom by
which all things are made; but created or
made, as in men, when they are converted to
that Wisdom which is not created and made
but begotten, and are so enlightened; for
in these men themselves there comes to be
something which may be called their wisdom:
even as the Scriptures foretell or narrate, that
" the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among
us;" 2 for in this way Christ was made wis-
dom, because He was made man. Is it on
this account that wisdom does not speak in
these books, nor is anything spoken of it,
except to declare that it is born of God, or
made by Him (although the Father is Him-
self wisdom), namely, because wisdom ought
to be commended and imitated by us, by the
imitation of which we are fashioned [rightly] ?
For the Father speaks it, that it may be His
Word: yet not as a word producing a sound
proceeds from the mouth, or is thought
before it is pronounced. For this word is
completed in certain spaces of time, but that
is eternal, and speaks to us by enlightening
us, what ought to be spoken to men, both of
itself and of the Father. And therefore He
says, "No man knoweth the Son, but the
Father; neither knoweth any man the Father,
save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son
will reveal Him:" 3 since the Father reveals
by the Son, that is, by His Word. For if
that word which we utter, and which is tem-
poral and transitory, declares both itself, and
that of which we speak, how much more the
Word'of God, by which all things are made ?
For this Word so declares the Father as He
is the Father; because both itself so is, and
is that which is the Father, in so far as it is
wisdom and essence. For in so far as it is
the Word, it is not what the Father is; be-
cause the Word is not the Father, and Word
is spoken relatively, as is also Son, which
assuredly is not the Father. And therefore
Christ is the power and wisdom of God, be-
cause He Himself, being also power and wis-
dom, is from the Father, who is power and
wisdom; as He is light of the Father, who is
light, and the fountain of life with God the
Father, who is Himself assuredly the fountain
John i. 14.
3 Matt. xi. 27.
io8
THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[Book VII.
of life. For " with Thee," He says, " is the
fountain of life, and in Thy light shall we see
light." 1 Because, " as the Father hath life
in Himself, so hath He given to the Son to
have life in Himself:" 2 and, "He was the
true Light, which lighteth every man that
cometh into the world: " and this light, " the
Word," was "with God;" but "the Word
also was -God; " 3 and "God is light, and in
Him is no darkness at all: " 4 but a light that
is not corporeal, but spiritual; yet not in
such way spiritual, that it was wrought by
illumination, as it was said to the apostles,
*' Ye are the light of the world, " s but " the
light which lighteth every man," that very
supreme wisdom itself who is God, of whom
we now treat. The Son therefore is Wisdom
of wisdom, namely the Father, as He is Light
of light, and God of God; so that both the
Father singly is light, and the Son singly is
light; and the Father singly is God, and the
Son singly is God: therefore the Father also
singly is wisdom, and the Son singly is wis-
dom. And as both together are one light
and one God, so both are one wisdom. But
the Son is "by God made unto us wisdom,
and righteousness, and sanctification; " 6 be-
cause we turn ourselves to Him in time, that
is, from some particular time, that we may
remain with Him for ever. And He Himself
from a certain time was "the Word made
flesh, and dwelt among us."
5 . On this account, then, when anything con-
cerning wisdom is declared or narrated in the
Scriptures, whether as itself speaking, or
where anything is spoken of it, the Son chiefly
is intimated to us. And by the example of
Him who is the image, let us also not depart
from God, since we also are the Image of
God: not indeed that which is equal to Him,
since we are made so by the Father through
the Son, and not born of the Father, as that
is. And we are so, because we are enlight-
ened with light; but that is so, because it is
the light that enlightens; and which, there-
fore, being without pattern, is to us a pattern.
For He does not imitate any one going before
Him, in respect to the Father, from whom
He is never separable at all, since He is the
very same substance with Him from whom
He is. But we by striving imitate Him who
abides, and follow Him who stands still, and
walking in Him, reach out towards Him; be-
cause He is made for us a way in time by
His humiliation, which is to us an eternal
abiding-place by His divinity. For since to
pure intellectual spirits, who have not fallen
through pride, He gives an example in the
form of God and as equal with God and as
God; so, in order that He might also give
Himself as an example of returning to fallen
man, who on account of the uncleanness of
sins and the punishment of mortality cannot
see God, " He emptied Himself; " not by
changing His own divinity, but by assuming
our changeableness: and "taking upon Him
the form of a servant,'' 7 " He came to us
into this world," 8 who " was in this world,"
because "the world was made by Him;" 9
that He might be an example upwards to
those who see God, an example downwards
to those who admire man, an example to the
sound to persevere, an example to the sick to
be made whole, an example to those who are
to die that they may not fear, an example to
the dead that they may rise again, "that in
all things He might have the pre-eminence." 10
So that, because man ought not to follow any
except God to blessedness, and yet cannot
perceive God; by following God made man,
he might follow at once Him whom he could
perceive, and whom he ought to follow. Let
us then love Him and cleave to Him, by
charity spread abroad in our hearts, through
the Holy Spirit which is given unto us." It
is not therefore to be wondered at, if, on ac-
count of the example which the Image, which
is equal to the Father, gives to us, in order
that we may be refashioned after the image
of God, Scripture, when it speaks of wisdom,
speaks of the Son, whom we follow by living
wisely; although the Father also is wisdom,
as He is both light and God.
6. The Holy Spirit also, whether we are to
call Him that absolute love which joins to-
gether Father and Son, and joins us also
from beneath, that so that is not unfitly said
which is written, "God is love;" 12 how is He
not also Himself wisdom, since He is light,
because "God is light"? or whether after
any other way the essence of the Holy Spirit
is to be singly and properly named; then,
too, since He is God, He is certainly light;
and since He is light, He is certainly wisdom.
But that the Holy Spirit is God, Scripture
proclaims by the apostle, who says, " Know
ye not that ye are the temple of God ? " and
immediately subjoins, "And the Spirit of
God dwelleth in you;" 13 for God dwelleth in
His own temple. For the Spirit of God does
not dwell in the temple of God as a servant,
since he says more plainly in another place,
" Know ye not that your body is the temple
of the Holy Ghost which is in you, and which
ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
1 Ps. xxxvi. 9.
4 1 John i. 5.
- John v. 2'.
5 Matt. v. 14.
3 John i. 9, 1.
6 1 Cor. i. -io.
7 Phil. ii. 7 .
1 Col. i. tS.
J 3 1 Cor. iii. 16.
8 1 Tim. i. 15.
11 Rom. v. 5.
9 John i. 10.
12 1 John iv. i
Chap. IV.]
ON THE TRINITY.
109
For ye are bought with a great price: there-
fore glorify God in your body." 1 But what
is wisdom, except spiritual and unchangeable
light? For yonder sun also is light, but it is
corporeal; and the spiritual creature also is
light, but it is not unchangeable. Therefore
the Father is light, the Son is light, and the
Holy Spirit is light; but together not three
lights, but one light. And so the Father is
wisdom, the Son is wisdom, and the Holy
Spirit is wisdom, and together not three wis-
doms, but one wisdom: and because in the
Trinity to be is the same as to be wise, the
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are one essence.
Neither in the Trinity is it one thing to be
and another to be God; therefore the Father,
Son, and Holy Spirit, are one God.
CHAP. 4. HOW IT WAS BROUGHT ABOUT THAT
THE GREEKS SPEAK OF THREE HYPOSTASES,
THE LATINS OF THREE PERSONS. SCRIPTURE
NOWHERE SPEAKS OF THREE PERSONS IN ONE
GOD.
7. For the sake, then, of speaking of things
that cannot be uttered, that we may be able
in some way to utter what we are able in no
way to utter fully, our Greek friends have
spoken of one essence, three substances; but
the Latins of one essence or substance, three
persons; because, as we have already said, 2
essence usually means nothing else than sub-
stance in our language, that is, in Latin.
And provided that what is said is understood
only in a mystery, such a way of speaking
was sufficient, in order that there might be
something to say when it was asked what the
three are, which the true faith pronounces to
be three, when it both declares that the
Father is not the Son, and that the Holy
Spirit, which is the gift of God, is neither
the Father nor the Son. When, then, it is
asked what the three are, or who the three
are, we betake ourselves to the finding out
of some special or general name under which
we may embrace these three; and no such
name occurs to the mind, because the super-
eminence of the Godhead surpasses the power
of customary speech. For God is more truly
thought than He is uttered, and exists more
truly than He is thought. For when we say
that Jacob was not the same as Abraham,
but that Isaac was neither Abraham nor
Jacob, certainly we confess that they are
three, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. But
when it is asked what three, we reply three
men, calling them in the plural by a specific
name; but if we were to say three animals,
then by a generic name; for man, as the
1 1 Cor. vi. 19, 20.
Bk. v. c. 28
ancients have defined him, is a rational, mor-
tal animal: or again, as our Scriptures usually
speak, three souls, since it is fitting to de-
nominate the whole from the better part, that
is, to denominate both body and soul, which
is the whole man, from the soul; for so it is
said that seventy-five souls went down into
Egypt with Jacob, instead of saying so many
men. 3 Again, when we say that your horse
is not mine, and that a third belonging to
some one else is neither mine nor yours, then
we confess that there are three; and if any
one ask what three, we answer three horses
by a specific name, but three animals by a
generic one. And yet again, when we say
that an ox is not a horse, but that a dog is
neither an ox nor a horse, we speak of a three;
and if any one questions us what three, we
do not speak now by a specific name of three
horses, or three oxen, or three dogs, because
the three are not contained under the same
species, but by a generic name, three animals;
or if under a higher genus, three substances,
or three creatures, or three natures. But
whatsoever things are expressed in the plural
number specifically by one name, can also be
expressed generically by one name. But all
things which are generically called by one
name cannot also be called specifically by
one name. For three horses, which is a
specific name, we also call three animals; but
a horse, and an ox, and a dog, we call only
three animals or substances, which are generic
names, or anything else that can be spoken
generically concerning them; but we cannot
speak of them as three horses, or oxen, or
dogs, which are specific names; for we ex-
press those things by one name, although in
the plural number, which have that in com-
mon that is signified by the name. For
Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, have in com-
mon that which is man; therefore they are
called three men: a horse also, and an ox,
and a dog, have in common that which is
animal; therefore they are called three ani-
mals. So three several laurels we also call
three trees; but a laurel, and a myrtle, and
an olive, we call only three trees, or three
substances, or three natures: and so three
stones we call also three bodies; but stone,
and wood, and iron, we call only three bodies,
or by any other higher generic name by which
they can be called. Of the Father, there-
fore, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, seeing
that they are three, let us ask what three they
are, and what they have in common. For the
being the Father is not common to them, so
that they should be interchangeably fathers
3 Gen. xlvi. 27, and Deut. x. 22.
I IO
THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[Book VII.
to one another: as friends, since they are so
called relatively to each other, can be called
three friends, because they are so mutually
to each other. But this is not the case
in the Trinity, since the Father only is
there father; and not Father of two, but
of the Son only. Neither are they three
Sons, since the Father there is not the
Son, nor is the Holy Spirit. Neither three
Holy Spirits, because the Holy Spirit also,
in that proper meaning by which He is also
called the gift of God, is neither the Father
nor the Son. What three therefore ? For if
three persons, then that which is meant by
person is common to them; therefore this
name is either specific or generic to them,
according to the manner of speaking. But
where there is no difference of nature, there
things that are several in number are so ex-
pressed generically, that they can also be ex-
pressed specifically. For the difference of
nature causes, that a laurel, and a myrtle,
and an olive, or a horse, and an ox, and a
dog, are not called by the specific name, the
former of three laurels, or the latter of three
oxen, but by the generic name, the former of
three trees, and the latter of three animals.
But here, where there is no difference of es-
sence, it is necessary that these three should
have a specific name, which yet is not to be
found. For person is a generic name, inso-
much that man also can be so called, although
there is so great a difference between man
and God.
8. Further, in regard to that very generic
(generalis) word, if on this account we say
three persons, because that which person
means is common to them (otherwise they
can in no way be so called, just as they are
not called three sons, because that which
son means is not common to them); why do
we not also say three Gods ? For certainly,
since the Father is a person, and the Son a
person, and the Holy Spirit a person, there-
fore there are three persons: since then the
Father is God, and the Son God, and the
Holy Spirit God, why not three Gods ? Or
else, since on account of their ineffable union
these three are together one God, why not
also one person; so that we could not say
three persons, although we call each a per-
son singly, just as we cannot say three Gods,
although we call each singly God, whether
the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit?
Is it because Scripture does not say three
Gods? But neither do we find that Scripture
anywhere mentions three persons. Or is it
because Scripture does not call these three,
either three persons or one person (for we
read of the person of the Lord, but not of the
Lord as a person), that therefore it was law-
ful through the mere necessity of speaking
and reasoning to say three persons, not be-
cause Scripture says it, but because Scripture
does not contradict it: whereas, if we were to
say three Gods, Scripture would contradict it,
which says, "Hear, O Israel; the Lord thy
God is one God ? " J Why then is it not also
lawful to say three essences; which, in like
manner, as Scripture does not say, so neither
does it contradict ? For if essence is a spe-
cific (specialis) name common to three, why
are They not to be called three essences, as
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are called three
men, because man is the specific name com-
mon to all men ? But if essence is not a spe-
cific name, but a generic one, since man, and
cattle, and tree, and constellation, and angel,
are called essences; why are not these called
three essences, as three horses are called
three animals, and three laurels are called
three trees, and three stones three bodies ?
Or if they are not called three essences, but
one essence, on account of the unity of the
Trinity, why is it not the case, that on ac-
count of the same unity of the Trinity they
are not to be called three substances or three
persons, but one substance and one person?
For as the name of essence is common to
them, so that each singly is called essence,
so the name of either substance or person is
common to them. For that which must be
understood of persons according to our usage,
this is to be understood of substances accord-
ing to the Greek usage; for they say three
substances, one essence, in the same way as
we say three persons, one essence or sub-
stance.
9. What therefore remains, except that we
confess that these terms sprang from the ne-
cessity of speaking, when copious reason-
ing was required against the devices or errors
of the heretics ? For when human weakness
endeavored to utter in speech to the senses
of man what it grasps in the secret places of
the mind in proportion to its comprehen-
sion respecting the Lord God its creator,
whether by devout faith, or by any discern-
ment whatsoever; it feared to say three es-
sences, lest any difference should be under-
stood to exist in that absolute equality.
Again, it could not say that there were not
three somewhats (tria qucedani), for it was be-
cause Sabellius said this that he fell into
heresy. For it must be devoutly believed, as
most certainly known from the Scriptures, and
must be grasped by the mental eye with un-
doubting perception, that there is both
1 Deut. vi. 4.
Chap. VI.]
ON THE TRINITY.
I I I
Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit; and that
the Son is not the same with the Father, nor
the Holy Spirit the same with the Father or
the Son. It sought then what three it should
call them, and answered substances or per-
sons; by which names it did not intend di-
versity to be meant, but singleness to be
denied: that not only unity might be un-
derstood therein from the being called one
essence, but also Trinity from the being
called three substances or persons. For if
it is the same thing with God to be {esse) as
to subsist (subsisterc), they were not to be
called three substances, in such sense as they
are not called three essences; just as, because
it is the same thing with God to be as to be
wise, as we do not say three essences, so
neither three wisdoms. For so, because it is
the same thing to Him to be God as to be, it
is not right to say three essences, as it is not
right to say three Gods. But if it is one
thing to God to be, another to subsist, as it is
one thing to God to be, another to be the
Father or the Lord (for that which He is, is
spoken in respect to Himself, but He is called
Father in relation to the Son, and Lord in re-
lation to the creature which serves Him);
therefore He subsists relatively, as He begets
relatively, and bears rule relatively: so then
substance will be no longer substance, because
it will be relative. For as from being, He is
called essence, so from subsisting, we speak
of substance. But it is absurd that substance
should be spoken relatively, for everything
subsists in respect to itself; how much more
God? 1
CHAP. 5. IN GOD, SUBSTANCE IS SPOKEN IM-
PROPERLY, ESSENCE PROPERLY.
10. If, however, it is fitting that God should
be said to subsist (For this word is right-
ly applied to those things, in which as sub-
jects those things are, which are said to be in
a subject, as color or shape in body. For
body subsists, and so is substance; but those
things are in the body, which subsists and is
their subject, and they are not substances,
but are in a substance : and so, if either that
color or that shape ceases to be, it does not
deprive the body of being a body, because
it is not of the being of body, that it should
retain this or that shape or color; therefore
neither changeable nor simple things are pro-
perly called substances.) If, I say, God sub-
sists so that He can be properly called a sub-
1 [Augustin's meaning is, that the term " substance " is not
an adequate one whereby to denote a trinitarian distinction, be-
cause in order to denote such a distinction it must be employed re
latively, while in itself it has an absolute signification. In the
next chapter he proceeds to show this. W. G. T. S.]
stance, then there is something in Him as
it were in a subject, and He is not simple, i.e.
such that to Him to be is the same as is any-
thing else that is said concerning Him in
respect to Himself; as, for instance, great,
omnipotent, good, and whatever of this kind
is not unfitly said of God. But it is an im-
piety to say that God subsists, and is a sub-
ject in relation to His own goodness, and that
this goodness is not a substance or rather es-
sence, and that God Himself is not His own
goodness, but that it is in Him as in a sub-
ject. And hence it is clear that God is im-
properly called substance, in order that He
may be understood to be, by the more usual
name essence, which He is truly and pro-
perly called; so that perhaps it is right that
God alone should be called essence. For
He is truly alone, because He is unchange-
able; and declared this to be His own name
to His servant Moses, when He says, "I am
that I am;" and, "Thus shalt thou say unto
the children of Israel: He who is hath sent
me unto you." 2 However, whether He be
called essence, which He is properly called,
or substance, which He is called improperly,
He is called both in respect to Himself, not
relatively to anything; whence to God to be
is the same thing as to subsist; and so the
Trinity, if one essence, is also one substance.
Perhaps therefore they are more conveniently
called three persons than three substances.
CHAP. 6. WHY WE DO NOT IN THE TRINITY
SPEAK OF ONE PERSON, AND THREE ESSENCES.
WHAT HE OUGHT TO BELIEVE CONCERNING
THE TRINITY WHO DOES NOT RECEIVE WHAT
IS SAID ABOVE. MAN IS BOTH AFTER THE
IMAGE, AND IS THE IMAGE OF GOD.
11. But lest I should seem to favor our-
selves [the Latins], let us make this further
inquiry. Although they [the Greeks] also,
if they pleased, as they call three substances
three hypostases, so might call three persons
three "prosopa," yet they preferred that word
which, perhaps, was more in accordance with
the usage of their language. For the case is
the same with the word persons also; for to
God it is not one thing to be, another to be a
person, but it is absolutely the same thing.
For if to be is said in respect to Himself, but
person relatively; in this way we should say
three persons, the Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit; just as we speak of three friends, or
three relations, or three neighbors, in that
they are so mutually, not that each one of
them is so in respect to himself. Wherefore
any one of these is the friend of the other two,
Ex. iii. 14.
I 12
THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUST1X.
[Book VII.
or the relation, or the neighbor, because
these names have a relative signification.
What then ? Are we to call the Father the per-
son of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, or the
Son the person of the Father and of the Holy
Spirit, or the Holy Spirit the person of the
Father and of the Son ? But neither is the
word person commonly so used in any case;
nor in this Trinity, when we speak of the per-
son of the Father, do we mean anything else
than the substance of the Father. Wherefore,
as the substance of the Father is the Father
Himself, not as He is the Father, but as He
is, so also the person of the Father is not any-
thing else than the Father Himself; for He is
called a person in respect to Himself, not in
respect to the Son, or the Holy Spirit: just as
He is called in respect to Himself both God,
and great, and good, and just, and anything
else of the kind ; and just as to Him to be is the
same as to be Gcd, or as to be great, or as
to be good, so it is the same thing to Him to
be, as to be a person. Why, therefore, do
we not call these three together one person,
as one essence and one God, but say three
persons, while we do not say three Gods or
three essences; unless it be because we wish
some one word to serve for that meaning
whereby the Trinity is understood, that we
might not be altogether silent, when asked,
what three, while we confessed that they are
three ? For if essence is the genus, and sub-
stance or person the species, as some think,
then I must omit what I just now said, that
they ought to be called three essences, as they
are called three substances or persons ; as
three horses are called three horses, and the
same are called three animals, since horse is
the species, animal the genus. For in this
case the species is not spoken of in the plural,
and the genus in the singular, as if we were
to say that three horses were one animal; but
as they are three horses by the special name,
so they are three animals by the generic one.
But if they say that the name of substance or
person does not signify species, but something
singular and individual; so that anyone is not
so called a substance or person as he is called
a man, for man is common to all men, but in
the same manner as he is called this or that
man, as Abraham, as Isaac, as Jacob, or any-
one else who, if present, could be pointed out
with the finger : so will the same reason reach
these too. For as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob
are called three individuals, so are they called
three men, and three souls. Why then are
both the Father and the Son and the Holy
Spirit, if we are to reason about them also ac-
cording to genus and species and individual,
not so called three essences, as they are called
three substances or persons? But this, as I said,
I pass over : but I do affirm, that if essence
is a genus, then a single essence has no
species; just as, because animal is a genus, a
single animal has no species. Therefore the
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not three
species of one essence. But if essence is a
species, as man is a species, but those are
three which we call substances or persons, then
they have the same species in common, in
such way as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob have
in common the species which is called man ;
not as man is subdivided into Abraham, Isaac,
and Jacob, so can one man also be subdivided
into several single men; for this is altogether
impossible, since one man is already a single
man. Why then is one essence subdivided
into three substances or persons ? For if es-
ence is a species, as man is, then one essence
is as one man is : or do we, as we say that any
three human beings of the same sex, of the
same constitution of body, of the same mind,
are one nature, for they are three human
beings, but one nature, so also say in the
Trinity three substances one essence, or three
persons one substance or essence ? But this
is somehow a parallel case, since the ancients
also who spoke Latin, before they had these
terms, which have not long come into use,
that is, essence or substance, used for them to
say nature. We do not therefore use these
terms according to genus or species, but as if
according to a matter that is common and the
same. Just as if three statues were made of
the same goid, we should say three statues
one gold, yet should neither call the gold
genus, and the statues species; nor the gold
species, and the statues individuals. For no
species goes beyond its own individuals, so
as to comprehend anything external to them.
For when I define what man is, which is a
specific name, every several man that exists
is contained in the same individual definition,
neither does anything belong to it which is
not a man. But when I define gold, not
statues alone, if they be gold, but rings also,
and anything else that is made of gold, will
belong to gold ; and even if nothing were
made of it, it would still be called gold; since,
even if there were no gold statues, there will
not therefore be no statues at all. Likewise
no species goes beyond the definition of its
genus. For when I define animal, since horse
is a species of this genus, every horse is an
animal ; but every statue is not gold. So, al-
though in the case of three golden statues we
should rightly say three statues, one gold ;
yet we do not so say it, as to understand gold
to be the genus, and the statues to be species.
Therefore neither do we so call the Trinity
Chap. VI.]
ON THE TRINITY.
113
three persons or substances, one essence and
one God, as though three somethings subsist-
ed out of one matter [leaving a remainder, i.
e.\, although whatever that is, it is unfolded in
these three. For there is nothing else of that
essence besides the Trinity. Yet we say
three persons of the same essence, or three
persons one essence ; but we do not say three
persons out of the same essence, as though
therein essence were one thing, and person
another, as we can say three statues out of the
same gold ; for there it is one thing to be gold,
another to be statues. And when we say three
men one nature, or three men of the same
nature, they also can be called three men out
of the same nature, since out of the same na-
ture there can be also three other such men.
But in that essence of the Trinity, in no way
can any other person whatever exist out of the
same essence. Further, in these things, one
man is not as much as three men together ;
and two men are something more than one
man : and in equal statues, three together
amount to more of gold than each singly, and
one amounts to less of gold than two. But
in God it is not so; for the Father, the Son,
and the Holy Spirit together is not a greater
essence than the Father alone or the Son
alone; but these three substances or persons,
if they must be so called, together are equal
to each singly: which the natural man does
not comprehend. For he cannot think ex-
cept under the conditions of bulk and space,
either small or great, since phantasms or as
it were images of bodies flit about in his
mind.
12. And until he be purged from this
uncleanness, let him believe in the Father,
Son, and Holy Spirit, one God, alone, great,
omnipotent, good, just, merciful, Creator of
all things visible and invisible, and whatso-
ever can be worthily and truly said of Him in
proportion to human capacity. And when he
is told that the Father only is God, let him
not separate from Him the Son or the Holy
Spirit ; for together with Him He is the only
God, together with whom also He is one God;
because, when we are told that the Son also is
the only God, we must needs take it without
any separation of the Father or the Holy
Spirit. And let him so say one essence, as
not to think one to be either greater or better
than, or in any respect differing from, another.
Yet not that the Father Himself is both Son
and Holy Spirit, or whatever else each is sin-
gly called in relation to either of the others ; as
Word, which is not said except of the Son, or
Gift, which is not said except of the Holy
Spirit. And on this account also they admit
the plural number, as it is written in the Gos-
8
pel, "I and my Father are one." 1 He has
both said "one/' 2 and "we are 3 one," accord-
ing to essence, because they are the same God;
" we are," according to relation, because the
one is Father, the other is Son. Sometimes
also the unity of the essence is left unex-
pressed, and the relatives alone are mention-
ed in the plural number : " My Father and I
will come unto him, and make our abode with
him." 4 We will come, and we will make our
abode, is the plural number, since it was said
before, " I and my Father," that is, the Son
and the Father,which terms are used relatively
to one another. Sometimes the meaning is
altogether latent, as in Genesis : " Let us
make man after our image and likeness." 5
Both let us make and our is said in the plural,
and ought not to be received except as of
relatives. For it was not that gods might
make, or make after the image and likeness
of gods ; but that the Father, and Son, and
Holy Spirit might make after the image of the
Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit, that man
might subsist as the image of God. And God
is the Trinity. But because that image of God
was not made altogether equal to Him, as
being not born of Him, but created by Him;
in order to signify this, he is in such way the
image as that he is " after the image," that
is, he is not made equal by parity, but ap-
proaches to Him by a sort of likeness. For
approach to God is not by interval's of place,
but by likeness, and withdrawal from Him is
by unlikeness. For there are some who
draw this distinction, that they will have the
Son to be the image, but man not to be the
image, but "after the image." But the
apostle refutes them, saying, " For a man
indeed ought not to cover his head, foras-
much as he is the image and glory of God." 6
He did not say after the image, but the image.
And this image, since it is elsewhere spoken
of as after the image, is not as if it were said
relatively to the Son, who is the image equal
to the Father ; otherwise he would not say
after our image. For how our, when the Son
is the image of the Father alone ? But man
is said to be " after the image," on account,
as we have said, of the inequality of the like-
ness; and therefore after our image, that man
might be the image of the Trinity; 7 not equal
to the Trinity as the Son is equal to the
Father, but approaching to it, as has been
'John x. 30. - I'num. 3 Sumi/s.
4 John xiv. 23. 5 Gen. i. 26. 6 1 Cor. xi. 7.
7 [Augustin would find this " image " in the ternaries of nature
and the human mind which illustrate the Divine trinality. The
remainder of the treatise is mainly devoted to this abstruse sub-
ject; and is one of the most metaphysical pieces of composition in
patristic literature. The exegetical portion of the work ends sub-
stantially with the seventh chapter. The remainder is ontologi-
cal, yet growing out of, and founded upon the biblical data and
results of the first part. W. G. T. S.]
ii4
THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[Book VII.
said, by a certain likeness ; just as nearness
may in a sense be signified in things distant
from each other, not in respect of place, but
of a sort of imitation. For it is also said,
"Be ye transformed by the renewing of your
mind;" 1 to whom he likewise says, " Be ye
therefore imitators of God as dear children." 2
For it is said to the new man, " which is re-
newed to the knowledge of God, after the
image of Him that created him." 3 Or if we
choose to admit the plural number, in order
to meet the needs of argument, even putting
aside relative terms, that so we may answer in
1 Rom. xii. 2.
3 Col. iii. 10.
Eph. v. 1.
one term when it is asked what three, and say
three substances or three persons; then let no
one think of any bulk or interval, or of any
distance of howsoever little unlikeness, so that
in the Trinity any should be understood to be
even a little less than another, in whatsoever
way one thing can be less than another : in
order that there may be neither a confusion
of persons, nor such a distinction as that there
should be any inequality. And if this cannot
be grasped by the understanding, let it be held
by faith, until He shall dawn in the heart who
says by the prophet, " If ye will not believe,
surely ye shall not understand." 4
4 Isa. vii. 9.
BOOK VIII.
EXPLAINS AND PROVES THAT NOT ONLY THE FATHER IS NOT GREATER THAN THE SON, BUT
NEITHER ARE BOTH TOGETHER ANYTHING GREATER THAN THE HOLY SPIRIT, NOR ANY TWO
TOGETHER IN THE SAME TRINITY ANYTHING GREATER THAN ONE, NOR ALL THREE TOGETHER
ANYTHING GREATER THAN EACH SEVERALLY. IT IS THEN SHOWN HOW THE NATURE ITSELF
OF GOD MAY BE UNDERSTOOD FROM OUR UNDERSTANDING OF TRUTH, AND FROM OUR
KNOWLEDGE OF THE SUPREME GOOD, AND FROM THE INNATE LOVE OF RIGHTEOUSNESS,
WHEREBY A RIGHTEOUS SOUL IS LOVED EVEN BY A SOUL THAT IS ITSELF NOT YET RIGHTEOUS.
BUT IT IS URGED ABOVE ALL, THAT THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD IS TO BE .SOUGHT BY LOVE,
WHICH GOD IS SAID TO BE IN THE SCRIPTURES J AND IN THIS LOVE IS ALSO POINTED OUT
THE EXISTENCE OF SOME TRACE OF A TRINITY.
PREFACE. THE CONCLUSION OF WHAT HAS BEEN
SAID ABOVE. THE RULE TO BE OBSERVED IN
THE MORE DIFFICULT QUESTIONS OF THE
FAITH.
We have said elsewhere that those things
are predicated specially in the Trinity as be-
longing severally to each person, which are
predicated relatively the one to the other, as
Father and Son, and the gift of both, the
Holy Spirit; for the Father is not the Trinity,
nor the Son the Trinity, nor the gift the
Trinity: but what whenever each is singly
spoken of in respect to themselves, then
they are not spoken of as three in the plural
number, but one, the Trinity itself, as the
Father God, the Son God, and the Holy
Spirit God; the Father good, the Son good,
and the Holy Spirit good; and the Father
omnipotent, the Son omnipotent, and the
Holy Spirit omnipotent: yet neither three
Gods, nor three goods, nor three omnipo-
tents, but one God, good, omnipotent, the
Trinity itself; and whatsoever else is said of
them not relatively in respect to each other,
but individually in respect to themselves.
For they are thus spoken of according to
essence, since in them to be is the same as to
be great, as to be good, as to be wise, and
whatever else is said of each person individu-
ally therein, or of the Trinity itself, in respect
to themselves. And that therefore they are
called three persons, or three substances, not
in order that any difference of essence may be
understood, but that we may be able to answer
by some one word, should any one ask what
three, or what three things ? And that there is
so great an equality in that Trinity, that not
only the Father is not greater than the Son,
as regards divinity, but neither are the Father
and Son together
greater
than the Holy
Spirit; nor is each individual person, which-
ever it be of the three, less than the Trinity
itself. This is what we have said; and if it
is handled and repeated frequently, it be-
comes, no doubt, more familiarly known: yet
some limit, too, must be put to the discus-
sion, and we must supplicate God with most
devout piety, that He will open our under-
standing, and take away the inclination of
disputing, in order that our minds may dis-
cern the essence of the truth, that has neither
bulk nor moveableness. Now, therefore, so
far as the Creator Himself aids us in His
marvellous mercy, let us consider these sub-
jects, into which we will enter more deeply than
we entered into those which preceded, al-
though they are in truth the same; preserving
the while this rule, that what has not yet been
made clear to our intellect, be nevertheless
not loosened from the firmness of our faith.
n6
THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[Book VI I L
CHAP. I. IT IS SHOWN BY REASON THAT IN
GOD THREE ARE NOT ANYTHING GREATER
THAN ONE PERSON.
2. For we say that in this Trinity two or
three persons are not anything greater than
one of them; which carnal perception does
not receive, for no other reason except be-
cause it perceives as it can the true things
which are created, but cannot discern the
truth itself by which they are created; for if
it could, then the very corporeal light would
in no way be more clear than this which we
have said. For in respect to the substance
of truth, since it alone truly is, nothing is
greater, unless because it more truly is. 1 But
in respect to whatsoever is intelligible and un-
changeable, no one thing is more truly than an-
other, since all alike are unchangeably eternal;
and that which therein is called great, is not
great from any other source than from that
by which it truly is. Wherefore, where
magnitude itself is truth, whatsoever has
more of magnitude must needs have more of
truth; whatsoever therefore has not more of
truth, has not also more of magnitude.
Further, whatsoever has more of truth is cer-
tainly more true, just as that is greater which
has more of magnitude; therefore in respect
to the substance of truth that is more great
which is more true. But the Father and the
Son together are not more truly than the
Father singly, or the Son singly. Both to-
gether, therefore, are not anything greater
than each of them singly. And since also
the Holy Spirit equally is truly, the Father
and Son together are not anything greater
than He, since neither are they more truly.
The Father also and the Holy Spirit together,
since they do not surpass the Son in truth
(for they are not more truly), do not surpass
Him either in magnitude. And so the Son
and the Holy Spirit together are just as great
as 'the Father alone, since they are as truly.
So also the Trinity itself is as great as each
several person therein. For where truth it-
self is magnitude, that is not more great which
is not more true: since in regard to the es-
sence of truth, to be true is the same as to
be, and to be is the same as to be great;
therefore to be great is the same as to be
true. And in regard to it, therefore, what is
equally true must needs also be equally
great.
1 [In this and the following chapter, the meaning of Augustin
will be clearer, if the Latin " Veritas ," " vera" and " vere" are
rendered, occasionally, by " reality," " real,' : and " really." He is
endeavoring to prove the equality of the three persons, by the fact
that they are equally real (true), and the degree of their reality
(truth) is the same. Real being is true being; reality is truth. In
common phraseology, truth and reality are synonymous. W. G.
T. S.]
CHAP, 2. EVERY CORPOREAL CONCEPTION MUST
BE REJECTED, IN ORDER THAT IT MAY BE UN-
DERSTOOD HOW GOD IS TRUTH.
3. But in respect to bodies, it may be the
case that this gold and that gold may be
equally true [real], but this may be greater
than that, since magnitude is not the same
thing in this case as truth; and it is one thing
for it to be gold, another to be great. So
also in the nature of the soul; a soul is not
called great in the same respect in which it is
called true. For he, too, has a true [real]
soul who has not a great soul; since the es-
sence of body and soul is not the essence of
the truth [reality] itself; as is the Trinity,
one God, alone, great, true, truthful, the
truth. Of whom if we endeavor to think, so
far as He Himself permits and grants, let us
not think of any touch or embrace in local
space, as if of three bodies, or of any com-
pactness of conjunction, as fables tell of
three-bodied Geryon; but let whatsoever may
occur to the mind, that is of such sort as to
be greater in three than in each singly, and
less in one than in two, be rejected without
any doubt; for so everything corporeal is
rejected. But also in spiritual things let
nothing changeable that may have occurred to
the mind be thought of God. For when we
aspire from this depth to that height, it is a
step towards no small knowledge, if, before
we can know what God is, we can already
know what He is not. P'or certainly He is
neither earth nor heaven; nor, as it were,
earth and heaven; nor any such thing as we
see in the heaven; nor any such thing as we
do not see, but which perhaps is in heaven.
Neither if you were to magnify in the imagi-
nation of your thought the light of the sun as
much as you are able, either that it may be
greater, or that it may be brighter, a thousand
times as much, or times without number;
neither is this God. Neither as 2 we think of the
pure angels as spirits animating celestial bo-
dies, and changing and dealing with them after
the will by which they serve God; not even if
all, and there are " thousands of thousands," 3
were brought together into one, and became
one; neither is any such thing God. Neither
if you were to think of the same spirits as
without bodies a thing indeed most difficult
for carnal thought to do. Behold and see, if
thou canst, O soul pressed down by the cor-
ruptible body, and weighed down by earthly
thoughts, many and various; behold and see,
if thou canst, that God is truth. 4 For it is
written that "God is light;'' 5 not in such
2 Read si for sic it t, i/ior as. Bened. ed.
3 Apoc. v. n. 4 Wisd. ix. 15. 5 1 John i. 5.
Chap. 1 1 1. J
ON THE TRINITY.
117
way as these eyes see, but in such way as the
heart sees, when it is said, He is truth [real-
ity]. Ask not what is truth [reality] ;
for immediately the darkness of corporeal
images and the clouds of phantasms will
put themselves in the way, and will disturb
that calm which at the first twinkling shone
forth to thee, when I said truth [reality].
See that thou remainest, if thou canst, in that
first twinkling with which thou art dazzled,
as it were, by a flash, when it is said to thee,
Truth [Reality]. But thou canst not; thou
wilt glide back into those usual and earthly
things. And what weight, pray, is it that
will cause thee so to glide back, unless it be
the bird-lime of the stains of appetite thou
hast contracted, and the errors of thy wan-
dering from the right path ?
CHAP. 3. HOW GOD MAY BE KNOWN TO BE THE
CHIEF GOOD. THE MIND DOES NOT BECOME
GOOD UNLESS BY TURNING TO GOD.
4. Behold again, and see if thou canst.
Thou certainly dost not love anything except
what is good, since good is the earth, with
the loftiness of its mountains, and the due
measure of its hills, and the level surface of
its plains; and good is an estate that is pleas-
ant and fertile; and good is a house that is
arranged in due proportions, and is spacious
and bright; and good are animal and animate
bodies; and good is air that is temperate
and salubrious; and good is food that is
agreeable and fit for health; and good is
health, without pains or lassitude; and good is
the countenance of man that is disposed in fit
proportions, and is cheerful in look, and
bright in color; and good is the mind of a
friend, with the sweetness of agreement, and
with the confidence of love; and good is a right-
eous man; and good are riches, since they
are readily useful; and good is the heaven, with
its sun, and moon, and stars; and good are
the angels, by their holy obedience; and
good is discourse that sweetly teaches and
suitably admonishes the hearer; and good is
a poem that is harmonious in its numbers and
weighty in its sense. And why add yet more
and more ? This thing is good and that
good, but take away this and that, and regard
good itself if thou canst; so wilt thou see
God, not good by a good that is other than
Himself, but the good of all good. For in
all these good things, whether those which
I have mentioned, or any else that are to be
discerned or thought, we couTd not say that
one was better than another, when we judge
truly, unless a conception of the good itself
had been impressed upon us, such that ac-
cording to it we might both approve some
things as good, and prefer one good to an-
other. So God is to be loved, not this and
that good, but the good itself. For the good
that must be sought for the soul is not one
above which it is to fly by judging, but to
which it is to cleave by loving; and what can
this be except God ? Not a good mind, or a
good angel, or the good heaven, but the good
good. For perhaps what I wish to say may
be more easily perceived in this way. For
when, for instance, a mind is called good, as
there are two words, so from these words I
understand two things one whereby it is
mind, and another whereby it is good. And
itself had no share in making itself a mind,
for there was nothing as yet to make itself to
be anything; but to make itself to be a good
mind, I see, must be brought about by the
will: not because that by which it is mind is
not itself anything good; for how else is it
already called, and most truly called, better
than the body ? but it is not yet called a
good mind, for this reason, that the action of
the will still is wanted, by which it is to be-
come more excellent; and if it has neglected
this, then it is justly blamed, and is rightly
called not a good mind. For it then differs
from the mind which does perform this; and
since the latter is praiseworthy, the former
doubtless, which does not perform, it is
blameable. But when it does this of set pur-
pose, and becomes a good mind, it yet cannot
attain to being so unless it turn itself to some-
thing which itself is not. And to what can it
turn itself that it may become a good mind,
except to the good which it loves, and seeks,
and obtains ? And if it turns itself back
again from this, and becomes not good, then
by the very act of turning away from the
good, unless that good remain in it from
which it turns away, it cannot again turn it-
self back thither if it should wish to amend.
5. Wherefore there would be no changeable
goods, unless there were the unchangeable
good. Whenever then thou art told of this
good thing and that good thing, which things
can also in other respects be called not good,
if thou canst put aside those things which are
good by the participation of the good, and
discern that good itself by the participation
of which they are good (for when this or that
good thing is spoken or, thou understandest
together with them the good itself also): if,
then, I say thou canst remove these things,
and canst discern the good in itself, then
thou wilt have discerned God. And if thou
shalt cleave to Him with love, thou shalt be
forthwith blessed. But whereas other things
are not loved, except because they are good,
n8
THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[Book VIII.
be ashamed, in cleaving to them, not to love
the good itself whence they are good. That
also, which is a mind, only because it is a
mind, while it is not yet also good by the
turning itself to the unchangeable good, but,
as I said, is only a mind; whenever it so
pleases us, as that we prefer it even, if we
understand aright, to all corporeal" light, does
not please us in itself, but in that skill by
which it was made. For it is thence approved
as made, wherein it is seen to have been to
be made. This is truth, and simple good:
for it is nothing else than the good itself, and
for this reason also the chief good. For no
good can be diminished or increased, except
that which is good from some other good.
Therefore the mind turns itself, in order to
be good, to that by which it comes to be a
mind. Therefore the will is then in harmony
with nature, so that the mind maybe perfected
in good, when that good is loved by the turn-
ing of the will to it, whence that other good
also comes which is not lost by the turning
away of the will from it. For by turning it-
self from the chief good, the mind loses the
being a good mind; but it does not lose the
being a mind. And this, too, is a good al-
ready, and one better than the body. The
will, therefore, loses that which the will ob-
tains. For the mind already was, that could
wish to be turned to that from which it was:
but that as yet was not, that could wish to be
before it was. And herein is our [supreme]
good, when we see whether the thing ought
to be or to have been, respecting which we
comprehend that it ought to be or to have
been, and when we see that the thing could
not have been unless it ought to have been,
of which we also do not comprehend in what
manner it ought to have been. This good
then is not far from every one of us: for in it
we live, and move, and have our being. 1
CHAP. 4. GOD MUST FIRST BE KNOWN BY AN
UNERRING FAITH, THAT HE MAY BE LOVED.
6. But it is by love that we must stand firm
to this and cleave to this, in order that we
may enjoy the presence of that by which we
are, and in the absence of which we could not
be at all. For as " we walk as yet by faith,
and not by sight," 2 we certainly do not yet see
God, as the same [apostle] saith, " face to
face: " 3 whom however we shall never see,
unless now already we love. But who loves
what he does not know ? For it is possible
something maybe known and not loved: but I
ask whether it is possible that what is not
known can be loved; since if it cannot, then
1 Acts xvii. 27, 28.
2 2 Cor. v. 7.
3 1 Cor. xiii. 12.
no one loves God before he knows Him. And
what is it to know God except to behold Him
and steadfastly perceive Him with the mind ?
For He is not a body to be searched out by
carnal eyes. But before also that we have
power to behold and to perceive God, as He
can be beheld and perceived, which is per-
mitted to the pure in heart; for " blessed are
the pure in heart, for they shall see God; " *
except He is loved by faith, it will not be pos-
sible for the heart to be cleansed, in order
that it may be apt and meet to see Him. For
where are there those three, in order to build
up which in the mind the whole apparatus of
the divine Scriptures has been raised up, name-
ly Faith, Hope, and Charity, 5 except in a mind
believing what it does not yet see, and hoping
and loving what it believes ? Even He there-
fore who is not known, but yet is believed,
can be loved. But indisputably we must take
care, lest the mind believing that which it does
not see, feign to itself something which is not,
and hope for and love that which is false.
For in that case, it will not be charity out of
a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and
of faith unfeigned, which is the end of the
commandment, as the same apostle says. 6
7. But it must needs be, that, when by
-reading or hearing of them we believe in any
corporeal things which we have not seen, the
mind frames for itself something under bodily
features and forms, just as it may occur to
our thoughts; which either is not true, or even
if it be true, which can most rarely happen,
yet this is of no benefit to us to believe in by
faith, but it is useful for some other purpose,
which is intimated by means of it. For who
is there that reads or hears what the Apostle
Paul has written, or what has been written of
him, that does not imagine to himself the
countenance both of the apostle himself, and of
all those whose names are there mentioned ?
And whereas, among such a multitude of men
to whom these books are known, each imagines
in a different way those bodily features and
forms, it is assuredly uncertain which it is that
imagines them more nearly and more like the
reality. Nor, indeed, is our faith busied
therein with the bodily countenance of those
men; but only that by the grace of God they
so lived and so acted as that Scripture wit-
nesses: this it is which it is both useful to
believe, and which must not be despaired of,
and must be sought. For even the counte-
nance of our Lord Himself in the flesh is va-
riously fancied by the diversity of countless
imaginations, which yet was one, whatever it
was. Nor in our faith which we have of our
4 Matt. v. 8.
5 1 Cor. xiii. 13.
6 1 Tim. i. 5.
Chap. V.]
ON THE TRINITY.
II 9
Lord Jesus Christ, is that wholesome which
the mind imagines for itself, perhaps far other
than the reality, but that which we think of
man according to his kind: for we have a no-
tion of human nature implanted in us, as it
were by rule, according to which we know
forthwith, that whatever such thing we see is
a man or the form of a man.
CHAP. 5. HOW THE TRINITY MAY BE LOVED
THOUGH UNKNOWN.
Our conception is framed according to this
notion, when we believe that God was made
man for us, as an example of humility, and to
show the love of God towards us. For this
it is which it is good for us to believe, and to
retain firmly and unshakenly in our heart, that
the humility by which God was born of a
woman, and was led to death through con-
tumelies so great by mortal men, is the chief-
est remedy by which the swelling of our pride
may be cured, and the profound mystery by
which the bond of sin may be loosed. So also,
because we know what omnipotence is, we be-
lieve concerning the omnipotent God in the
power of His miracles and of His resurrection,
and we frame conceptions respecting actions
of this kind, according to the species and
genera of things that are either ingrafted in
us by nature, or gathered by experience, that
our faith may not be feigned. For neither
do we know the countenance of the Virgin
Mary; from whom, untouched by a husband,
nor tainted in the birth itself, He was won-
derfully born. Neither have we seen what
were the lineaments of the body of Lazarus;
nor yet Bethany; nor the sepulchre, and that
stone which He commanded to be removed
when He raised Him from the dead; nor the
new tomb cut out in the rock, whence He
Himself arose; nor the Mount of Olives, from
whence He ascended into heaven. And, in
short, whoever of us have not seen these
things, know not whether they are as we con-
ceive them to be, nay judge them more prob-
ably not to be so. For when the aspect either
of a place, or a man, or of any other body,
which we happened to imagine before we saw
it, turns out to be the same when it occurs to
our sight as it was when it occurred to our
mind, we are moved with no little wonder.
So scarcely and hardly ever does it happen.
And yet we believe those things most stead-
fastly, because we imagine them according to a
special and general notion, of which we are cer-
tain. For we believe our Lord Jesus Christ to
be born of a virgin who was called Mary. But
what a virgin is, or what it is to be born, and
what is a proper name, we do not believe, but
certainly know. And whether that was the
countenance of Mary which occurred to the
mind in speaking of those things or recollect-
ing them, we neither know at all, nor believe.
It is allowable, then, in this case to say without
violation of the faith, perhaps she had such
or such a countenance, perhaps she had not:
but no one could say without violation of the
Christian faith, that perhaps Christ was born
of a virgin.
8. Wherefore, since we desire to understand
the eternity, and equality, and unity of the
Trinity, as much as is permitted us, but ought
to believe before we understand; and since
we must watch carefully, that our faith be not
feigned; since we must have the fruition of
the same Trinity, that we may live blessedly;
but if we have believed anything false of it,
our hope would be worthless, and our charity
not pure: how then can we love, by believing,
that Trinity which we do not know ? Is it ac-
cording to the special or general notion, ac-
cording to which we love the Apostle Paul ?
In whose case, even if he was not of that
countenance which occurs to us when we think
of him (and this we do not know at all), yet
we know what a man is. For not to go far
away, this we are; and it is manifest he, too,
was this, and that his soul joined to his body
lived after the manner of mortals. There-
fore we believe this of him, which we find in
ourselves, according to the species or genus
under which all human nature alike is com-
prised. What then do we know, whether
specially or generally, of that most excellent
Trinity, as if there were many such trinities,
some of which we had learned by experience,
so that we may believe that Trinity, too, to
have been such as they, through the rule of
similitude, impressed upon us, whether a
special or a general notion; and thus love also
that thing which we believe and do not yet
know, from the parity of the thing which we
do know ? But this certainly is not so. Or is
it that, as we love in our Lord Jesus Christ,
that He rose from the dead, although we never
saw any one rise from thence, so we can be-
lieve in and love the Trinity which we do not
see, and the like of which we never have seen ?
But we certainly know what it is to die, and
what it is to live; because we both live, and
from time to time have seen and experienced
both dead and dying persons. And what else
is it to rise again, except to live again, that is,
to return to life from death? When, there-
fore, we say and believe that there is a Trin-
ity, we know what a Trinity is, because we
know what three are; but this is not what we
love. For we can easily have this whenever
we will, to pass over other things, by just hold-
120
THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[Book VIII.
ing up three fingers. Or do we indeed love,
not every trinity, but the Trinity, that is
God ? We love then in the Trinity, that it is
God: but we never saw or knew any other
God, because God is One; He alone whom we
have not yet seen, and whom we love by be-
lieving. But the question is, from what like-
ness or comparison of known things can we
believe, in order that we may love God, whom
we do not yet know ?
CHAP. 6. HOW THE MAN NOT YET RIGHTEOUS
CAN KNOW THE RIGHTEOUS MAN WHOM HE
LOVES.
9. Return then with me, and let us consid-
er why we love the apostle. Is it at all on ac-
count of his human kind, which we know
right well, in that we believe him to have been
a man ? Assuredly not; for if it were so, he
now is not him whom we love, since he is no
longer that man, for his soul is separated
from his body. But we believe that which we
love in him to be still living, for we love his
righteous mind. From what general or spec-
ial rule then, except that we know both what
a mind is, and what it is to be righteous ? And
we say, indeed, not unfitly, that we therefore
know what a mind is, because we too have a
mind. For neither did we ever see it with
our eyes, and gather a special or general
notion from the resemblance of more minds
than one, which we had seen; but rather, as
I have said before, because we too have it.
For what is known so intimately, and so per-
ceives itself to be itself, as that by which also
all other things are perceived, that is, the
mind itself ? For we recognize the movements
of bodies also, by which we perceive that
others live besides ourselves, from the resem-
blance of ourselves ; since we also so move
our body in living as we observe those bodies
to be moved. For even when a living body
is moved, there is no way opened to our eyes
to see the mind, a thing which cannot be seen
by the eyes ; but we perceive something to be
contained in that bulk, such as is contained
in ourselves, so as to move in like manner our-
own bulk, which is the life and the soul.
Neither is this, as it were, the property of
human foresight and reason, since brute ani-
mals also perceive that not only they them-
selves live, but also other brute animals inter-
changeably, and the one the other, and that we
ourselves do so. Neither do they see our
souls, save from the movements of the body,
and that immediately and most easily by some
natural agreement. Therefore we both know
the mind of any one from our own, and be-
lieve also from our own of him whom we do
not know. For not only do we perceive that
there is a mind, but we can also know what a
mind is, by reflecting upon our own : for we
have a mind. But whence do we know what
a righteous man is ? For we said above that
we love the apostle for no other reason except
that he is a righteous mind. We know, then,
what a righteous man also is, just as we know
what a mind is. But what a mind is, as has
been said, we know from ourselves, for there
is a mind in us. But whence do we know
what a righteous man is, if we are not right-
eous ? But if no one but he who is righteous
knows what is a righteous man, no one but a
righteous man loves a righteous man; for one
cannot love him whom one believes to be right-
eous, for this very reason that one does believe
him to be righteous, if one does not know
what it is to be righteous ; according to that
which we have shown above, that no one
loves what he believes and does not see, ex-
cept by some rule of a general or special no-
tion. And if for this reason no one but a
righteous man loves a righteous man, how will
any one wish to be a righteous man who is
not yet so ? For no one wishes to be that
which he does not love. But, certainly, that
he who is not righteous may be so, it is nec-
essary that he should wish to be righteous ;
and in order that he may wish to be righteous,
he loves the righteous man. Therefore, even
he who is not yet righteous, loves the right-
eous man. 1 But he cannot love the righteous
man, who is ignorant what a righteous man
is. Accordingly, even he who is not yet
righteous, knows what a righteous man
is. Whence then does he know this ? Does
he see it with his eyes ? Is any corporeal
thing righteous, as it is white, or black, or
square, or round ? Who could say this ? Yet
with one's eyes one has seen nothing except
corporeal things. But there is nothing right-
eous in a man except the mind; and when a
man is called a righteous man. he is called so
from the mind, not from the body. For right-
eousness is in some sort the beauty of the
mind, by which men are beautiful; very many
too who are misshapen and deformed in body.
And as the mind is not seen with the eyes, so
neither is its beauty. From whence then does
he who is not yet righteous know what a right-
eous man is, and love the righteous man that
he may become righteous ? Do certain signs
shine forth by the motion of the body, by
1 [The " wish " and " love " which Augustin here attributes
to the non-righteous man is not true and spiritual, but selfish. In
chapter vii. 10, he speaks of true love as distinct from that kind
of desire which is a mere wish. The latter he calls cupiditas.
" That is to be called love which is true, otherwise it is desire (1 u-
piditas): and so those who desire (cupidi) are improperly said to
love (dilzgere), just as they who love (diligunt) are said impro-
perly to desire (c upcre) ." W '. G. T. S.]
Chap. VI. J
ON THE TRINITY.
12
which this or that man is manifested to be
righteous ? But whence does any one know
that these are the signs of a righteous mind,
when he is wholly ignorant what it is to be
righteous ? Therefore he does know. But
whence do we know what it is to.be righteous,
even when we are not yet righteous ? If we
know from without ourselves, we know it by
some bodily thing. But this is not a thing of the
body. Therefore we know in ourselves what
it is to be righteous. For I find this nowhere
else when I seek to utter it, except within
myself ; and if I ask another what it is to
be righteous, he seeks within himself what
to answer ; and whosoever hence can answer
truly, he has found within himself what to
answer. And when indeed I wish to speak of
Carthage, I seek within myself what to speak,
and I find within myself a notion or image of
Carthage ; but I have received this through
the body, that is, through the perception of
the body, since I have been present in that city
in the body, and I saw and perceived it, and
retained it in my memory, that I might find
within myself a word concerning it, whenever
I might wish to speak of it. For its word is
the image itself of it in my memory, not that
sound of two syllables when Carthage is
named, or even when that name itself is
thought of silently from time to time, but that
which I discern in my mind, when I utter that
dissyllable with my voice, or even before I
utter it. So also, when I wish to speak of
Alexandria, which I never saw, an image of it
is present with me. For whereas I had heard
from many and had believed that city to be
great, in such way as it could be told me, I
formed an image of it in my mind as I was
able ; and this is with me its word when I wish
to speak of it, before I utter with my voice
the five syllables which make the name that
almost every one knows. And yet if I could
bring forth that image from my mind to the
eyes of men who know Alexandria, certainly all
either would say, It is not it ; or if they said,
It is, I should greafly wonder ; and as I gazed
at it in my mind, that is, at the image which
was as it were its picture, I should yet not
know it to be it, but should believe those who
retained an image they had seen. But I do
not so ask what it is to be righteous, nor do
I so find it, nor do I so gaze upon it, when I
utter it ; neither am I so approved when I am
heard, nor do I so approve when I hear ; as
though I have seen such a thing with my eyes,
or learned it by some perception of the body,
or heard it from those who had so learned it.
For when I say, and say knowingly, that
mind is righteous which knowingly and of pur-
pose assigns to every one his due in life and
behavior, I do not think of anything absent, as
Carthage, or imagine it as I am able, as Alex-
andria, whether it be so or not ; but I discern
something present, and I discern it within
myself, though I myself am not that which I
discern ; and many if they hear will approve
it. And whoever hears me and knowingly ap-
proves, he too discerns this same thing within
himself, even though he himself be not what
he discerns. But when a righteous man says
this, he discerns and says that which he him-
self is. And whence also does he discern it,
except within himself ? But this is not to be
wondered at ; for whence should he discern
himself except within himself ? The wonder-
ful thing is, that the mind should see within
itself that which it has seen nowhere else,
and should see truly, and should see the very
true righteous mind, and should itself be a
mind, and yet not a righteous mind, which
nevertheless it sees within itself. Is there
another mind that is righteous in a mind that
is not yet righteous ? Or if there is not, what
docs it there see when it sees and says what
is a righteous mind, nor sees it anywhere else
but in itself, when itself is not a righteous
mind ? Is that which it sees an inner truth
present to the mind which has power to be-
hold it ? Yet all have not that power ; and
they who have power to behold it, are not all
also that which they behold, that is, they are
not also righteous minds themselves, just
as they are able to see and to say what is
a righteous mind. And whence will they
be able to be so, except by cleaving to
that very same form itself which they be-
hold, so that from thence they may be form-
ed and may be righteous minds ; not only
discerning and saying that the mind is right-
eous which knowingly and of purpose assigns
to every one that which is his due in life and
behavior, but so likewise that they themselves
may live righteously and be righteous in
character, by assigning to every one that which
is his due, so as to owe no man anything, but
to love one another. 1 And whence can any
one cleave to that form but by loving it ?
Why then do we love another whom we believe
to be righteous, and do not love that form it-
self wherein we see what is a righteous mind,
that we also may be able to be righteous ? Is
it that unless we loved that also, we should not
love him at all, whom through it we love ; but
whilst we are not righteous, we love that form
too little to allow of our being able to be
righteous ? The man therefore who is believed
to be righteous, is loved through that form
and truth which he who loves discerns and
i Rom. xiii. 8.
122
THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[Book VIII.
understands within himself; but that very form
and truth itself cannot be loved from any
other source than itself. For we do not find
any other such thing besides itself, so that by
believing we might love it when it is unknown,
in that we here already know another such
thing. For whatsoever of such a kind one
may have seen, is itself ; and there is not any
other such thing, since itself alone is such as
itself is. He therefore who loves men, ought
to love them either because they are right-
eous, or that they may become righteous.
For so also he ought to love himself, either
because he is righteous, or that he may be-
come righteous ; for in this way he loves his
neighbor as himself without any risk. For
he who loves himself otherwise, loves himself
wrongfully, since he loves himself to this end
that he may be unrighteous ; therefore to this
end that he may be wicked ; and hence it
follows next that he does not love himself ;
for, "He who loveth iniquity, 1 hateth his own
soul." 2
CHAP. 7. OF TRUE LOVE, BY WHICH WE AR-
RIVE AT THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRINITY.
GOD IS TO BE SOUGHT, NOT OUTWARDLY, BY
SEEKING TO DO WONDERFUL THINGS WITH
THE ANGELS, BUT INWARDLY, BY IMITATING
THE PIETY OF GOOD ANGELS.
10. No other thing, then, is chiefly to be re-
garded in this inquiry, which we make con-
cerning the Trinity and concerning knowing
God, except what is true love, nay, rather
what is love. For that is to be called love
which is true, otherwise it is desire ; and so
those who desire are said improperly to love,
just as they who love are said improperly to
desire. But this is true love, that cleaving
to the truth we may live righteously, and so
may despise all mortal things in comparison
with the love of men, whereby we wish them
to live righteously. For so we should be pre-
pared also to die profitably for our brethren,
as our Lord Jesus Christ taught us by His ex-
ample. For as there are two commandments
on which hang all the Law and the prophets,
love of God and love of our neighbor ; 3 not
without cause the Scripture mostly puts one
for both : whether it be of God only, as is
that text, " For we know that all things work
together for good to them that love God;" 4
and again, " But if any man love God, the
same is known of Him;" 5 and that, "Be-
cause the love of God is shed abroad in our
hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto
us ; " 6 and many other passages ; because he
1 Violence A. V.
3 Matt. xxii. 37-40.
5 1 Cor. viii. 3.
zPs. xi.6.
4 Rom. viii. 28
6 Rom. v. 5.
who loves God must both needs do what God
has commanded, and loves Him just in such
proportion as he does so ; therefore he must
needs also love his neighbor, because God has
commanded it : or whether it be that Script-
ure only mentions the love of our neighbor,
as in that text, " Bear ye one another's bur-
dens, and so fulfill the law of Christ ; " 7 and
again, " For all the law is fufilled in one word,
even in this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as
thyself;" 8 and in the Gospel^ "All things
whatsoever ye would that men should do to
you, do ye even so to them ; for this is the
Law and the prophets." 9 And many other
passages occur in the sacred writings, in
which only the love of our neighbor seems
to be commanded for perfection, while the
love of God is passed over in silence ; where-
as the Law and the prophets hang on both
precepts. But this, too, is because he who
loves his neighbor must needs also love above
all else love itself. But " God is love ; and he
that dwelleth in love, dwelleth in God." r>
Therefore he must needs above all else love
God.
11. Wherefore they who seek God through
those Powers which rule over the world, or
parts of the world, are removed and cast
away far from Him; not by intervals of space,
but by difference of affections: for they en-
deavor to find a path outwardly, and forsake
their own inward things, within which is God.
Therefore, even although they may either
have heard some holy heavenly Power, or in
some way or another may have thought of it,
yet they rather covet its deeds at which hu-
man weakness marvels, but do not imitate
the piety by which divine rest is acquired.
For they prefer, through pride, to be able to
do that which an angel does, more than,
through devotion, to be that which an angel
is. For no holy being rejoices in his own
power, but in His from whom he has the
power which he fitly can have; and he knows
it to be more a mark of power to be united
to the Omnipotent by a pious will, than to be
able, by his own power and will, to do what
they may tremble at who are not able to do
such things. Therefore the Lord Jesus
Christ Himself, in doing such things, in order
that He might teach better things to those
who marvelled at them, and might turn those
who were intent and in doubt about unusual
temporal things to eternal and inner things,
says, " Come unto me, all ye that labor and
are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
Take my yoke upon you." And He does
not say, Learn of me, because I raise those
7 Gal. vi. 2.
9 Matt. vii. 12.
8 Gal. v. 14.
10 1 John iv. 6.
Chap. VIII.]
ON THE TRINITY
123
who have been dead four days; but He says,
''Learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in
heart." For humility, which is most solid,
is more powerful and safer than pride, that
is most inflated. And so He goes on to say,
" And ye shall find rest unto your souls," 1
for "Love 2 is not puffed up; " 3 and "God
is Love;" 4 and "such as be faithful in love
shall rest in 5 Him," 6 called back from the
din which is without to silent joys. Behold,
" God is Love: " why do we go forth and run
to the heights of the heavens and the lowest
parts of the earth, seeking Him who is within
us, if we wish to be with Him ?
CHAP. 8. THAT HE WHO LOVES HIS BROTHER,
LOVES GOD ; EECAUSE HE LOVES LOVE ITSELF,
WHICH IS OF GOD, AND IS GOD.
12. Let no one say, I do not know what I
love. Let him love his brother, and he will
love the same love. For he knows the love
with which he loves, more than the brother
whom he loves. So now he can know God
more than he knows his brother: clearly
known more, because more present; known
more, because more within him; known more,
because more certain. Embrace the love of
God, and by love embrace God. That is love
itself, which associates together all good
angels and all the servants of God by the
bond of sanctity, and joins together us and
them mutually with ourselves, and joins us
subordinately to Himself. In proportion,
therefore, as we are healed from the swelling
of pride, in such proportion are we more
filled with love; and with what is he full, who
is full of love, except with God? Well, but
you will say, I see love, and, as far as I am
able, I gaze upon it with my mind, and I be-
lieve the Scripture, saying, that "God is
love; and he that dwelleth in love, dwelleth
in God;" 7 but when I see love, I do not see
in it the Trinity. Nay, but thou dost see the
Trinity if thou seest love. But if I can I will
put you in mind, that thou mayest see that
thou seest it; only let itself be present, that
we may be moved by love to something good.
Since, when we love love, we love one who
loves something, and that on account of this
very thing, that he does love something;
therefore what does love love, that love itself
also may be loved ? For that is not love
which loves nothing. But if it loves itself it
must love something, that it may love itself
as love. For as a word indicates something,
and indicates also itself, but does not indicate
1 Matt. xi. 28, 29.
4 1 John iv. 8.
6 Wisd. iii. 9.
= Chanty. A.V.
5 Abide with. A.V.
7 1 John iv. 16.
3 1 Cor. xiii. 4.
itself to be a word, unless it indicates that it
does indicate something; so love also loves
indeed itself, but except it love itself as loving
something, it loves itself not as love. What
therefore does love love, except that which
we love with love ? But this, to begin from
that which is nearest to us, is our brother.
And listen how greatly the Apostle John
commends brotherly love: " He that loveth
his brother abideth in the light, and there is
none occasion of stumbling in him." 8 It
is manifest that he placed the perfection of
righteousness in the love of our brother; for he
certainly is perfect, in whom "there is no occa-
sion of stumbling." And yet he seems to have
passed by the love of God in silence; which
he never would have done, unless because
he intends God to be understood in brotherly
love itself. For in this same epistle, a little
further on, he says most plainly thus: "Be-
loved, let us love one another: for love is of
God; and every one that loveth is born of
God, and knoweth God. He that loveth not,
knoweth not God; for God is love." And
this passage declares sufficiently and plainly,
that this same brotherly love itself (for
that is brotherly love by which we love
each other) is set forth by so great au-
thority, not only to be from God, but also
to be God. When, therefore, we love our
brother from love, we love our brother from
God ; neither can it be that we do not love above
all else that same love by which we love our
brother: whence it may be gathered that
these two commandments cannot exist unless
interchangeably. For since "God is love,"
he who loves love certainly loves God; but he
must needs love love, who loves his brother.
And so a little after he says, " For he that
loveth not his brother whom he hath seen,
how can he love God whom he hath not
seen " ? 9 because the reason that he does not
see God is, that he does not love his brother.
For he who does not love his brother, abideth
not in love; and he who abideth not in love,
abideth not in God, because God is love.
Further, he who abideth not in God, abideth
not in light; for "God is light, and in Him
is no darkness at all." 10 He therefore who
abideth not in light, what wonder is it if he
does not see light, that is, does not see God,
because he is in darkness ? But he sees his
brother with human sight, with which God
cannot be seen. But if he loved with spiritual
love him whom he sees with human sight, he
would see God, who is love itself, with the
inner sight by which He can be seen. There-
fore he who does not love his brother whom
8 1 John ii. 10.
9 1 John iv. 7, 8, 20.
10 1 John i. 5.
124
THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[Book VIII.
he sees, how can he love God, whom on that
account he does not see, because God is love,
which he has not who does not love his bro-
ther? Neither let that further question dis-
turb us, how much of love we ought to spend
upon our brother, and how much upon God:
incomparably more upon God than upon
ourselves, but upon our brother as much as
upon ourselves; and we love ourselves so
much the more, the more we love God.
Therefore we love God and our neighbor
from one and the same love; but we love
God for the sake of God, and ourselves and
our neighbors for the sake of God.
CHAP. 9. OUR LOVE OF THE RIGHTEOUS IS
KINDLED FROM LOVE ITSELF OF THE UN-
CHANGEABLE FORM OF RIGHTEOUSNESS.
13. For why is it, pray, that we burn when
we hear and read, " Behold, now is the ac-
cepted time; behold, now is the day of salva-
tion: giving no offense in anything, that the
ministry be not blamed: but in all things ap-
proving ourselves as the ministers of God, in
much patience, in afflictions, in necessities, in
distresses, in stripes, in imprisonments, in
tumults, in labors, in watchings, in fastings;
by pureness, by knowledge, by long-suffering,
by kindness, by the Holy Ghost, by love un-
feigned, by the word of truth, by the power
of God, by the armor of righteousness on the
right hand and on the left, by honor and dis-
honor, by evil report and good report: as de-
ceivers, and yet true; as unknown, and yet
well known; as dying, and, behold, we live;
as chastened, and not killed; as sorrowful, yet
alway rejoicing; as poor, yet making many
rich; as having nothing, and yet possessing
all things ? " z Why is it that we are inflamed
with love of the Apostle Paul, when we read
these things, unless that we believe him so to
have lived ? But we do not believe that the
ministers of God ought so to live because we
have heard it from any one, but because we
behold it inwardly within ourselves, or rather
above ourselves, in the truth itself. Him,
therefore, whom we believe to have so lived,
we love for that which we see. And except
we loved above all else that form which we
discern as alwavs steadfast and unchangeable,
we should not for that reason love him, be-
cause we hold fast in our belief that his life,
when he was living in the flesh, was adapted
to, and in harmony with, this form. But some-
1 2 Cor. vi. 2-10.
how we are stirred up the more to the love of
this form itself, through the belief by which
we believe some one to have so lived; and to
the hope by which we no more at all despair,
that we, too, are able so to live; we who are
men, from this fact itself, that some men have
so lived, so that we both desire this more ar-
dently, and pray for it more confidently. So
both the love of that form, according to which
they are believed to have lived, makes the life
of these men themselves to be loved by us;
and their life thus believed stirs up a more
burning love towards that same form; so that
the more ardently we love God, the more cer-
tainly and the more calmly do we see Him,
because we behold in God the unchangeable
form of righteousness, according to which we
judge that man ought to live. Therefore faith
avails to the knowledge and to the love of God,
not as though of one altogether unknown, or
altogether not loved; but so that thereby He
may be known more clearly, and loved more
steadfastly.
CHAP. IO. THERE ARE THREE THINGS IN
LOVE, AS IT WERE A TRACE OF THE TRINITY.
14. But what is love or charity, which di-
vine Scripture so greatly praises and pro-
claims, except the love of good ? But love
is of some one that loves, and with love some-
thing is loved. Behold, then, there are three
things: he that loves, and that which is loved,
and love. What, then, is love, except a cer-
tain life which couples or seeks to couple to-
gether some two things, namely, him that
loves, and that which is loved ? And this
is so even in outward and carnal loves. But
that we may drink in something more pure
and clear, let us tread down the flesh and as-
cend to the mind. What does the mind love
in a friend except the mind ? There, then,
also are three things: he that loves, and that
which is loved, and love. It remains to as-
cend also from hence, and to seek those
things which are above, as far as is given to
man. But here for a little while let our pur-
pose rest, not that it may think itself to have
found already what it seeks; but just as usually
the place has first to be found where anything
is to be sought, while the thing itself is not
yet found, but we have only found already
where to look for it; so let it suffice to have
said thus much, that we may have, as it were,
the hinge of some starting-point, whence to
weave the rest of our discourse.
BOOK IX.
THAT A KIND OF TR,N,TV EX.STS IN MAN, WHO IS THE .MAGE OF GOD, VIZ. THE MIND, AND THE
KNOWLEDGE WHEREWITH THE MIND KNOWS ITSELF, AND THE LOVE WHEREWITH IT LOVES
^Z "self AND ITS OWN knowledge; AND THESE THREE ARE SHOWN TO BE MUTUALLY
EQUAL, AND OF ONE ESSENCE.
CHAP.
x IN WHAT WAY WE MUST INQUIRE
CONCERNING THE TRINITY.
i We certainly seek a trinity, not any
trinity, but that Trinity which is God, and
the true and supreme and only God. Let
my hearers then wait, for we are still seeking.
And no one justly finds fault with such a
search, if at least he who seeks that which
either to know or to utter is most difficult, is
steadfast in the faith. But whosoever either
sees or teaches better, finds fault quickly and
iustly with any one who confidently affirms
concerning it. " Seek God," he says, and
your heart shall live;" 1 and lest any one
should rashly rejoice that he has, as it were,
apprehended it, " Seek," he says" His face
evermore." 2 And the apostle: "If any man,
he says, "think that he knoweth anything,
he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.
But if any man love God, the same is known
of Him" 3 He has not said, has known
Him which is dangerous presumption, but
"is 'known of Him." So also in another
place, when he had said, " But now after that
ye have known God;" immediately correct-
ing himself, he says, " or rather are known of
God " 4 And above all in that other place,
" Brethren," he says, " I count not myself to
have apprehended: but this one thing I do
foro-etting those things which are behind, and
reaching forth unto those things which are
before, I press in purpose 5 toward the mark,
for the prize of the high calling of God in
Christ Jesus. Let us therefore, as many as
be perfect, be thus minded." 6 Perfection in
this life, he tells us, is nothing else than to
foro-et those things which are behind, and to
reach forth and press in purpose toward those
things which are before. For he that seeks
has the safest purpose, [who seeks] until that
is taken hold of whither we are tending, and
for which we are reaching forth. But that is
the right purpose which starts from faith.
For a certain faith is in some way the starting-
point of knowledge; but a certain knowledge
will not be made perfect, except after this life,
when we shall see face to face.' Let us there-
fore be thus minded, so as to know that the
disposition to seek the truth is more safe than
that which presumes things unknown to be
known Let us therefore so seek as if we
should find, and so find as if we were about
to seek For " when a man hath done, then
he beginneth. " 8 Let us doubt without unbe-
lief of things to be believed; let us affirm
without rashness of things to be understood:
authority must be held fast in the former,
truth sought out in the latter. As regards
this question, then, let us believe that the
Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit is
one God, the Creator and Ruler of the whole
creature; and that the Father is not the Son,
nor the Holy Spirit either the Father or the
Son, but a trinity of persons mutually inter-
related, and a unity of an equal essence.
And let us seek to understand this, praying
for help from Himself, whom we wish to un-
derstand; and as much as He grants, desiring
to explain what we understand with so mucii
pious care and anxiety, that even if in any
case we say one thing for another we may at
least say nothing unworthy. As, for the sake
of example, if we say anything concerning the
Father that does not properly belong to the
Father, or does belong to the Son, or to the
J Ps. lxix. 32.
3 1 Cor. viii. 2.
Sin purpose, oin. in A.V.
2 Ps. cv. 4.
4 Gal. iv. 19.
6 Phil. iii. i3- I 5-
7 1 Cor. xiii. 12.
8 Ecclus. xviii. 7.
126
THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[Book IX.
Holy Spirit, or to the Trinity itself; and if
anything of the Son which does not properly
suit with the Son, or at all events which does
suit with the Father, or with the Holy Spirit,
or with the Trinity; or if, again, anything
concerning the Holy Spirit, which is not fitly
a property of the Holy Spirit, yet is not alien
from the Father, or from the Son, or from
the one God the Trinity itself. Even as now
our wish is to see whether the Holy Spirit is
properly that love which is most excellent;
which if He is not, either the Father is love,
or the Son, or the Trinity itself; since we can-
not withstand the most certain faith and
weighty authority of Scripture, saying, " God
is love." 1 And yet we ought not to deviate
into profane error, so as to say anything of
the Trinity which does not suit the Creator,
but rather the creature, or which is feigned
outright by mere empty thought.
CHAP. 2. THE THREE THINGS WHICH ARE
FOUND IN LOVE MUST BE CONSIDERED. 2
2. And this being so, let us direct our at-
tention to those three things which we fancy
we have found. We are not yet speaking of
heavenly things, nor yet of God the Father,
and Son, and Holy Spirit, but of that inade-
quate image, which yet is an image, that is,
man; for our feeble mind perhaps can gaze
upon this more familiarly and more easily.
Well then, when I, who make this inquiry,
love anything, there are three things con-
cerned myself, and that which I love, and
love itself. For I do not love love, except I
love a lover; for there is no love where noth-
ing is loved. Therefore there are three
things he who loves, and that which is loved,
1 i John iv. 16.
2 [Augustin here begins his discussion of some ternaries that are
found in the Finite, that illustrate the trinality of the Infinite.
Like all finite analogies, they fail at certain points. In the case
chosen namely, the lover, the loved, and love the first two are
substances, the last is not. The mind is a substance, but its activ-
ity in loving is not. In chapter iv. 5, Augustin asserts that " love
and knowledge exist substantially, as the mind itself does." But
no psychology, ancient or modern, has ever maintained that the
agencies of a spiritual entity or substance are themselves spiritual
entities or substances. The activities of the human mind in cog-
nizing, loving, etc., are only its energizing, not its substance.
The ambiguity of the Latin contributes to this error. The
mind and its loving, and also the mind and its cognizing, are de-
nominated " duo qucedam" the mind, love, and knowledge, are
denominated " tria qucedam.' 1 ' 1 By bringing the mind and its
love and knowledge under the one term " qiuedam" and then
giving the meaning of " substance " to " thing," in " something,"
the result follows that all three are alike and equally " substan-
tial."
This analogy taken from the mind and its activities illustrates
the trinality of the Divine essence, but fails to illustrate the sub-
stantiality of the three persons. The three Divine persons are not
the Divine essence together with two of its activities (such, e. g-., as
creation and redemption), but the essence in three modes, or
" forms," as St. Paul denominates them in Phil. iii. 6.
If Augustin could prove his assertion that the activities of the
human spirit in knowing and loving are strictly " substantial,"
then this ternary would illustrate not only the trinality of the es-
sence, but the essentiality and objectivity of the persons. The
fact which he mentions, that knowledge and love are inseparable
from the knowing and loving mind, does not prove their equal
substantiality with the mind. W. G. T. S.]
and love. Rut what if I love none except
myself ? Will there not then be two things
that which I love, and love ? For he who
loves and that which is loved are the same
when any one loves himself; just as to love
and to be loved, in the same way, is the very
same thing when any one loves himself. Since
the same thing is said, when it is said, he loves
himself, and he is loved by himself. For in
that case to love and to be loved are not two
different things: just as he who loves and he
who is loved are not two different persons.
But yet, even so, love and what is loved are
still two things. For there is no love when
any one loves himself, except when love itself
is loved. But it is one thing to love one's
self, another to love one's own love. For love
is not loved, unless as already loving some-
thing; since where nothing is loved there is
no love. Therefore there are two things when
any one loves himself love, and that which
is loved. For then he that loves and that
which is loved are one. Whence it seems that
it does not follow that three things are to be
understood wherever love is. For let us put
aside from the inquiry all the other many
things of which a man consists; and in order
that we may discover clearly what we are now
seeking, as far as in such a subject is possi-
ble, let us treat of the mind alone. The mind,
then, when it loves itself, discloses two things
mind and love. But what is to love one's
self, except to wish to help one's self to the
enjoyment of self ? And when any one wishes
himself to be just as much as he is, then the
will is on a par with the mind, and the love
is equal to him who loves. And if love is a
substance, it is certainly not body, but spirit;
and the mind also is not body, but spirit.
Yet love and mind are not two spirits, but one
spirit; nor yet two essences, but one: and yet
here are two things that are one, he that loves
and love; or, if you like so to put it, that
which is loved and love. And these two, in-
deed, are mutually said relatively. Since he
who loves is referred to love, and love to him
who loves. For he who loves, loves with
some love, and love is the love of some one
who loves. But mind and spirit are not said
relatively, but express essence. For mind
and spirit do not exist because the mind and
spirit of some particular man exists. For if
we subtract the body from that which is man,
which is so called with the conjunction of body,
the mind and spirit remain. But if we sub-
tract him that loves, then there is no love;
and if we subtract love, then there is no one
that loves. And therefore, in so far as they
are mutually referred to one another, they
are two; but whereas they are spoken in re-
Chai\ IV.]
ON THE TRINITY.
127
spect to themselves, each are spirit, and both
together also are one spirit; and each are
mind, and both together one mind. Where,
then, is the trinity ? Let us attend as much
as we can, and let us invoke the everlasting
light, that He may illuminate our darkness,
and that we may see in ourselves, as much as
we are permitted, the image of God.
CHAP. 3. THE IMAGE OF THE TRINITY IN THE
MIND OF MAN WHO KNOWS HIMSELF AND
LOVES HIMSELF. THE MIND KNOWS ITSELF
THROUGH ITSELF.
3. For the mind cannot love itself, except
also it know itself; for how can it love what
it does not know ? Or if any body says that
the mind, from 'either general or special
knowledge, believes itself of such a character
as it has by experience found others to be,
and therefore loves itself, he speaks most
foolishly. For whence does a mind know
another mind, if it does not know itself ? For
the mind does not know other minds and not
know itself, as the eye of the body sees other
eyes and does not see itself; for we see bodies
through the eyes of the body, because, un-
less we are looking into a mirror, we cannot
refract and reflect the rays into themselves,
which shine forth through those eyes, and
touch whatever we discern, a. subject, in-
deed, which is treated of most subtlely and
obscurely, until it be clearly demonstrated
whether the fact be so, or whether it be not.
But whatever is the nature of the power by
which we discern through the eyes, certainly,
whether it be rays or anything else, we cannot
discern with the eyes that power itself; but
we inquire into it with the mind, and if possi-
ble, understand even this with the mind. As
the mind, then, itself gathers the knowledge
of corporeal things through the senses of the
body, so of incorporeal things through itself.
Therefore it knows itself also through itself,
since it is incorporeal; for if it does not know
itself, it does not love itself.
CHAP. 4. THE THREE ARE ONE, AND ALSO
EQUAL, VIZ. THE MIND ITSELF, AND THE
LOVE, AND THE KNOWLEDGE OF IT. THAT
THE SAME THREE EXIST SUBSTANTIALLY, AND
ARE PREDICATED RELATIVELY. THAT THE
SAME THREE ARE INSEPARABLE. THAT THE
SAME THREE ARE NOT JOINED AND COMMIN-
GLED LIKE PARTS, BUT THAT THEY ARE OF
ONE ESSENCE, AND ARE RELATIVES.
4. But as there are two things {duo quoz-
dam), the mind and the love of it, when it
loves itself; so there are two things, the mind
and the knowledge of it, when it knows itself.
Therefore the mind itself, and the love of it,
and the knowledge of it, are three things
(tria qucedani), and these three are one; and
when they are perfect they are equal. For if
one loves himself less than as he is, as for
example, suppose that the mind of a man
only loves itself as much as the body of a man
ought to be loved, whereas the mind is more
than the body, then it is in fault, and its
love is not perfect. Again, if it loves itself
more than as it is, as if, for instance, it loves
itself as much as God is to be loved, whereas
the mind is incomparably less than God,
here also it is exceedingly in fault, and its
love of self is not perfect. But it is in fault
more perversely and wrongly still, when it
loves the body as much as God is to be loved.
Also, if knowledge is less than that thing
which is known, and which can be fully known,
then knowledge is not perfect; but if it is
greater, then the nature which knows is above
that which is known, as the knowledge of the
body is greater than the body itself, which is
known by that knowledge. For knowledge
is a kind of life in the reason of the knower,
but the body is not life; and any life is greater
than any body, not in bulk, but in power.
But when the mind knows itself, its own
knowledge does not rise above itself, because
itself knows, and itself is known. When,
therefore, it knows itself entirely, and no other
thing with itself, then its knowledge is equal
to itself; because its knowledge is not from
another nature, since it knows itself. And
when it perceives itself entirely, and nothing
more, then it is neither less nor greater. We
said therefore rightly, that these three things,
[mind, love, and knowledge], when they are
perfect, are by consequence equal.
5. Similar reasoning suggests to us, if in-
deed we can any way understand the matter,
that these things [i.e. love and knowledge]
exist in the soul, and that, being as it were
involved in it, they are so evolved from it as
to be perceived and reckoned up substanti-
ally, or. so to say, essentially. Not as though
in a subject; as color, or shape, or any other
quality or quantity, are in the body. For
anything of this [material] kind does not go
beyond the subject in which it is; for the
color or shape of this particular body cannot
be also those of another body. But the mind
can also love something besides itself, with
that love with which it loves itself. And
further, the mind does not know itself only,
but also many other things. Wherefore love
and knowledge are not contained in the mind
as in a subject, but these also exist substanti-
ally, as the mind itself does; because, even if
they are mutually predicated relatively, yet
128
THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[Book IX.
they exist each severally in their own sub-
stance. Nor are they so mutually predicated
relatively as color and the colored subject
are; so that color is in the colored subject,
but has not any proper substance in itself,
since colored body is a substance, but color
is in a substance; but as two friends are also
two men, ' which are substances, while they
are said to be men not relatively, but friends
relatively.
6. But, further, although one who loves
or one who knows is a substance, and
knowledge is a substance, and love is a
substance, but he that loves and love, or,
he that knows and knowledge, are spoken
of relatively to each other, as are friends:
yet mind or spirit are not relatives, as
neither are men relatives: nevertheless he
that loves and love, or he that knows and
knowledge, cannot exist separately from each
other, as men can that are friends. Although
it would seem that friends, too, can be sepa-
rated in body, not in mind, in as far as they
are friends: nay, it can even happen that a
friend may even also begin to hate a friend,
and on this account cease to be a friend,
while the other does not know it, and still
loves him. But if the love with which the
mind loves itself ceases to be, then the mind
also will at the same time cease to love.
Likewise, if the knowledge by which the mind
knows itself ceases to be, then the mind will
also at the same time cease to know itself.
Just as the head of anything that has a head
is certainly a head, and they are predicated
relatively to each other, although they are
also substances: for both a head is a body,
and so is that which has a head; and if there
be no head, then neither will there be that
which has a head. Only these things can be
separated from each other by cutting off,
those cannot.
7. And even if there are some bodies which
cannot be wholly separated and divided, yet
they would not be bodies unless they con-
sisted of their own proper parts. A part
then is predicated relatively to a whole, since
every part is a part of some whole, and a
whole is a whole by having all its parts. But
since both part and whole are bodies,
these things are not only predicated rela-
tively, but exist also substantially. Perhaps,
then, the mind is a whole, and the love with
which it loves itself, and the knowledge with
which it knows itself, are as it were its parts,
of which two parts that whole consists.
Or are there three equal parts which make
up the one whole ? But no part embraces the
whole, of which it is a part; whereas, when
the mind knows itself as a whole, that is,
knows itself perfectly, then the knowledge of
it extends through the whole of it; and when
it loves itself perfectly, then it loves itself as
a whole, and the love of it extends through
the whole of it. Is it, then, as one drink is
made from wine and water and honey, and
each single part extends through the whole,
and yet they are three things (for there is no
part of the drink which does not contain
these three things; for they are not joined as
if they were water and oil, but are entirely
commingled: and they are all substances,
and the whole of that liquor which is com-
posed of the three is one substance), is it, I
say, in some such way as this we are to think
these three to be together, mind, love, and
knowledge ? But water, wine, and honey are
not of one substance, although one substance
results in the drink made from the commin-
gling of them. And I cannot see how those
other three are not of the same substance,
since the mind itself loves itself, and itself
knows itself; and these three so exist, as that
the mind is neither loved nor known by any
other thing at all. These three, therefore,
must needs be of one and the same essence;
and for that reason, if they were confounded
together as it were by a commingling, they
could not be in any way three, neither could
they be mutually referred to each other.
Just as if you were to make from one and
the same gold three similar rings, although
connected with each other, they are mutually
referred to each other, because they are simi-
lar. For everything similar is similar to
something, and there is a trinity of rings,
and one gold. But if they are blended with
each other, and each mingled with the other
through the whole of their own bulk, then
that trinity will fall through, and it will not
exist at all; and not only will it be called one
gold, as it was called in the case of those
three rings, but now it will not be called three
things of gold at all.
CHAP. 5. THAT THESE THREE ARE SEVERAL IN
THEMSELVES, AND MUTUALLY ALL IN ALL.
8. But in these three, when the mind
knows itself and loves itself, there remains a
trinity: mind, love, knowledge; and this trin-
ity is not confounded together by any com-
mingling: although they are each severally
in themselves and mutually all in all, or each
severally in each two, or each two in each.
Therefore all are in all. For certainly the
mind is in itself, since it is called mind in
respect to itself: although it is said to be
knowing, or known, or knowable, relatively
to its own knowledge; and although also as
Chap. VI. 1
ON THE TRINITY.
129
loving, and loved, or lovable, it is referred to
love, by which it loves itself. And knowl-
edge, although it is referred to the mind that
knows or is known, nevertheless is also pre-
dicated both as known and knowing in respect
to itself: for the knowledge by which the mind
knows itself is not unknown to itself. And al-
though love is referred to the mind that loves,
whose love it is; nevertheless it is also love
in respect to itself, so as to exist also in it-
self: since love too is loved, yet cannot be
loved with anything except with love, that is
with itself. So these things are severally in
themselves. But so are they in each other;
because both the mind that loves is in love,
and love is in the knowledge of him that
loves, and knowledge is in the mind that
knows. And each severally is in like manner
in each two, because the mind which knows
and loves itself, is in its own love and knowl-
edge: and the love of the mind that loves
and knows itself, is in the mind and in its
knowledge: and the knowledge of the mind
that knows and loves itself is in the mind
and in its love, because it loves itself that
knows, and knows itself that loves. And
hence also each two is in each severally, since
the mind which knows and loves itself, is
together with its own knowledge in love, and
together with its own love in knowledge; and
love too itself and knowledge are together in
the mind, which loves and knows itself. But
in what way all are in all, we have already
shown above; since the mind loves itself as
a whole, and knows itself as a whole, and
knows its own love wholly, and loves its own
knowledge wholly, when these three things
are perfect in respect to themselves. There-
fore these three things are marvellously in-
separable from each other, and yet each of
them is severally a substance, and all together
are one substance or essence, whilst they are
mutually predicated relatively. 1
1 [Augustin here illustrates, by the ternary- of mind, love, and
knowledge, what the Greek Trinitarians denominate the wepix^PV-
cts of the divine essence. By the figure of a circulation, they de-
scribe the eternal inbeing and indwelling of one person in another.
This is founded on John xiv. 10, n; xvii. 21, 23. " Believest thou
not that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me ? I pray that
they all may be one, as thou Father art m Me, and T in Thee."
Atnanasius(<?ra^/V>, iii. 21) remarks that Christ here prays that the
disciples " may imitate the trinitarian unity of essence, in their
unity of affection. Had it been possible for the disciples to be in
the essence of the Father as the Son is, he would have prayed that
they all may be " one in Thee" instead of " one in Qs."
The Platonists, also, employed this figure of circulatory move-
ment, to explain the self-reflecting and self-communing nature of
the human mind. " It is not possible for us to know what our
souls are, but only by their KipTJcrei? kvkAikcu, their circular and re-
flex motions and converse with themselves, which only can steal
from them their own secrets." J.Smith: Immortality 0/ the
Sou/, Ch. ii.
Augustin's illustration, however, is imperfect, because " the
three things" which circulate are not " each of them severally a
substance." Only one of them, namely, the mind, is a substance.
W. G. T. S.l
9
CHAP. 6. THERE IS ONE KNOWLEDGE OF THE
THING IN THE THING ITSELF, AND ANOTHER
IN ETERNAL TRUTH ITSELF. THAT CORPO-
REAL THINGS, TOO, ARE TO BE JUDGED BY
THE RULES OF ETERNAL TRUTH.
9. But when the human mind knows itself
and loves itself, it does not know and love
anything unchangeable: and each individual
man declares his own particular mind by one
manner of speech, when he considers what
takes place in himself; but defines the
human mind abstractly by special or general
knowledge. And so, when he speaks to me
of his own individual mind, as to whether he
understands this or that, or does not under-
stand it, or whether he wishes or does not
wish this or that, I believe; but when he
speaks the truth of the mind of man gener-
ally or specially, I recognize and approve.
Whence it is manifest, that each sees a thing
in himself, in such way that another person
may believe what he says of it, yet may not
see it; but another [sees a thing] in the
truth itself, in such way that another person
also can gaze upon it; of which the former
undergoes changes at successive times, the
latter consists in an unchangeable eternity.
For we do not gather a generic or specific
knowledge of the human mind by means of
resemblance by seeing many minds with the
eyes of the body: but we gaze upon inde-
structible truth, from which to define perfectly,
as far as we can, not of what sort is the mind
of any one particular man, but of what sort it
ought to be upon the eternal plan.
10. Whence also, even in the case of the
images of things corporeal which are drawn
in through the bodily sense, and in some way
infused into the memory, from which also
those things which have not been seen are
thought under a fancied image, whether other-
wise than they really are, or even perchance
as they are; even here too, we are proved
either to accept or reject, within ourselves,
by other rules which remain altogether un-
changeable above our mind, when we approve
or reject anything rightly. For both when I
recall the walls of Carthage which I have seen,
and imagine to myself the walls of Alexan-
dria which I have not seen, and, in prefer-
ring this to that among forms which in both
cases are imaginary, make that preference
upon grounds of reason; the judgment of
truth from above is still strong and clear, and
rests firmly upon the utterly indestructible
rules of its own right; and if it is covered as
it were by cloudiness of corporeal images, yet
is not wrapt up and confounded in them.
11. But it makes a difference, whether,
130
THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[Book IX.
under that or in that darkness, I am shut off
as it were from the clear heaven; or whether
(as usually happens on lofty mountains), en-
joying the free air between both, I at once
look up above to the calmest light, and down
below upon the densest clouds. For whence
is the ardor of brotherly love kindled in me,
when I hear that some man has borne bitter
torments for the excellence and steadfastness
of faith ? And if that man is shown to me
with the finger, I am eager to join myself to
him, to become acquainted with him, to bind
him to myself in friendship. And accord-
ingly, if opportunity offers, I draw near, I ad-
dress him, I converse with him, I express my
goodwill towards him in what words I can,
and wish that in him too in turn should
be brought to pass and expressed goodwill
towards me; and I endeavor after a spiritual
embrace in the way of belief, since I cannot
search out so quickly and discern altogether
his innermost heart. I love therefore the
faithful and courageous man with a pure and
genuine love. But if he were to confess to
me in the course of conversation, or were
through unguardedness to show in any way,
that either he believes something unseemly
of God, and desires also something carnal in
Him, and that he bore these torments on be-
half of such an error, or from the desire of
money for which he hoped, or from empty
greediness of human praise: immediately it
follows that the love with which I was borne
towards him, displeased, and as it were re-
pelled, and taken away from an unworthy
man, remains in that form, after which, be-
lieving him such as I did, I had loved him;
unless perhaps I have come to love him to
this end, that he may become such, while I
have found him not to be such in fact. And
in that man, too, nothing is changed : although
it can be changed, so that he may become
that which I had believed him to be already.
But in my mind there certainly is something
changed, viz., the estimate I had formed of
him, which was before of one sort, and now
is of another: and the same love, at the bid-
ding from above of unchangeable righteous-
ness, is turned aside from the purpose of en-
joying, to the purpose of taking counsel. But
the form itself of unshaken and stable truth,
wherein I should have enjoyed the fruition
of the man, believing him to be good, and
wherein likewise I take counsel that he may
be good, sheds in an immoveable eternity the
same light of incorruptible and most sound
reason, both upon the sight of my mind, and
upon that cloud of images, which I discern
from above, when I think of the same man
whom I had seen. Again, when I call back
to my mind some arch, turned beautifully and
symmetrically, which, let us say, I saw at
Carthage; a certain reality that had been
made known to the mind through the eyes,
and transferred to the memory, causes the
imaginary view. But I behold in my mind
yet another thing, according to. which that
work of art pleases me; and whence also, if
it displeased me, I should correct it. We
judge therefore of those particular things ac-
cording to that [form of eternal truth], and
discern that form by the intuition of the ra-
tional mind. But those things themselves we
either touch if present by the bodily sense,
or if absent remember their images as fixed
in our memory, or picture, in the way of like-
ness to them, such things as we ourselves also,
if we wished and were able, would laborious-
ly build up: figuring in the mind after one
fashion the images of bodies, or seeing bodies
through the body; but after another, grasping
by simple intelligence what is above the eye
of the mind, viz., the reasons and the un-
speakably beautiful skill of such forms.
CHAP. 7. WE CONCEIVE AND BEGET THE WORD
WITHIN, FROM THE THINGS WE HAVE BEHELD
IN THE ETERNAL TRUTH. THE WORD,
WHETHER OF THE CREATURE OR OF THE
CREATOR, IS CONCEIVED BY LOVE.
12. We behold, then, by the sight of the
mind, in that eternal truth from which all
things temporal are made, the form according
to which we are, and according to which we
do anything by true and right reason, either
in ourselves, or in things corporeal; and we
have the true knowledge of things, thence
conceived, as it were as a word within us,
and by speaking we beget it from within; nor
by being born does it depart from us. And
when we speak to others, we apply to the
word, remaining within us, the ministry of the
voice or of some bodily sign, that by some
kind of sensible remembrance some similar
thing may be wrought also in the mind of him
that hears, similar, I say, to that which does
not depart from the mind of him that speaks.
We do nothing, therefore, through the mem-
bers of the body in our words and actions, by
which the behavior of men is either approved
or blamed, which we do not anticipate by a
word uttered within ourselves. For no one
willingly does anything, which he has not first
said in his heart.
13. And this word is conceived by love,
either of the creature or of the Creator, that
is, either of changeable nature or of un-
changeable truth. 1
1 [The inward production of a thought in the finite essence of
the human spirit which is expressed outwardly in a spoken word,
Chap. X.]
ON THE TRINITY.
131
CHAP. S. IN WHAT DESIRE AND LOVE DIFFER.
[Conceived] therefore, either by desire or
by love: not that the creature ought not to
be loved; but if that love [of the creature] is
referred to the Creator, then it will not be
desire (cupiditas), but love {charitas). For it
is desire when tiie creature is loved for itself.
And then it does not help a man through
making use of it, but corrupts him in the en-
joying it. When, therefore, the creature is
either equal to us or inferior, we must u::j the
inferior in order to God, but we must enjoy the
equal only in God. For as thou oughtest to en-
joy thyself, not in thyself, but in Him who made
thee, so also him whom thou lovest as thyself.
Let us enjoy, therefore, both ourselves and
our brethren in the Lord; and hence let us
not dare to yield, and as it were to relax,
ourselves to ourselves in the direction down-
wards. Now a word is born, when, being
thought out, it pleases us either to the effect
of sinning, or to that of doing right. There-
fore love, as it were a mean, conjoins our
word and the mind from which it is conceived,
and without any confusion binds itself as a
third with them, in an incorporeal embrace.
CHAP. 9. IX THE LOVE OF SPIRITUAL THINGS
THE WORD BORN IS THE SAME AS THE WORD
CONCEIVED. IT IS OTHERWISE IN THE LOVE
OF CARNAL THINGS.
14. But the word conceived and the word
born are the very same when the will finds rest
in knowledge itself, as is the case in the love
of spiritual things. For instance, he who
knows righteousness perfectly, and loves it
perfectly, is already righteous; even if no
necessity exist of working according to it out-
wardly through the members of the body.
But in the love of carnal and temporal things,
as in the offspring of animals, the conception
of the word is one thing, the bringing forth
another. For here what is conceived by de-
siring is born by attaining. Since it does
not suffice to avarice to know and to love
gold, except it also have it; nor to know and
love to eat, or to lie with any one, unless
also one does it; nor to know and love honors
and power, unless they actually come to pass.
Nay, all these things, even if obtained, do
not suffice. "Whosoever drinketh of this
water," He says, " shall thirst again." 1 And
so also the Psalmist, " He hath conceived
pain and brought forth iniquity." 2 And he
is analogous to the eternal generation of the Eternal Wisdom in
the infinite essence of God expressed in the Eternal Word. Both
are alike, in that something spiritual issues from something spirit-
ual, without division or diminution of substance. But a thought
of the human mind is not an objective thing or substance; while
the Eternal Word is. W. G. T. S.]
" John iv. 13. 2 p s . v ;,. I4 .
speaks of pain or labor as conceived, when
those things are conceived which it is not
sufficient to know and will, and when the
mind burns and grows sick with want, until it
arrives at those things, and, as it were, brings
them forth. Whence in the Latin language
we have the word "parta" used elegantly
for both "reperta" and " comperta," which
words sound as if derived from bringing forth. 3
Since "lust, when it hath conceived, bringeth
forth sin." 4 Wherefore the Lord proclaims.
" Come unto me all ye that labor and are
heavy laden;" 5 and in another place "Woe
unto them that are with child, and to them
that give suck, in those days ! " 6 And when
therefore He referred all either right actions
or sins to the bringing forth of the word, " By
thy mouth," 7 He says, "thou shalt be justi-
fied, and by thy mouth 8 thou shalt be con-
demned," 9 intending thereby not the visible
mouth, but that which is within and invisible,
of the thought and of the heart.
CHAP. IO. WHETHER ONLY KNOWLEDGE THAT
IS LOVED IS THE WORD OF THE MIND.
15. It is rightly asked then, whether all
knowledge is a word, or only knowledge that
is loved. For we also know the things which
we hate ; but what we do not like, cannot be
said to be either conceived or brought forth
by the mind. For not all things which in any-
way touch it, are conceived by it ; but some
only reach the point of being known, but yet
are not spoken as words, as for instance those
of which we speak now. For those are called
words in one way, which occupy spaces of
time by their syllables, whether they are pro-
nounced or only thought; and in another way,
all that is known is called a word imprinted
on the mind, as long as it can be brought
forth from the memory and defined, even
though we dislike the thing itself ; and in
another way still, when we like that which
is conceived in the mind. And that which
the apostle says, must be taken according to
this last kind of word, " No man can say that
Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost;" 10
since those also say this, but according to
another meaning of the term "word." of
whom the Lord Himself says, " Not every one
that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter in-
to the kingdom of heaven." 11 Nay, even in
the case of things which we hate, when we
rightly dislike and rightly censure them, we
approve and like the censure bestowed upon
them, and it becomes a word. Nor is it the
knowledge of vices that displeases us, but the
3 Partus. 4 Jas. i. 15. 5 Matt. xi. 28.
6 Matt. xxiv. 19. 7 Words. 8 Words. A. V.
9 Matt. xii. 37. 10 1 Cor. xii. 3. " Matt. vii. 21.
132
THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[Book IX.
vices themselves. For I like to know and
define what intemperance is ; and this is its
word. Just as there are known faults in art,
and the knowledge of them is rightly ap-
proved, when a connoisseur discerns the spe-
cies or the privation of excellence, as to affirm
and deny that it is or that it is not ; yet to be
without excellence and to fall away into fault,
is worthy of condemnation. And to define
intemperance, and to say its word, belongs
to the art of morals ; but to be intemperate
belongs to that which that art censures. Just
as to know and define what a solecism is,
belongs to the art of speaking ; but to be
guilty of one, is a fault which the same art
reprehends. A word, then, which is the point
we wish now to discern and intimate, is knowl-
edge together with love. Whenever, then,
the mind knows and loves itself, its word is
joined to it by love. And since it loves
knowledge and knows love, both the word is
in love and love is in the word, and both are
in him who loves and speaks. 1
CHAP. II. THAT THE IMAGE OR BEGOTTEN
WORD OF THE MIND THAT KNOWS ITSELF IS
EQUAL TO THE MIND ITSELF.
1 6. But all knowledge according to species
is like the thing which it knows. For there is
another knowledge according to privation, ac-
cording to which we speak a word only when
we condemn. And this condemnation of a
privation is equivalent to praise of the species,
and so is approved. The mind, then, con-
tains some likeness to a known species, whether
when liking that species or when disliking its
privation. And hence, in so far as we know
God, we are like Him, but not like to the
point of equality, since we do not know Him
to the extent of His own being. And as, when
we speak of bodies by means of the bodily
sense, there arises in our mind some likeness
of them, which is a phantasm of the memory;
for the bodies themselves are not at all in the
mind, when we think them, but only the like-
nesses of those bodies ; therefore, when we
approve the latter for the former, we err, for
the approving of one thing for another is an
error ; yet the image of the body in the mind
is a thing of a better sort than the species of
the body itself, inasmuch as the former is
in a better nature, viz. in a living substance,
as the mind is : so when we know God, al-
though we are made better than we were be-
1 [The meaning of this obscure chapter seems to be, that only
what the mind is pleased with, is the real expression and index of
the mind its true " word." The true nature of the mind is re-
vealed in its sympathies. But this requires some qualification.
For in the case of contrary qualities, like right and wrong, beauly
and ugliness, the real nature of the mind is seen also in its antipa-
thy as well as in its sympathy; in its hatred of wrong as well as in
its love of right. Each alike is a true index of the mind, because
each really implies the other. W. G. T. S-]
fore we knew Him, and above all when the
same knowledge being also liked and worthily
loved becomes a word, and so that knowledge
becomes a kind of likeness of God ; yet that
knowledge is of a lower kind, since it is in a
lower nature ; for the mind is creature, but
God is Creator. And from this it may be
inferred, that when the mind knows and
approves itself, this same knowledge is in
such way its word, as that it is altogether on
a par and equal with it, and the same ; because
it is neither the knowledge of a lower essence,
as of the body, nor of a higher, as of God.
And whereas knowledge bears a likeness to
that which it knows, that is, of which it is the
knowledge ; in this case it has perfect and
equal likeness, when the mind itself, which
knows, is known. And so it is both image
and word ; because it is uttered concerning
that mind to which it is equalled in knowing,
and that which is begotten is equal to the
begetter.
CHAP. 12. WHY LOVE IS NOT THE OFFSPRING
OF THE MIND, AS KNOWLEDGE IS SO. THE
SOLUTION OF THE QUESTION. THE MIND
WITH THE KNOWLEDGE OF ITSELF AND THE
LOVE OF ITSELF IS THE IMAGE OF THE TRINITY.
17. What then is love? Will it not be an
image? Will it not be a word? Will it not
be begotten ? For why does the mind beget
its knowledge when it knows itself, and not
beget its love when it loves itself? For if it
is the cause of its own knowing, for the reason
that it is knowable, it is also the cause of its
own love because it is lovable. It is hard,
then, to say why it does not beget both. For
there is a further question also respecting the
supreme Trinity itself, the omnipotent God
the Creator, after whose image man is made,
which troubles men, whom the truth of God
invites to the faith by human speech ; viz. why
the Holy Spirit is not also to be either believed
or understood to be begotten by God the
Father, so that He also may be called a Son.
And this question we are endeavoring in some
way to investigate in the human mind, in order
that from a lower image, in which our own
nature itself as it were answers, upon being
questioned, in a way more familiar to our-
selves, we may be able to direct a more prac-
tised mental vision from the enlightened
creature to the unchangeable light ; assuming,
however, that the truth itself has persuaded
us, that as no Christian doubts the Word of
God to be the Son, so that the Holy Spirit is
love. Let us return, then, to a more careful
questioning and consideration upon this sub-
ject of that image which is the creature, that
is, of the rational mind ; wherein the knowl-
Chap. XII.]
ON THE TRINITY.
oo
edge of some things coming into existence
in time, but which did not exist before, and
the love of some things which were not loved
before, opens to us more clearly what to say:
because to speech also itself, which must be
disposed in time, that thing is easier of expla-
nation which is comprehended in the order of
time.
1 8. First, therefore, it is clear that a thing
may possibly be knowable, that is, such as can
be known, and yet that it may be unknown ;
but that it is not possible for that to be known
which is not knowable. Wherefore it must
be clearly held that everything whatsoever
that we know begets at the same time in us the
knowledge of itself; for knowledge is brought
forth from both, from the knower and from
the thing known. When, therefore, the mind
knows itself, it alone is the parent of its own
knowledge ; for it is itself both the thing
known and the knower of it. But it was know-
able to itself also before it knew itself, only
the knowledge of itself was not in itself so
long as it did not know itself. In knowing
itself, then, it begets a knowledge of itself
equal to itself ; since it does not know itself
as less than itself is, nor is its knowledge the
knowledge of the essence of some one else,
not only because itself knows, but also be-
cause it knows itself, as we have said above.
What then is to be said of love ; why, when
the mind loves itself, it should not seem also
to have begotten the love of itself? For it was
lovable to itself even before it loved itself,
since it could love itself ; just as it was know-
able to itself even before it knew itself, since it
could know itself. For if it were not know-
able to itself, it never could have known it-
self; and so, if it were not lovable to itself, it
never could have loved itself. Why there-
fore may it not be said by loving itself to
have begotten its own love, as by knowing it-
self it has begotten its own knowledge ? Is
it because it is thereby indeed plainly shown
that this is the principle of love, whence it
proceeds? for it proceeds from the mind it-
self, which is lovable to itself before it loves
itself, and so is the principle of its own love
by which it loves itself : but that this love is
not therefore rightly said to be begotten by
the mind, as is the knowledge of itself by
which the mind knows itself, because in the
case of knowledge the thing has been found
already, which is what we call brought forth
or discovered; 1 and this is commonly pre-
ceded by an inquiry such as to find rest when
that end is attained. For inquiry is the de-
sire of finding, or, what is the same thing, of
1 " Partzun " or " repertum"
discovering. 2 But those things which are dis-
covered are as it were brougnt forth, whence
they are like offspring; but wherein, except
in the case itself of knowledge ? For in that
case they are as it were uttered and fashioned.
For although the things existed already which
we found by seeking, yet the knowledge of
them did not exist, which knowledge we re-
gard as an offspring that is born. Further,
the desire (appctitus) which there is in seek-
ing proceeds from him who seeks, and is in
some way in suspense, and does not rest in
the end whither it is directed, except that
which is sought be found and conjoined with
him who seeks. And this desire, that is, in-
quiry, although it does not seem to be love,
by which that which is known is loved, for in
this case we are still striving to know, yet it
is something of the same kind. For it can
be called will {voluntas), since every one who
seeks wills (vult) to find; and if that is sought
which belongs to knowledge, every one who
seeks wills to know. But if he wills ardently
and earnestly, he is said to study (studere):
a word that is most commonly employed in the
case of pursuing and obtaining any branches
of learning. Therefore, the bringing forth of
the mind is preceded by some desire, by
which, through seeking and finding what we
wish to know, the offspring, viz. knowledge it-
self, is born. And for this reason, that desire
by which knowledge is conceived and brought
forth, cannot rightly be called the bringing
forth and the offspring; and the same desire
which led us to long for the knowing of the
thing, becomes the love of the thing when
known, while it holds and embraces its ac-
cepted offspring, that is, knowledge, and
unites it to its begetter. And so there is a
kind of image of the Trinity in the mind it-
self, and the knowledge of it, which is its off-
spring and its word concerning itself, and love
as a third, and these three are one, and one
substance. 3 Neither is the offspring less,
since the mind knows itself according to the
measure of its own being; nor is the love less,
since it loves itself according to the measure
both of its own knowledge and of its own
being.
2 " Reperiendi."
3 [It is not these three together that constitute the one sub-
stance. The mind alone is the substance the knowledge and the
love being only two activities of it. When the mind is not cogniz-
ing or loving, it is still an entire mind. As previously remarked in
the annotation on IX. ii. this ternary will completely illustrate a
trinality of a certain kind, but not that of the Trinity; in which the
" tria qucedam " are three subsistences, each of which is so sub-
stantial as to be the subject of attributes, and to be able to employ
them. The human mind is substantial enough to possess and em-
ploy the attributes of knowledge and love. We say that the mind
knows and loves. But an activity o{ the mind is not substantial
enough to possess and employ the attributes of knowledge and
love. We cannrt say that the loving loves; or the loving knows;
or the knowing loves, etc. W. G. T. S.]
BOOK X.
IN WHICH THERE IS SHOWN TO BE ANOTHER TRINITY IN THE MIND OF MAN, AND ONE THAT AP-
PEARS MUCH MORE EVIDENTLY, VIZ. IN HIS MEMORY, UNDERSTANDING, AND WILL.
CHAP. I. THE LOVE OF THE STUDIOUS MIND,
THAT IS, OF ONE DESIROUS TO KNOW, IS NOT
THE LOVE OF A THING WHICH IT DOES NOT
KNOW.
i. Let us now proceed, then, indue order,
with a more exact purpose, to explain this
same point more thoroughly. And first,
since no one can love at all a thing of which
he is wholly ignorant, we must carefully con-
sider of what sort is the love of those who
are studious, that is, of those who do not
already know, but are still desiring to know
any branch of learning. Now certainly, in
those things whereof the word study is not
commonly used, love often arises from hear-
say, when the reputation of anything for
beauty inflames the mind to the seeing and
enjoying it; since the mind knows generically
wherein consist the beauties of corporeal
things, from having seen them very frequent-
ly, and since there exists within a faculty of
approving that which outwardly is longed for.
And when this happens, the love that is
called forth is not of a thing wholly un-
known, since its genus is thus known. But
when we love a good man whose face we
never saw, we love him from the knowledge of
his virtues, which virtues we know [abstractly]
in the truth itself. But in the case of learn-
ing, it is for the most part the authority of
others who praise and commend it that kin-
dles our love of it; although nevertheless we
could not burn with any zeal at all for the
study of it, unless we had already in our
mind at least a slight impression of the
knowledge of each kind of learning. For
who, for instance, would devote any care and
labor to the learning of rhetoric, unless he
knew before that it was the science of speak-
ing? Sometimes, again, we marvel at the
results of learning itself, which we have heard
of or experienced; and hence burn to obtain,
I by learning, the power of attaining these
i results. Just as if it were said to one who
did not know his letters, that there is a kind
of learning which enables a man to send
words, wrought with the hand in silence, to
one who is ever so far absent, for him in turn
to whom they are sent to gather these words,
not with his ears, but with his eyes; and if
the man were to see the thing actually done,
is not that man, since he desires to know how
he can do this thing, altogether moved to
study with a view to the result which he al-
ready knows and holds ? So it is that the
studious zeal of those who learn is kindled:
for that of which any one is utterly ignorant,
he can in no way love.
2. So also, if any one hear an unknown sign,
as, for instance, the sound of some word of
which he does not know the signification, he
desires to know what it is; that is, he desires
to know what thing it is which it is agreed
shall be brought to mind by that sound: as
if he heard the word temetum ' uttered, and
not knowing, should ask what it is. He must
then know already that it is a sign, i.e. that
the word is not an empty sound, but that some-
thing is signified by it; for in other respects
this trisyllabic word is known to him already,
and has already impressed its articulate form
upon his mind through the sense of hearing.
And then what more is to be required in him,
that he may go on to a greater knowledge of
that of which all the letters and all the spaces
of its several sounds are already known, un-
less that it shall at the same time have be-
come known to him that it is a sign, and shall
have also moved him with the desire of
knowing of what it is the sign ? The more,
then, the thing is known, yet not fully known,
the more the mind desires to know concern-
ing it what remains to be known. For if he
i Wir
Chap. I.]
ON THE TRINITY.
135
knew it to be only such and such a spoken
word, and did not know that it was the sign
of something, he would seek nothing further,
since the sensible thing is already perceived
as far as it can be by the sense. But because
he knows it to be not only a spoken word,
but also a sign, he wishes to know it per-
fectly; and no sign is known perfectly, except
it be known of what it is the sign. He then
who with ardent carefulness seeks to know
this, and inflamed by studious zeal perseveres
in the search; can such an one be said to be
without love ? What then does he love ?
For certainly nothing can be loved unless it is
known. For that man does not love those
three syllables which he knows already. But
if he loves this in them, that he knows them
to signify something, this is not the point
now in question, for it is not this which he
seeks to know. But we are now asking what
it is he loves, in that which he is desirous
to know, but which certainly he does not yet
know; and we are therefore wondering why
he loves, since we know most assuredly that
nothing can be loved unless it be known.
What then does he love, except that he knows
and perceives in the reason of things what
excellence there i's in learning, in which the
knowledge of all signs is contained; and what
benefit there is in the being skilled in these,
since by them human fellowship mutually
communicates its own perceptions, lest the
assemblies of men should be actually worse
than utter solitude, if they were not to mingle
their thoughts by conversing together ? The
soul, then, discerns this fitting and servicea-
ble species, and knows it, and loves it; and
he who seeks the meaning of any words of
which he is ignorant, studies to render that
species perfect in himself as much as he can:
for it is one thing to behold it in the light of
truth, another to desire it as within his
own capacity. For he beholds in the light of
truth how great and how good a thing it is
to understand and to speak all tongues of all
nations, and so to hear no tongue and to be
heard by none as from a foreigner. The
beauty, then, of this knowledge is already
discerned by thought, and the thing being
known is loved; and that thing is so regarded,
and so stimulates the studious zeal of learn-
ers, that they are moved with respect to it,
and desire it eagerly in all the labor which
they spend upon the attainment of such a
capacity, in order that they may also embrace
in practice that which they know beforehand
by reason. And so every one, the nearer he
approaches that capacity in hope, the more
fervently desires it with love; for those
branches of learning are studied the more
eagerly, which men do not despair of being
able to attain; for when any one entertains no
hope of attaining his end, then he either loves
lukewarmly or does not love at all, howsoever
he may see the excellence of it. Accord-
ingly, because the knowledge of all languages
is almost universally felt to be hopeless,
every one studies most to know that of his
own nation; but if he feels that he is not
sufficient even to comprehend this perfectly,
yet no one is so indolent in this knowledge
as not to wish to know, when he hears an un-
known word, what it is, and to seek and learn
it if he can. And while he is seeking it, cer-
tainly he has a studious zeal of learning, and
seems to love a thing he does not know; but
the case is really otherwise. For that species
touches the mind, which the mind knows and
thinks, wherein the fitness is clearly visible
which accrues from the associating of minds
with one another, in the hearing and return-
ing of known and spoken words. And this
species kindles studious zeal in him, who
seeks what indeed he knows not, but gazes
upon and loves the unknown form to which
that pertains. If then, for example, any one
were to ask, What is temctum (for I had in-
stanced this word already), and it were said
to him, What does this matter to you ? he
will answer, Lest perhaps I hear some one
speaking, and understand him not; or per-
haps read the word somewhere, and know
not what the writer meant. Who, pray,
would say to such an inquirer, Do not care
about understanding what you hear; do not
care about knowing what you read ? For
almost every rational soul quickly discerns
the beauty of that knowledge, through which
the thoughts of men are mutually made
known by the enunciation of significant words;
and it is on account of this fitness thus known,
and because known therefore loved, that such
an unknown word is studiously sought out.
When then he hears and learns that wine was
called " temetum " by our forefathers, but
that the word is already quite obsolete in our
present usage of language, he will think
perhaps that he has still need of the word on
account of this or that book of those fore-
fathers. But if he holds these also to be
superfluous, perhaps he does now come to
think the word not worth remembering, since
he sees it has nothing to do with that species
of learning which he knows with the mind,
and gazes upon, and so loves.
3. Wherefore in all cases the love of a
studious mind, that is, of one that wishes to
know what it does not know, is not the love
of that thing which it does not know, but of
that which it knows; on account of which it
156
THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[Book X.
wishes to know what it does not know. Or
if it is so inquisitive as to be carried away,
not for any other cause known to it, but by
the mere love of knowing things unknown;
then such an inquisitive person is, doubtless,
distinguishable from an ordinary student, yet
does not, any more than he, love things he
does not know; nay, on the contrary, he is
more fitly said to hate things he knows not,
of which he wishes that there should be none,
in wishing to know everything. But lest any
one should lay before us a more difficult
question, by declaring that it is just as im-
possible for any one to hate what he does
not know, as to love what he does not know,
we will not withstand what is true; but it
must be understood that it is not the same
thing to say he loves to know things un-
known, as to say he loves things unknown.
For it is possible that a man may love to
know things unknown; but it is not possible
that he should love things unknown. For
the word to know is not placed there without
meaning; since he who loves to know things
unknown, does not love the unknown things
themselves, but the knowing of them. And
unless he knew what knowing means, no one
could say confidently, either that he knew or
that he did not know. For not only he who
says I know, and says so truly, must needs
know what knowing is; but he also who says,
I do not know, and says so confidently and
truly, and knows that he says so truly, cer-
tainly knows what knowing is; for he both
distinguishes him who does not know from
him who knows, when he looks into himself,
and says truly I do not know; and whereas he
knows that he says this truly, whence should
he know it, if he did not know what knowing
is?
CHAP. 2. NO ONE AT ALL LOVES THINGS UN-
KNOWN.
4. No studious person, then, no inquisitive
person, loves things he does not know, even
while he is urgent with the most vehement
desire to know what he does not know. For
he either knows already generically what he
loves, and longs to know it also in some indi-
vidual or individuals, which perhaps are prais-
ed, but not yet known to him; and he pictures
in his mind an imaginary form by which he
may be stirred to love. And whence does he
picture this, except from those things which he
has already known ? And yet perhaps he will
not love it, if he find that form which was
praised to be unlike that other form which
was figured and in thought most fully known
to his mind. And if he has loved it, he will
beinn to love it from that time when he
learned it; since a little before, that form
which was loved was other than that which
the mind that formed it had been wont to
exhibit to itself. But if he shall find it simi-
lar to that form which report had proclaimed,
and to be such that he could truly say I was
already loving thee; yet certainly not even
then did he love a form he did not know,
since he had known it in that likeness. Or
else we see somewhat in the species of the
eternal reason, and therein love it; and when
this is manifested in some image of a tem-
poral thing, and we believe the praises of
those who have made trial of it, and so love
it, then we do not love anything unknown,
according to that which we have already suf-
ficiently discussed above. Or else, again,
we love something known, and on account of
it seek something unknown; and so it is by
no means the love of the thing unknown that
possesses us, but the love of the thing known,
to which we know the unknown thing be-
longs, so that we know that too which we
seek still as unknown; as a little before I said
of an unknown word. Or else, again, every
one loves the very knowing itself, as no one
can fail to know who desires to know any-
thing. For these reasons they seem to love
things unknown who wish to know anything
which they do not know, and who, on account
of their vehement desire of inquiry, cannot
be said to be without love. But how differ-
ent the case really is, and that nothing at all
can be loved which is not known, I think I
must have persuaded every one who carefully
looks upon truth. But since the examples
which we have given belong to those who
desire to know something which they them-
selves are not, we must take thought lest
perchance some new notion appear, when the
mind desires to know itself.
CHAP. 3. THAT WHEN THEJMIND LOVES ITSELF,
IT IS NOT UNKNOWN TO ITSELF.
5. What, then, does the mind love, when
it seeks ardently to know itself, whilst it is
still unknown to itself? For, behold, the
mind seeks to know itself, and is excited
thereto by studious zeal. It loves, therefore;
but what does it love ? Is it itself? But how
can this be when it does not yet know itself,
and no one can love what he does not know ?
,Ts it that report has declared to it its own
species, in like way as we commonly hear of
people who are absent? Perhaps, then, it
does not love itself, but loves that which it
imagines of itself, which is perhaps widely
different from what itself is: or if the phan-
tasy in the mind is like the mind itself, and
Chap. IV.]
ON THE TRINITY.
'37
so when it loves this fancied image, it loves
itself before it knew itself, because it gazes
upon that which is like itself; then it knew
other minds from which to picture itself, and
so is known to itself generically. Why,
then, when it knows other minds, does it not
know itself, since nothing can possibly be
more present to it than itself? /But if, as
other eyes are more known to the eyes of the
body, than those eyes are to themselves;
then let it not seek itself, because it never
will find itself. For eyes can never see
themselves except in looking-glasses; and it
cannot be supposed in any way that anything
of that kind can be applied also to the con-
templation of incorporeal things, so that the
mind should know itself, .as it were, in a
lookincr.crlass. Or does it see in the reason
of eternal truth how beautiful it is to know
one's self, and so loves this which it sees, and
studies to bring it to pass in itself? because,
although it is not known to itself, yet it is
known to it how good it is, that it should be
known to itself. And this, indeed, is very
wonderful, that it does not yet know itself,
and yet knows already how excellent a thing
it is to know itself. / Or does it see some
most excellent end, viz. its own serenity and
blessedness, by some hidden remembrance,
which has not abandoned it, although it has
gone far onwards, and believes that it cannot
attain to that same end unless it know itself ?
And so while it loves that, it seeks this; .and
loves that which is known, on account of
which it seeks that which is unknown. But
why should the remembrance of its own
blessedness be able to last, and the remem-
brance of itself not be able to last as well;
that so it should know itself which wishes to
attain, as well as ' know that to which it
wishes to attain ? /Or when it loves to know
itself, does it love, not itself, which it does
not yet know, but the very act of knowing;
and feel the more annoyed that itself is want-
ing to its own knowledge wherewith it wishes
to embrace all things ? And it knows what it
is to know; and whilst it loves this, which it
knows, desires also to know itself. Whereby,
then, does it know its own knowing, if it does
not know itself? For it knows that it knows
other things, but that it does not know itself;
for it is from hence that it knows also what
knowing is. In what way, then, does that
which does not know itself, know itself as
knowing anything? For it does not know
that some other mind knows, but that itself
does so. Therefore it knows itself. Further,
when it seeks to know itself, it knows itself
now as seeking. Therefore again it knows
itself. And hence it cannot altogether not
know itself, when certainly it does so far
know itself as that it knows itself as not
knowing itself. But if it does not know itself
not to know itself, then it does not seek to
know itself. And therefore, in the very fact
that it seeks itself, it is clearly convicted of
being more known to itself than unknown.
For it knows itself as seeking and as not
knowing itself, in that it seeks to know itself.
CHAP. 4. HOW THE MIND KNOWS ITSELF, NOT
IN PART, BUT AS A WHOLE.
6. What then shall we say? Does that
which knows itself in part, not know itself
in part?/ But it is absurd to say, that it does
not as a whole know what it knows. I do not
say, it knows wholly; but what it knows, it
as a whole knows. When therefore it knows
anything about itself, which it can only know
as a whole, it knows itself as a whole. But
it does know that itself knows something,
while yet except as a whole it cannot know
anything. Therefore it knows itself as a
whole. Further, what in it is so known to
itself, as that it lives ? And it cannot at once
be a mind, and not live, while it has also some-
thing over and above, viz., that it understands:
for trie souls of beasts also live, but do not
understand. As therefore a mind is a whole
mind, so it lives as a whole. But it knows that
it lives. Therefore it knows itself as a whole/'
Lastly, when the mind seeks to know itself,
it already knows that it is a mind: otherwise
it knows not whether it seeks itself, and per-
haps seeks one thing while intending to seek
another. For it might happen that itself was
not a mind, and so, in seeking to know a mind,
that it did not seek to know itself. Where-
fore since the mind, when it seeks to know
what mind is, knows that it seeks itself, cer-
tainly it knows that itself is a mind. Fur-
thermore, if it knows this in itself, that it is
a mind, and a whole mind, then it knows it-
self as a whole. /But suppose it did not know
itself to be a mind, but in seeking itself only
knew that it did seek itself. For so, too, it
may possibly seek one thing for another, if
it does not know this: but that it may not
seek one thing for another, without doubt it
knows what it seeks. But if it knows what
it seeks, and seeks itself, then certainly it
knows itself. What therefore more does it
seek ? But if it knows itself in part, but still
seeks itself in part, then it seeks not itself,
but part of itself. For when we speak of
the mind itself, we speak of it as a whole/
Further, because it knows that it is not yet
found by itself as a whole, it knows how
much the whole is. And so it seeks that
138
THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[Book X.
which is wanting, as we are wont to seek to
recall to the mind something that has slipped
from the mind, but has not altogether gone
away from it; since we can recognize it, when
it has come back, to be the same thing that
we were seeking. But how can mind come
into mind, as though it were possible for the
mind not to be in the mind p/Add to this,
that if, having found a part, it does not
seek itself as a whole, yet it as a whole
seeks itself. Therefore as a whole it is
present to itself, and there is nothing left
to be sought: for that is wanting which is
sought, not the mind which seeks. Since
therefore it as a whole seeks itself, nothing
of it is wanting. Or if it does not as a whole
seek itself, but the part which has been found
seeks the part which has not yet been found;
then the mind does not seek itself, of which
no part seeks itself. For the part which has
been found, does not seek itself; nor yet does
the part itself which has not yet been found,
seek itself; since it is sought by that part
which has been already found. Wherefore,
since neither the mind as a whole seeks itself,
nor does any part of it seek itself, the mind
does not seek itself at all.
CHAP. 5. WHY THE SOUL IS ENJOINED TO KNOW
ITSELF. WHENCE COME THE ERRORS OF THE
MIND CONCERNING ITS OWN SUBSTANCE.
7. Why therefore is it enjoined upon it,
that it should know itself ? I suppose, in
order that it may consider itself, and live ac-
cording to its own nature; that is, seek to be
regulated according to its own nature, viz.,
under Him to whom it ought to be subject,
and above those things to which it is to be
preferred; under Him by whom it ought to
be ruled, above those things which it ought
to rule. For it does many things through
vicious desire, as though in forgetfulness of
itself. For it sees some things intrinsically
excellent, in that more excellent nature which
is God: and whereas it ought to remain stead-
fast that it may enjoy them, it is turned away
from Him, by wishing to appropriate those
things to itself, and not to be like to Him by
His gift, but to be what He is by its own, and
it begins to move and slip gradually down
into less and less, which it thinks to be more
and more; for it is neither sufficient for it-
self, nor is anything at all sufficient for it, if
it withdraw from Him who is alone sufficient:
and so through want and distress it becomes
too intent upon its own actions and upon the
unquiet delights which it obtains through
them: and thus, by the desire of acquiring
knowledge from those things that are without,
the nature of which it knows and loves, and
which it feels can be lost unless held fast with
anxious care, it loses its security, and thinks
of itself so much the less, in proportion as it
feels the more secure that it cannot lose itself.
So, whereas it is one thing not to know one-
self, and another not to think of oneself (for
we do not say of the man that is skilled in
much learning, that he is ignorant of gram-
mar, when he is only not thinking of it, because
he is thinking at the time of the art of medi-
cine); whereas, then, I say it is one thing
not to know oneself, and another not to think
of oneself, such is the strength of love, that
the mind draws in with itself those things
which it has long thought of with love, and
has grown into them by the close adherence
of diligent study, even when it returns in
some way to think of itself. And because
these things are corporeal which it loved ex-
ternally through the carnal senses; and be-
cause it has become entangled with them by
a kind of daily familiarity, and yet cannot
carry those corporeal things themselves with
itself internally as it were into the region of
incorporeal nature; therefore it combines cer-
tain images of them, and thrusts them thus
made from itself into itself. For it gives to
the forming of them somewhat of its own sub-
stance, yet preserves the while something by
which it may judge freely of the species of
those images; and this something is more
properly the mind, that is, the rational un-
derstanding, which is preserved that it may
judge. For we see that we have those parts
of the soul which are informed by .the like-
nesses of corporeal things, in common also
with beasts.
CHAP. 6. THE OPINION WHICH THE MIND HAS
OF ITSELF IS DECEITFUL.
8. But the mind errs, when it so lovingly
and intimately connects itself with these im-
ages, as even to consider itself to be some-
thing of the same kind. For so it is con-
formed to them to some extent, not by being
this, but by thinking it is so: not that it
thinks itself to be an image, but outright that
very thing itself of which it entertains the
image. For there still lives in it the power
of distinguishing the corporeal thing which
it leaves without, from the image of that cor-
poreal thing which it contains therefrom with-
in itself: except when these images are so
projected as if felt without and not thought
within, as in the case of people who are
asleep, or mad, or in a trance.
Chap. VII.]
ON THE TRINITY.
139
CHAP. 7. THE OPINIONS OF PHILOSOPHERS RE-
SPECTING THE SUBSTANCE OF THE SOUL.
THE ERROR OF THOSE WHO ARE OF OPINION
THAT THE SOUL IS CORPOREAL, DOES NOT
ARISE FROM DEFECTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE
SOUL, BUT FROM THEIR ADDING THERETO
SOMETHING FOREIGN TO IT. WHAT IS MEANT
BY FINDING.
9. When, therefore, it thinks itself to be
something of this kind, it thinks itself to be
a corporeal thing; and since it is perfectly
conscious of its own superiority, by which it
rules the body, it has hence come to pass
that the question has been raised what part
of the body has the greater power in the body;
and the opinion has been held that this is the
mind, nay, that it is even the whole soul alto-
gether. And some accordingly think it to be
the blood, others the brain, others the heart;
not as the Scripture says, "I will praise Thee,
O Lord, with my whole heart; " and, " Thou
shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine
heart;" 1 for this word by misapplication or
metaphor is transferred from the body to the
soul; but they have simply thought it to be
that small part itself of the body, which we
see when the inward parts are rent asunder.
Others, again, have believed the soul to be
made up of very minute and individual cor-
puscules, which they call atoms, meeting in
themselves and cohering. Others have said
that its substance is air, others fire. Others
have been of opinion that it is no substance
at all, since they could not think any sub-
stance unless it is body, and they did not find
that the soul was body; but it was in their
opinion the tempering together itself of our
body, or the combining together of the ele-
ments, by which that flesh is as it were con-
joined. And hence all of these have held the
soul to be mortal; since, whether it were body,
or some combination of body, certainly it
could not in either case continue always with-
out death. But they who have held its sub-
stance to be some kind of life the reverse of
corporeal, since they have found it to be a
life that animates and quickens every living
body, have by consequence striven also, ac-
cording as each was able, to prove it immor-
tal, since life cannot be without life.
For as to that fifth kind of body, I know
not what, which some have added to the four
well-known elements of the world, and have
said that the soul was made of this, I do not
think we need spend time in discussing it in
this place. For either they mean by body
what we mean by it, viz., that of which a part
is less than the whole in extension of place,
and they are to be reckoned among those who
have believed the mind to be corporeal: or
if they call either all substance, or all change-
able substance, body, whereas they know that
not all substance is contained in extension of
place by any length and breadth and height,
we need not contend with them about a ques-
tion of words.
10. Now, in the case of all these opinions,
any one who sees that the nature of the mind
is at once substance, and yet not corporeal,
that is, that it does not occupy a less ex-
tension of place with a less part of itself, and
a greater with a greater, must needs see at
the same time that they who are of opinion
that it is corporeal, 2 do not err from defect of
knowledge concerning mind, but because they
associate with it qualities without which they
are not able to conceive any nature at all.
For if you bid them conceive of existence
that is without corporeal phantasms, they hold
it merely nothing. And so the mind would
not seek itself, as though wanting to itself.
For what is so present to knowledge as that
which is present to the mind ? Or what is so
present to the mind as the mind itself ? And
hence what is called " invention," if we con-
sider the origin of the word, what else does it
mean, unless that to find out 3 is to "come
into "that which is sought? Those things
accordingly which come into the mind as it
were of themselves, are not usually said to be
found out, 4 although they may be said to be
known; since we did not endeavor by seeking
to come into them, that is, to invent or find
them out. And therefore, as the mind itself
really seeks those things which are sought by
the eyes or by any other sense of the body
(for the mind directs even the carnal sense,
and then finds out or invents, when that sense
comes to the things which are sought); so,
too, it finds out or invents other things which
it ought to know, not with the medium of
corporeal sense, but through itself, when it
" comes into " them; and this, whether in the
case of the higher substance that is in God,
or of the other parts of the soul; just as it
does when it judges of bodily images them-
selves, for it finds these within, in the soul,
impressed through the body.
1 Ps. ix. cxi., and cxxxviii., Deut. vi. s^and Matt. xxii. 37.
= [The distinction between corporeal and incorporeal substance
is one that A ugustin often insists upon. See Confessions VII.
i-iii. The doctrine that all substance is extended body, and that
there is no such entity as spiritual unextended substance, is com-
batted by Plato in the Theatetus. For a history of the contest,
and an able defence of the substantiality of spirit, see Cud worth s
Intellectual System, III. 384 sq. Harrison s Ed. W . G. 1 . b.J
3 Invenire. 4 Inventa.
140
THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[Book X.
CHAP. 8. HOW THE SOUL INQUIRES INTO IT-
SELF. WHENCE COMES THE ERROR OF THE
SOUL CONCERNING ITSELF.
11. It is then a wonderful question, in what
manner the soul seeks and finds itself; at what
it aims in order to seek, or whither it comes,
that it may come into or find out. For what
is so much in the mind as the mind itself?
But because it is in those things which it
thinks of with love, and is wont to be in sen-
sible, that is, in corporeal things with love, it
is unable to be in itself without the images of
those corporeal things. And hence shameful
error arises to block its way, whilst it cannot
separate from itself the images of sensible
things, so as to see itself alone. For they
have marvellously cohered with it by the close
adhesion of love. And herein consists its un-
cleanness; since, while it strives to think of
itself alone, it fancies itself to be that, with-
out which it cannot think of itself. When,
therefore, it is bidden to become acquainted
with itself, let it not seek itself as though it
were withdrawn from itself; but let it with-
draw that which it has added to itself. For
itself lies more deeply within, not only than
those sensible things, which are clearly with-
out, but also than the images of them; which
are indeed in some part of the soul, viz., that
which beasts also have, although these want
understanding, which is proper to the mind.
As therefore the mind is within, it goes forth
in some sort from itself, when it exerts the
affection of love towards these, as it were,
footprints of many acts of attention. And
these footprints are, as it were, imprinted on
the memory, at the time when the corporeal
things which are without are perceived in such
way, that even when those corporeal things
are absent, yet the images of them are at
hand to those who think of them. Therefore
let the mind become acquainted with itself,
and not seek itself as if it were absent; but fix
upon itself the act of [voluntary] attention,
by which it was wandering among other
things, and let it think o f itself. So it will
see that at no time did it ever not love itself,
at no time did it ever not know itself; but by
loving another thing together with itself it
has confounded itself with it, and in some
sense has grown one with it. And so, while
it embraces diverse things, as though they
were one, it has come to think those things
to be one which are diverse.
CHAP. 9. THE MIND KNOWS ITSELF, BY THE
VERY ACT OF UNDERSTANDING THE PRECEPT
TO KNOW ITSELF.
12. Let it not therefore seek to discern
itself as though absent, but take pains to
discern itself as present. Nor let it take
knowledge of itself as if it did not know itself,
but let it distinguish itself from that which it
knows to be another. For how will it take
pains to obey that very precept which is given
it, "Know thyself," if it knows not either
what "know" means or what "thyself"
means? But if it knows both, then it knows
also itself. Since " know thyself" is not so
said to the mind as is " Know the cherubim
and the seraphim ; " for they are absent, and
we believe concerning them, and according
to that belief they are declared to be certain
celestial powers. Nor yet again as it is said,
Know the will of that man: for this it is not
within our reach to perceive at all, either by
sense or understanding, unless by corporeal
signs actually set forth; and this in such a
way that we rather believe than understand.
Nor again as it is said to a man, Behold thy
own face; which he can only do in a looking-
glass. For even our own face itself is out of
the reach of our own seeing it; because it is
not there where our look can be directed.
But when it is said to the mind, Know thy-
self; then it knows itself by that very act by
which it understands the word "thyself;"
and this for no other reason than that it is
present to itself. But if it does not under-
stand what is said, then certainly it does not
do as it is bid to do. And therefore it is
bidden to do that thing which it does do,
when it understands the very precept that
bids it.
CHAP. IO. EVERY MIND KNOWS CERTAINLY
THREE THINGS CONCERNING ITSELF THAT IT
UNDERSTANDS, THAT IT IS, AND THAT IT
LIVES.
13. Let it not then add anything to that
which it knows itself to be, when it is bidden
to know itself. For it knows, at any rate,
that this is said to itself; namely, to the self
that is, and that lives, and that understands.
But a dead body also is, and cattle live; but
neither a dead body nor cattle understand.
Therefore it so knows that it so is, and that
it so lives, as an understanding is and lives.
When, therefore, for example's sake, the
mind thinks itself air, it thinks that air under-
stands; it knows, however, that itself under-
stands, but it does not know itself to be air,
but only thinks so. Let it separate that
which it thinks itself; let it discern that which
it knows; let this remain to it. about which
not even have they doubted who have thought
the mind to be this corporeal thing or that.
For certainly every mind does not consider
Chap. X.]
ON THE TRINITY.
141
itself to be air; but some think themselves fire,
others the brain, and some one kind of cor-
poreal thing, others another, as I have men-
tioned before; yet all know that they them-
selves understand, and are, and live; but they
refer understanding to that which they under-
stand, but to be, and to live, to themselves.
And no one doubts, either that no one under-
stands who does not live, or that no one lives
of whom it is not true that he is; and that
therefore by consequence that which under-
stands both is and lives; not as a dead body is
which does not live, nor as a soul lives which
does not understand, but in some proper and
more excellent manner. Further, they know
that they will, and they equally know that no
one can will who is not and who does not
live ; and they also refer that will itself to
something which they will with that will.
They know also that they remember ; and
they know at the same time that nobody could
remember, unless he both was and lived; but
we refer memory itself also to something, in
that we remember those things. Therefore
the knowledge and science of many things
are contained in two of these three, memory
and understanding; but will must be present,
that we may enjoy or use them. For we en-
joy things known, in which things themselves
the will finds delight for their own sake, and
so reposes; but we use those things, which
we refer to some other thing which we are to
enjoy. Neither is the life of man vicious and
culpable in any other way, than as wrongly
using and wrongly enjoying. But it is no
place here to discuss this.
14. But since we treat of the nature of the
mind, let us remove from our consideration
all knowledge which is received from without,
through the senses of the body; and attend
more carefully to the position which we have
laid down, that all minds know and are cer-
tain concerning themselves. For men cer-
tainly have doubted whether the power of liv-
ing, of remembering, of understanding^ will-
ing, of thinking, of knowing, of judging, be of
air, or of fire, or of the brain, or of the blood,
or of atoms, or besides the usual four elements
of a fifth kind of body, I know not what; or
whether the combining or tempering together
of this our flesh itself has power to accomplish
these things. And one has attempted to es-
tablish this, and another to establish that.
Yet who ever doubts that he himself lives, and
remembers, and understands, and wills, and
thinks, and knows, and judges? Seeing that
even if he doubts, he lives; if he doubts,
he remembers why he doubts; if he doubts,
he understands that lie doubts; if he doubts,
he wishes to be certain; if he doubts, he
thinks; if he doubts, he knows that he does not
know; if he doubts, he judges that he ought
not to assent rashly. Whosoever therefore
doubts about anything else, ought not to
doubt of all these things; which if they were
not, he would not be able to doubt of any-
thing.
15. They who think the mind to be either
a body or the combination or tempering of the
body, will have all these things to seem to be
in a subject, so that the substance is air, or
fire, or some other corporeal thing, which
they think to be the mind; but that the under-
standing (intelligcntia) is in this corporeal
thing as its quality, so that this corporeal
thing is the subject, but the understanding is
in the subject: viz. that the mind is the sub-
ject, which they judge to be a corporeal thing,
but the understanding [intelligence], or any
other of those things which we have mentioned
as certain to us, is in that subject. They also
hold nearly the same opinion who deny the
mind itself to be body, but think it to be the
combination or tempering together of the body;
for there is this difference, that the former say
that the mind itself is the substance, in which
the understanding [intelligence] is, as in a sub-
ject; but the latter say that the mind itself is
in a subject, viz. in the body, of which it is
the combination or tempering together. And
hence, by consequence, what else can they
think, except that the understanding also is
in the same body as in a subject ?
16. And all these do not perceive that the
mind knows itself, even when it seeks for it-
self, as we have already shown. But nothing
is at all rightly said to be known while its sub-
stance is not known. And therefore, when
the mind knows itself, it knows its own sub-
stance; and when it is certain about itself, it
is certain about its own substance. But it is
certain about itself, as those things which are
said above prove convincingly; although it is
not at all certain whether itself is air, or fire,
or some body, or some function of body.
Therefore it is not any of these. And to
that whole which is bidden to know itself, be-
longs this, that it is certain that it is not any
of those things of which it is uncertain, and
is certain tlsat it is that only, which only it is
certain that it is. For it thinks in this way of
fire, or air, and whatever else of the body it
thinks of. Neither can it in any way be
brought to pass that it should so think that
which itself is, as it thinks that which itself is
not. Since it thinks all these things through
an imaginary phantasy, whether fire, or air,
or this or that body, or that part or combina-
tion and tempering together of the body: nor
assuredly is it said to be all those things, but
142
THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[Book X.
some one of them. But if it were any one of
them, it would think this one in a different
manner from the rest, viz. not through an
imaginary phantasy, as absent things are
thought, which either themselves or some
of like kind have been touched by the bodily
sense; but by some inward, not feigned, but
true presence (for nothing is more present to
it than itself) ; just as it thinks that itself lives,
and remembers, and understands, and wills.
For it knows these things in itself, and does
not imagine them as though it had touched
them by the sense outside itself, as corporeal
things are touched. And if it attaches noth-
ing to itself from the thought of these things,
so as to think itself to be something of the
kind, then whatsoever remains to it from itself,
that alone is itself.
CHAP. II. IN MEMORY, UNDERSTANDING [OR
intelligence], AND WILL, WE HAVE TO
NOTE ABILITY, LEARNING, AND USE. MEM-
ORY, UNDERSTANDING, AND WILL ARE ONE
ESSENTIALLY, AND THREE RELATIVELY.
17. Putting aside, then, for a little while
all other things, of which the mind is certain
concerning itself, let us especially consider
and discuss these three memory, understand-
ing, will. For we may commonly discern in
these three the character of the abilities of
the young also; since the more tenaciously
and easily a boy remembers, and the more
acutely he understands, and the more ardent-
ly he studies, the more praiseworthy is he in
point of ability. But when the question is
about any one's learning, then we ask not how
solidly and easily he remembers, or how
shrewdly he understands; but what it is that
he remembers, and what it is that he under-
stands. And because the mind is regarded
as praiseworthy, not only as being learned,
but also as being good, one gives heed not
only to what he remembers and what he
understands, but also to what he wills (velit);
not how ardently he wills, but first what it is
he wills, and then how greatly he wills it.
For the mind that loves eagerly is then to be
praised, when it loves that which ought to be
loved eagerly. Since, then, we speak of these
three ability, knowledge, use the first of
these is to be considered under the three
heads, of what a man can do in memory, and
understanding, and will. The second of
them is to be considered in regard to that
which any one has in his memory and in his
understanding, which he has attained by a
studious will. But the third, viz. use, lies in
the will, which handles those things that are
contained in the memory and understanding,
whether it refer them to anything further, or
rest satisfied with them as an end. For to
use, is to take up something into the power
of the will; and to enjoy, is to use with joy,
not any longer of hope, but of the actual
thing. Accordingly, every one who enjoys,
uses; for he takes up something into the
power of the will, wherein he also is satisfied
as with an end. But not every one who uses,
enjoys, if he has sought after that, which he
takes up into the power of the will, not on
account of the thing itself, but on account of
something else.
18. Since, then, these three, memory, un-
derstanding, will, are not three lives, but one
life; nor three minds, but one mind; it fol-
lows certainly that neither are they three sub-
stances, but one substance. Since memory,
which is called life, and mind, and substance,
is so called in respect to itself ; but it is called
memory, relatively to something. And I
should say the same also of understanding
ami of will, since they are called understand-
ing and will relatively to something; but each
in respect to itself is life, and mind, and es-
sence. And hence these three are one, in that
they are one life, one mind, one essence; and
whatever else they are severally called in re-
spect to themselves, they are called also to-
gether, not plurally, but in the singular num-
ber. But they are three, in that wherein they
are mutually referred to each other; and if
they were not equal, and this not only each
to each, but also each to all, they certainly
could not mutually contain each other; for
not only is each contained by each, but also all
by each. For I remember that I have memory
and understanding, and will; and I under-
stand that I understand, and will, and remem-
ber; and I will that I will, and remember, and
understand; and I remember together my
whole memory, and understanding, and will.
For that of my memory which I do not re-
member, is not in my memory; and nothing
is so much in the memory as memory itself.
Therefore I remember the whole memory.
Also, whatever I understand I know that I
understand, and I know that I will whatever I
will; but whatever I know I remember.
Therefore I remember the whole of my under-
standing, and the whole of my will. Like-
wise, when I understand these three things, I
understand them together as whole. For
there is none of things intelligible which I
do not understand, except what I do not know;
but what I do not know, I neither remember,
nor will. Therefore, whatever of things intelli-
gible I do not understand, it follows also that I
neither remember nor will. And whatever of
things intelligible I remember and will, it fol-
Chap. XII.]
ON THE TRINITY.
H5
lows that I understand. My will also em-
braces my whole understanding and my whole
memory, whilst I use the whole that I under-
stand and remember. And, therefore, while
all are mutually comprehended by each, and as
wholes, each as a whole is equal to each as a
whole, and each as a whole at the same time
to all as wholes; and these three are one,
one life, one mind, one essence. 1
CHAP. 12. THE MIND IS AN IMAGE OF THE
TRINITY IN ITS OWN MEMORY, AND UNDER-
STANDING, AND WILL.
19. Are we, then, now to go upward, with
whatever strength of purpose we may, to that
1 [This ternary of meraorj^, understanding, and will, is a better
analogue to the Trinity than the preceding one in chapter IX
namely, mind, knowledge, and love. Memory, understanding,
and will have equal substantiality, while mind, knowledge, and
love have not. The former are three faculties, in each of which
is the whole mind or spirit. The memory is the whole mind as re-
membering; the understanding is the whole mind as cognizing;
and the will is the whole mind as determining. The one essence
of the mind is in each of these three modes, each of which is dis-
tinct from the others; and yet there are not three essences or minds.
In the other ternary, of mind, knowledge, and love, the last two
are not faculties but single acts of the mind. A particular act of
cognition is not the whole mind in the general mode of cognition.
This would make it a faculty. A particular act of loving, or of
willing, is not the whole mind in the general mode of loving, or of
willing. This would make the momentary and transient act a per-
manent faculty. This ternary fails, as we have noticed in a previ-
ous annotation (IX. ii. 2), in that only the mind is a substance.
The ternary of memory, understanding, and will is an adequate
analogue to the Trinity in respect to equal substantiality. But it
fails when the separate consciousness of the Trinitarian distinctions
is brought into consideration. The three faculties of memory, un-
derstanding, and will, are not so objective to each other as to ad-
mit of three forms of consciousness, of the use of the personal
pronouns, and of the personal actions that are ascribed to the
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It also fails, in that these three
are not all the modes of the mind. There are other faculties:
e. g., the imagination. The whole essence of the mind is in this
also.-W. G. T. S.]
chiefest and highest essence, of which the
human mind is an inadequate image, yet an
image ? Or are these same three things to be
yet more distinctly made plain in the soul, by
means of those things which we receive from
without, through the bodily sense, wherein
the knowledge of corporeal things is impressed
upon us in time? Since we found the mind
itself to be such in its own memory, and un-
derstanding, and will, that since it was under-
stood always to know and always to will itself,
it was understood also at the same time al-
ways to remember itself, always to under-
stand and love itself, although not always to
think of itself as separate from those things
which are not itself; and hence its memory of
itself, and understanding of itself, are with
difficult discerned in it. For in this case,
where these two things are very closely con-
joined, and one is not preceded by the other
by any time at all, it looks as if they were not
two things, but one called by two names; and
love itself is not so plainly felt to exist when
the sense of need does not disclose it, since
what is loved is always at hand. And hence
these things may be more lucidly set forth,
even to men of duller minds, if such topics
are treated of as are brought within reach of
the mind in time, and happen to it in time;
while it remembers what it did not remember
before, and sees what it did not see before,
and loves what it did not love before. But this
discussion demands now another beginning,
by reason of the measure of the present book.
BOOK XI.
A KIND OF IMAGE OF THE TRINITY IS POINTED OUT, EVEN IN THE OUTER MAN ; FIRST OF ALL,
IN THOSE THINGS WHICH ARE PERCEIVED FROM WITHOUT, VIZ. IN THE BODILY OBJECT THAT
IS SEEN, AND IN THE FORM THAT IS IMPRESSED BY IT UPON THE SIGHT OF THE SEER, AND
IN THE PURPOSE OF THE WILL THAT COMBINES THE TWO ; ALTHOUGH THESE THREE ARE
NEITHER MUTUALLY EQUAL, NOR OF ONE SUBSTANCE. NEXT, A KIND OF TRINITY, IN THREE
SOMEWHATS OF ONE SUBSTANCE, IS OBSERVED TO EXIST IN THE MIND ITSELF, AS IT WERE
INTRODUCED THERE FROM THOSE THINGS THAT ARE PERCEIVED FROM WITHOUT ; VIZ. THE
IMAGE OF THE BODILY OBJECT WHICH IS IN THE MEMORY, AND THE IMPRESSION FORMED
THEREFROM WHEN THE MIND'S EYE OF THE THINKER IS TURNED TO IT, AND THE PURPOSE
OF THE WILL COMBINING BOTH. AND THIS LATTER TRINITY IS ALSO SAID TO PERTAIN TO
THE OUTER MAN, IN THAT IT IS INTRODUCED INTO THE MIND FROM BODILY OBJECTS, WHICH
ARE PERCEIVED FROM WITHOUT.
CHAP. I. A TRACE OF THE TRINITY ALSO IN
THE OUTER MAN.
i. No one doubts that, as the inner man
is endued with understanding, so is the outer
with bodily sense. Let us try, then, if we
can, to discover in this outer man also, some
trace, however slight, of the Trinity, not
that itself also is in the same manner the
image of God. For the opinion of the apos-
tle is evident, which declares the inner man
to be renewed in the knowledge of God after
the image of Him that created him: 1 whereas
he says also in another place, "But though
our outer man perish, yet the inward man is
renewed day by day." 2 Let us seek, then,
so far as we can, in that which perishes, some
image of the Trinity, if not so express, yet
perhaps more easy to be discerned. For
that outer man also is not called man to no
purpose, but because there is in it some like-
ness of the inner man. And owing to that
very order of our condition whereby we are
made mortal and fleshly, we handle things
visible more easily and more familiarly than
things intelligible; since the former are out-
ward, the latter inward; and the former are
perceived by the bodily sense, the latter are
1 Col. iii. 10.
2 2 Cor. iv. 16.
understood by the mind ; and we ourselves, i.e.
our minds, are not sensible things, that is,
bodies, but intelligible things, since we are
life. And yet, as I said, we are so familiarly
occupied with bodies, and our thought has
projected itself outwardly with so wonderful
a proclivity towards bodies, that, when it has
been withdrawn from the uncertainty of
things corporeal, that it may be fixed with a
much more certain and stable knowledge in
that which is spirit, it flies back to those
bodies, and seeks rest there whence it has
drawn weakness. And to this its feebleness
we must suit our argument; so that, if we
would endeavor at any time to distinguish
more aptly, and intimate more readily, the
inward spiritual thing, we must take examples
of likenesses from outward things pertaining
to the body. The outer man, then, endued
as he is with the bodily sense, is conversant
with bodies. And this bodily sense, as is
easily observed, is fivefold; seeing, hearing,
smelling, tasting, touching. But it is both a
good deal of trouble, and is not necessary,
that we should inquire of all these five senses
about that which we seek. For that which
one of them declares to us, holds also good
in the rest. Let us use, then, principally
the testimony of the eyes. For this bodily
Chap. II.]
ON THE TRINITY.
145
sense far surpasses the rest; and in propor-
tion to its difference of kind, is nearer to the
sight of the mind.
CHAP. 2. A CERTAIN TRINITY IN THE SIGHT.
THAT THERE ARE THREE THINGS IN SIGHT,
WHICH DIFFER IN THEIR OWN NATURE. IN
WHAT MANNER FROM A VISIBLE THING VISION
IS PRODUCED, OR THE IMAGE OF THAT THING
WHICH IS SEEN. THE MATTER IS SHOWN
MORE CLEARLY BY AN EXAMPLE. HOW THESE
THREE COMBINE IN ONE.
2. When, then, we see any corporeal ob-
ject, these three things, as is most easy to
do, are to be considered and distinguished:
First, the object itself which we see; whether
a stone, or flame, or any other thing that can
be seen by the eyes; and this certainly might
exist also already before it was seen; next,
vision or the act of seeing, which did not ex-
ist before we perceived the object itself which
is presented to the sense; in the third place,
that which keeps the sense of the eye in the
object seen, so long as it is seen, viz. the at-
tention of the mind. In these three, then,
not only is there an evident distinction, but
also a diverse nature. For, first, that visible
body is of a far different nature from the
sense of the eyes, through the incidence of
which sense upon it vision arises. And what
plainly is vision itself other than perception
informed by that thing which is perceived ?
Although there is no vision if the visible ob-
ject be withdrawn, nor could there be any
vision of the kind at all if there were no body
that could be seen; yet the body by which
the sense of the eyes is informed, when that
body is seen, and the form itself which is im-
printed by it upon the sense, which is called
vision, are by no means of the same sub-
stance. For the body that is seen is, in its
own nature, separable; but the sense, which
was already in the living subject, even before
it saw what it was able to see, when it fell in
with something visible, or the vision which
comes to be in the sense from the visible
body when now brought into connection with
it and seen, the sense, then, I say, or the
vision, that is, the sense informed from with-
out, belongs to the nature of the living sub-
ject, which is altogether other than that body
which we perceive by seeing, and by which the
sense is not so formed as to be sense, but as
to be vision. For unless the sense were also
in us before the presentation to us of the
sensible object, we should not differ from the
blind, at times when we are seeing nothing,
whether in darkness, or when our eyes are
closed. But we differ from them in this, that
10
there is in us, even when we are not seeing,
that whereby we are able to see, which is
called the sense; whereas this is not in them,
nor are they called blind for any other reason
than because they have it not. Further also,
that attention of the mind which keeps the
sense in that thing which we see, and con-
nects both, not only differs from that visible
thing in its nature; in that the one is mind,
and the other body; but also from the sense
and the vision itself: since this attention is
the act of the mind alone; but the sense of
the eyes is called a bodily sense, for no other
reason than because the eyes themselves also
are members of the body; and although an
inanimate body does not perceive, yet the
soul commingled with the body perceives
through a corporeal instrument, and that in-
strument is called sense. And this sense,
too, is cut off and extinguished by suffering
on the part of the body, when any one is
blinded; while the mind remains the same;
and its attention, since the eyes are lost, has
not, indeed, the sense of the body which it
may join, by seeing, to the body without it,
and so fix its look thereupon and see it, yet
by the very effort shows that, although the
bodily sense be taken away, itself can neither
perish nor be diminished. For there remains
unimpaired a desire \appetitus\ of seeing,
whether it can be carried into effect or not.
These three, then, the body that is seen,
and vision itself, and the attention of mind
which joins both together, are manifestly dis-
tinguishable, not only on account of the pro-
perties of each, but also on account of the
difference of their natures.
3. And since, in this case, the sensation
does not proceed from that body which is
seen, but' from the body of the living being
that perceives, with which the soul is tem-
pered together in some wonderful way of its
own; yet vision is produced, that is, the
sense itself is informed, by the body which
is seen; so that now, not only is there the
power of sense, which can exist also unim-
paired even in darkness, provided the eyes are
sound, but also a sense actually informed,
which is called vision. Vision, then, is pro-
duced from a thing that is visible; but not
from that alone, unless there be present also
one who sees. Therefore vision is produced
from a thing that is visible, together with one
who sees; in such way that, on the part of him
who sees, there is the sense of seeing and the
intention of looking and gazing at the object;
while yet that information of the sense,
which is called vision, is imprinted only by
the body which is seen, that is, by some visi-
ble thing; which being taken away, that form
146
THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[Book X.
remains no more which was in the sense so
long as that which was seen was present: yet
the sense itself remains, which existed also
before anything was perceived; just as the
trace of a thing in water remains so long as
the body itself, which is impressed on it, is
in the water; but if this has been taken away,
there will no longer be any such trace, al-
though the water remains, which existed also
before it took the form of that body. And
therefore we cannot, indeed, say that a visible
thing produces the sense; yet it produces the
form, which is, as it were, its own likeness,
which comes to be in the sense, when we
perceive anything by seeing. But we do not
distinguish, through the same sense, the
form of the body which we see, from the
form which is produced by it in the sense of
him who sees; since the union of the two is
so close that there is no room for distinguish-
ing them. But we rationally infer that we
could not have sensation at all, unless some
similitude of the body seen was wrought in
our own sense. For when a ring is imprinted
on wax, it does not follow that no image is
produced, because we cannot discern it unless
when it has been separated. But since, after
the wax is separated, what was made remains,
so that it can be seen; we are on that account
easily persuaded that there was already also
in the wax a form impressed from the ring
before it was separated from it. But if the
ring were imprinted upon a fluid, no image
at all would appear when it was withdrawn;
and yet none the less for this ought the rea-
son to discern that there was in that fluid
before the ring was withdrawn a form of the
ring produced from the ring, which is to be dis-
tinguished from that form which is in the ring,
whence that form was produced which ceases
to be when the ring is withdrawn, although
that in the ring remains, whence the other was
produced. And so the [sensuous] perception
of the eyes may not be supposed to contain
no image of the body, which is seen as long
as it is seen, [merely] because when that is
withdrawn the image does not remain. And
hence it is very difficult to persuade men of
duller mind that an image of the visible thing
is formed in our sense, when we see it, and
that this same form is vision.
4. But if any perhaps attend to what I am
about to mention, they will find no such
trouble in this inquiry. Commonly, when
we have looked for some little time at a light,
and then shut our eyes, there seem to play
before our eyes certain bright colors various-
ly changing themselves, and shining less and
less until they wholly cease; and these we
must understand to be the remains of that
form which was wrought in the sense, while
the shining body was seen, and that these
variations take place in them as they slowly
and step by step fade away. For the lattices,
too, of windows, should we happen to be
gazing at them, appear often in these colors;
so that it is evident that our sense is affected
by such impressions from that thing which is
seen. That form therefore existed also while
we were seeing, and at that time it was more
clear and express. But it was then closely
joined with the species of that thing which
was being perceived, so that it could not be
at all distinguished from it; and this was vis-
ion itself. Why, even when the little flame
of a lamp is in some way, as it were, doubled
by the divergent rays of the eyes, a twofold
vision comes to pass, although the thing
which is seen is one. For the same rays, as
they shoot forth each from its own eye, are
affected severally, in that they are not allowed
to meet evenly and conjointly, in regarding
that corporeal thing, so that one combined
view might be formed from both. And so,
if we shut one eye, we shall not see two flames,
but one as it really is. But why, if we shut
the left eye, that appearance ceases to be seen,
which was on the right; and if, in turn, we
shut the right eye, that drops out of existence
which was on the left, is a matter both tedious
in itself, and not necessary at all to our pres-
ent subject to inquire and discuss. For it is
enough for the business in hand to consider,
that unless some image, precisely like the thing
we perceive, were produced in our sense, the
appearance of the flame would not be doubled
according to the number of the eyes; since a
certain way of perceiving has been employed,
which could separate the union of rays. Cer-
tainly nothing that is really single can be seen
as if it were double by one eye, draw it down,
or press, or distort it as you please, if the
other is shut.
5. The case then being so, let us remember
how these three things, although diverse in
nature, are tempered together into a kind of
unity; that is, the form of the body which is
seen, and the image of it impressed on the
sense, which is vision or sense informed, and
the will of the mind which applies the sense
to the sensible thing, and retains the vision
itself in it. The first of these, that is, the
visible thing itself, does not belong to the
nature of the living being, except when we
discern our own body. But the second be-
longs to that nature to this extent, that it is
wrought in the body, and through the body
in the soul; for it is wrought in the sense,
which is neither without the body nor without
the soul. But the third is of the soul alone,
Chap. III.]
ON THE TRINITY.
147
because it is the will. Although then the sub-
stances of these three are so different, yet they
coalesce into such a unity that the two former
can scarcely be distinguished, even with the
intervention of the reason as judge, namely
the form of the body which is seen, and the
image of it which is wrought in the sense,
that is, vision. And the will so powerfully
combines these two, as both to apply the
sense, in order to be informed, to that thing
which is perceived, and to retain it when in-
formed in that thing. And if it is so vehe-
ment that it can be called love, or desire, or
lust, it vehemently affects also the rest of the
body of the living being; and where a duller
and harder matter does not resist, changes it
into like shape and color. One may see the
little body of a chameleon vary with ready
change, according to the colors which it sees.
And in the case of other animals, since their
grossness of flesh does not easily admit change,
the offspring, for the most part, betray the
particular fancies of the mothers, whatever it
is that they have beheld with special delight.
For the more tender,- and so to say, the more
formable, are the primary seeds, the more
effectually and capably they follow the bent
of the soul of the mother, and the phantasy
that is wrought in it through that body, which
it has greedily beheld. Abundant instances
might be adduced, but one is sufficient, taken
from the most trustworthy books; viz. what
Jacob did, that the sheep and goats might give
birth to offspring of various colors, by placing
variegated rods before them in the troughs of
water for them to look at as they drank, at
the time they had conceived. 1
CHAP. 3. THE UNITY OF THE THREE TAKES
PLACE IN THOUGHT, VIZ. OF MEMORY, OF IN-
TERNAL VISION, AND OF WILL COMBINING BOTH.
6. The rational soul, however, lives in a
degenerate fashion,when it lives according to a
trinity of the outer man; that is, when it ap-
plies to those things which form the bodily
sense from without, not a praiseworthy will,
by which to refer them to some useful end,
but a base desire, by which to cleave to them.
Since even if the form of the body, which was
corporeally perceived, be withdrawn, its like-
ness remains in the memory, to which the will
may again direct its eye, so as to be formed
thence from within, as the sense was formed
from without by the presentation of the sensi-
ble body. And so that trinity is produced
from memory, from internal vision, and from
the will which unites both. And when these
three things are combined into one, from that
1 Cen. xxx. 37-41.
combination 2 itself they are called conception. 3
And in these three there is no longer any di-
versity of substance. For neither is the sen-
sible body there, which is altogether distinct
from the nature of the living being, nor is the
bodily sense there informed so as to produce
vision, nor does the will itself perform its office
of applying the sense, that is to be informed,
to the sensible body, and of retaining it in
it when informed; but in place of that bodily
species which was perceived from without,
there comes the memory retaining that species
which the soul has imbibed through the bodi-
ly sense; and in place of that vision which
was outward when the sense was informed
through the sensible body, there comes a
similar vision within, while the eye of the mind
is informed from that which the memory re-
tains, and the corporeal things that are
thought of are absent; and the will itself, as
before it applied the sense yet to be informed
to the corporeal thing presented from with-
out, and united it thereto when informed, so
now converts the vision of the recollecting
mind to memory, in order that the mental sight
may be informed by that which the memory
has retained, and so there may be in the con-
ception a like vision. And as it was the reason
that distinguished the visible appearance by
which the bodily sense was informed, from the
similitude of it, which was wrought in the
sense when informed in order to produce vis-
ion (otherwise they had been so united as to be
thought altogether one and the same); so,
although that phantasy also, which arises from
the mind thinking of the appearance of a
body that it has seen, consists of the similitude
of the body which the memory retains, to-
gether with that which is thence formed in the
eye of the mind that recollects; yet it so
seems to be one and single, that it can only
be discovered to be two by the judgment of
reason, by which we understand that which
remains in the memory, even when we think
it from some other source, to be a different
thing from that which is brought into being
when we remember, that is, come back again
to the memory, and there find the same ap-
pearance. And if this were not now there,
we should say that w r e had so forgotten as to
be altogether unable to recollect. And if the
eye of him who recollects were not informed
from that thing which was in the memory, the
vision of the thinker could in no way take
place; but the conjunction of both, that is, of
that which the memory retains, and of that
which is thence expressed so as to inform the
eye of him who recollects, makes them ap-
2 Coactus.
3 Cogitatio.
148
THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[Book XI.
pear as if they were one, because they are ex-
ceedingly like. But when the eye of the con-
cipient is turned away thence, and has ceased
to look at that which was perceived in the
memory, then nothing of the form that was
impressed thereon will remain in that eye,
and it will be informed by that to which it had
again been turned, so as to bring about
another conception. Yet that remains which it
has left in the memory, to which it may again
be turned when we recollect it, and being
turned thereto may be informed by it, and
become one with that whence it is informed.
CHAP. 4. HOW THIS UNITY COMES TO PASS.
7. But if that will which moves to and fro,
hither and thither, the eye that is to be in-
formed, and unites it when formed, shall
have wholly converged to the inward phan-
tasy, and shall have absolutely turned the
mind's eye from the presence of the bodies
which lie around the senses, and from the
very bodily senses themselves, and shall have
wholly turned it to that image, which is per-
ceived within; then so exact a likeness of the
bodily species expressed from the memory is
presented, that not even reason itself is per-
mitted to discern whether the body itself is
seen without, or only something of the kind
thought of within. For men sometimes
either allured or frightened by over-much
thinking of visible things, have even suddenly
uttered words accordingly, as if in real fact
they were engaged in the very midst of such
actions or sufferings. And I remember some
one telling me that he was wont to perceive
in thought, so distinct and as it were solid, a
form of a female body, as to be moved, as
though it were a reality. Such power has
the soul over its own body, and such influence
has it in turning and changing the quality of
its [corporeal] garment; just as a man may
be affected when clothed, to whom his cloth-
ing sticks. It is the same kind of affection,
too, with which we are beguiled through
imaginations in sleep. But it makes a very
great difference, whether the senses of the
body are lulled to torpor, as in the case of
sleepers, or disturbed from their inward
structure, as in the case of madmen, or dis-
tracted in some other mode, as in that of
diviners or prophets; and so from one or
other of these causes, the intention of the
mind is forced by a kind of necessity upon
those images which occur to it, either from
memory, or by some other hidden force
through certain spiritual commixtures of a
similarly spiritual substance: or whether, as
sometimes happens to people in health and
awake, that the will occupied by thought
turns itself away from the senses, and so in-
forms the eye of the mind by various images
of sensible things, as though those sensible
things themselves were actually perceived.
But these impressions of images not only
take place when the will is directed upon such
things by desiring them, but also when, in
order to avoid and guard against them, the
mind is carried away to look upon these very
thing so as to flee from them. And hence,
not only desire, but fear, causes both the
bodily eye to be informed by the sensible
things themselves, and the mental eye (aeies)
by the images of those sensible things. Ac-
cordingly, the more vehement has been either
fear or desire, the more distinctly is the eye
informed, whether in the case of him who
[sensuously] perceives by means of the body
that which lies close to him in place, or in
the case of him who conceives from the image
of the body which is contained in the mem-
ory. What then a body in place is to the
bodily sense, that, the similitude of a body
in memory is to the eye of the mind; and
what the vision of one who looks at a thing
is to that appearance of the body from which
the sense is informed, that, the vision of a
concipient is to the image of the body estab-
lished in the memory, from which the eye of
the mind is informed; and what the intention
of the will is towards a body seen and the
vision to be combined with it, in order that a
certain unity of three things may therein take
place, although their nature is diverse, that,
the same intention of the will is towards
combining the image of the body which is in
the memory, and the vision of the concipient,
that is, the form which the eye of the mind
has taken in returning to the memory, in
order that here too a certain unity may take
place of three things, not now distinguished
by diversity of nature, but of one and the
same substance; because this whole is within,
and the whole is one mind.
CHAP. 5. THE TRINITY OF THE OUTER MAN,
OR OF EXTERNAL VISION, IS NOT AN IMAGE
OF GOD. THE LIKENESS OF GOD IS DESIRED
EVEN IN SINS. IN EXTERNAL VISION THE
FORM OF THE CORPOREAL THING IS AS IT
WERE THE PARENT, VISION THE OFFSPRING ;
BUT THE WILL THAT UNITES THESE SUGGESTS
THE HOLY SPIRIT.
8. But as, when [both] the form and species
of a body have perished, the will cannot recall
to it the sense of perceiving; so, when the
image which memory bears is blotted out by
forgetfulness, the will will be unable to force
Chap. V.]
ON THE TRINITY.
149
back the eye of the mind by recollection, so
as to be formed thereby. But because the
mind has great power to imagine not only
things forgotten, but also things that it never
saw, or experienced, either by increasing, or
diminishing, or changing, or compounding,
after its pleasure, those which have not dropped
out of its remembrance, it often imagines
things to be such as either it knows they are
not, or does not know that they are. And in
this case we have to take care, lest it either
speak falsely that it may deceive, or hold an
opinion so as to be deceived. And if it avoid
these two evils, then imagined phantasms do
not hinder it: just as sensible things experi-
enced or retained by memory do not hinder
it, if they are neither passionately sought for
when pleasant, nor basely shunned when un-
pleasant. But when the will leaves better
things, and greedily wallows in these, then it
becomes unclean; and they are so thought of
hurtfully, when they are present, and also
more hurtfully when they are absent. And
he therefore lives badly and degenerately
who lives according to the trinity of the outer
man; because it is the purpose of using things
sensible and corporeal, that has begotten also
that trinity, which although it imagines within,
yet imagines things without. For no one
could use those things even well, unless the
images of things perceived by the senses
were retained in the memory. And unless
the will for the greatest part dwells in the
higher and interior things, and unless that
will itself, which is accommodated either to
bodies without, or to the images of them
within, refers whatever it receives in them to
a better and truer life, and rests in that end
by gazing at which it judges that those things
ought to be done; what else do we do, but
that which the apostle prohibits us from
doing, when he says, " Be not conformed to
this world "? x And therefore that trinity is
not an image of God since it is produced in
the mind itself through the bodily sense, from
the lowest, that is, the corporeal creature,
than which the mind is higher. Yet neither
is it altogether dissimilar: for what is there
that has not a likeness of God, in proportion
to its kind and measure, seeing that God
made all things very good, 2 and for no other
reason except that He Himself is supremely
good ? In so far, therefore, as anything that
is, is good, in so far plainly it has still some
likeness of the supreme good, at however,
great a distance; and if a natural likeness,
then certainly a right and well-ordered one;
but if a faulty likeness, then certainly a de-
based and perverse one. For even souls in
their very sins strive after nothing else but
some kind of likeness of God, in a proud and
preposterous, and, so to say, slavish liberty.
So neither could our first parents have been
persuaded to sin unless it had been said,
"Ye shall be as gods." 3 No doubt every-
thing in the creatures which is in any way
like God, is not also to be called His image;
but that alone than which He Himself alone
is higher. For that only is in all points copied
from Him, between which and Himself no
nature is interposed.
9. Of that vision then; that is, of the form
which is wrought in the sense of him who
sees; the form of the bodily thing from which
it is wrought, is, as it were, the parent. But
it is not a true parent; whence neither is that a
true offspring; for it is not altogether born
therefrom, since something else is applied to
the bodily thing in order that it may be
formed from it, namely, the sense of him
who sees. And for this reason, to love this
is to be estranged. 4 Therefore the will
which unites both, viz. the quasi-parent and
the quasi-child, is more spiritual than either
of them. For that bodily thing which is dis-
cerned, is not spiritual at all. But the vision
which comes into existence in the sense, has
something spiritual mingled with it, since it
cannot come into existence without the soul.
But it is not wholly spiritual; since that which
is formed is a sense of the body. Therefore
the will which unites both is confessedly more
spiritual, as I have said; and so it begins to
suggest (insinuare), as it were, the person of
the Spirit in the Trinity. But it belongs
more to the sense that is formed, than to
the bodily thing whence it is formed. For
the sense and will of an animate being be-
longs to the soul, not to the stone or other
bodily thing that is seen. It does not there-
fore proceed from that bodily thing as from a
parent; yet neither does it proceed from that
other as it were offspring, namely, the vision
and form that is in the sense. For the will
existed before the vision came to pass, which
will applied the sense that was to be formed
to the bodily thing that was to be discerned;
but it was not yet satisfied. For how could
that which was not yet seen satisfy? And
satisfaction means a will that rests content.
And, therefore, we can neither call the will
the quasi-offspring of vision, since it existed
before vision; nor the quasi-parent, since
that vision was not formed and expressed
1 Rom. xii. 2.
2 Ecclus. xxxix. 16.
3 Gen. iii. 5. . .
4 Vid. Retract. Bk. II. c. 15, where Augustin adds that it is
possible to love the bodily species to the praise of the Creator, in
which case there is no " estrangement.''
i5o
THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[Book XI.
from the will, but from the bodily thing that
was seen.
CHAP. 6. OF WHAT KIND WE ARE TO RECKON
THE REST (RKQUIES), AND END (FINIS), OF
THE WILL IN VISION.
10. Perhaps we can rightly call vision the
end and rest of the will, only with respect to
this one object [namely, the bodily thing that
is visible]. For it will not will nothing else
merely because it sees something which it is
now willing. It is not therefore the whole
will itself of the man, of which the end is
nothing else than blessedness; but the will
provisionally directed to this one object,
which has as its end in seeing, nothing but
vision, whether it refer the thing seen to
any other thing or not. For if it does not
refer the vision to anything further, but wills
only to see this, there can be no question
made about showing that the end of the will
is the vision; for it is manifest. But if it
does refer it to anything further, then cer-
tainly it does will something else, and it will
not be now a will merely to see; or if to see,
not one to see the particular thing. Just as,
if any one wished to see the scar, that from
thence he might learn that there had been a
wound; or wished to see the window, that
through the window he might see the passers-
by: all these and other such acts of will have
their own proper [proximate] ends, which are
referred to that [final] end of the will by
which we will to live blessedly, and to attain
to that life which is not referred to anything
else, but suffices of itself to him who loves it.
The will then to see, has as its end vision;
and the will to see this particular thing, has
as its end the vision of this particular thing.
Therefore the will to see the scar, desires its
own end, that is, the vision of the scar, and
does not reach beyond it; for the will to
prove that there had been a wound, is a dis-
tinct will, although dependent upon that, of
which the end also is to .prove that there had
been a wound. And the will to see the win-
dow, has as its end the vision of the window;
for that is another and further will which
depends upon it, viz. to see the passers-by
through the window, of which also the end is
the vision of the passers-by. But all the
several wills that are bound to each other, are
at. once right, if that one is good, to which all
are referred; and if that is bad, then all are
bad. And so the connected series of right
wills is a sort of road which consists as it
were of certain steps, whereby to ascend to
blessedness; but the entanglement of de-
praved and distorted wills is a bond by which
he will be bound who thus acts, so as to be
cast into outer darkness. 1 Blessed therefore
are they who in act and character sing the
song of the steps [degrees]; 2 and woe to
those that draw sin, as it were a long rope. 3
And it is just the same to speak of the will
being in repose, which we call its end, if
it is still referred to something further, as if
we should say that the foot is at rest in walk-
ing, when it is placed there, whence yet an-
other foot may be planted in the direction of
the man's steps. But if something so satis-
fies, that the will acquiesces in it with a
certain delight; it is nevertheless not yet that
to which the man ultimately tends; but this
too is referred to something further, so as to
be regarded not as the native country of a
citizen, but as a place of refreshment, or
even of stopping, for a traveller.
CHAP. 7. THERE IS ANOTHER TRINITY IN THE
MEMORY OF HIM WHO THINKS OVER AGAIN
WHAT HE-HAS SEEN.
11. But yet again, take the case of another
trinity, more inward indeed than that which
is in things sensible, and in the senses, but
which is yet conceived from thence; while
now. it is no longer the sense of the body that
is informed from the body, but the eye of
the mind that is informed from the memory,
since the species of the body which we per-
ceived from without has inhered in the mem-
ory itself. And that species, which is in the
memory, we call the quasi-parent of that
which is wrought in the phantasy of one who
conceives. For it was in the memory also,
before we conceived it, just as the body was
in place also before we [sensuously] perceived
it, in order that vision might take place. But
when it is conceived, then from that form
which the memory retains, there is copied
in the mind's eye {acie) of him who conceives,
and by remembrance is formed, that species,
which is the quasi-offspring of that which
the memory retains. But neither is the one
a true parent, nor the other a true offspring.
For the mind's vision which is formed from
memory when we think anything by recollec-
tion, does not proceed from that species
which we remember as seen; since we could
not indeed have remembered those things,
unless we had seen them; yet the mind's
eye, which is informed by the recollection,
existed also before we saw the body that we
remember; and therefore how much more be-
fore we committed it to memory ? Although
therefore the form which is wrought in the
mind's eye of him who remembers, is wrought
1 Matt. xxii. 13. 2 Psalmscxx., and following. 3 Isa. v. iS.
Chap. VIII.]
ON THE TRINITY.
151
from that form which is in the memory; yet
the mind's eye itself does not exist from
thence, but existed before it. And it follows,
that if the one is not a true parent, neither is
the other a true offspring. But both that
quasi-parent and that quasi-offspring suggest
something, whence the inner and truer things
may appear more practically and more cer-
tainly.
12. Further, it is more difficult to discern
clearly, whether the will which connects the
vision to the memory is not either the parent
or the offspring of some one of them; and
the likeness and equality of the same nature
and substance cause this difficulty of distin-
guishing. For it is not possible to do in this
case, as with the sense that is formed from
without (which is easily discerned from the
sensible body, and again the will from both),
on account of the difference of nature which
is mutually in all three, and of which we have
treated sufficiently above. For although this
trinity, of which we at present speak, is intro-
duced into the mind from without; yet it is
transacted within, and there is no part of it
outside of the nature of the mind itself. In
what way, then, can it be demonstrated that
the will is neither* the quasi-parent, nor the
quasi-offspring, either of the corporeal like-
ness which is contained in the memory, or
of that which is copied thence in recollecting;
when it so unites both in the act of conceiv-
ing, as that they appear singly as one, and
cannot be discerned except by reason ? It
is then first to be considered that there can-
not be any will to remember, unless we retain
in the recesses of the memory either the
whole, or some part, of that thing which we
wish to remember. For the very will to re-
member cannot arise in the case of a thing
which we have forgotten altogether and abso-
lutely; since we have already remembered
that the thing which we wish to remember is,
or has been, in our memory. For example,
if I wish to remember what I supped on yes-
terday, either I have already remembered
that I did sup, or if not yet this, at least I
have remembered something about that time
itself, if nothing else; at all events, I have
remembered yesterday, and that part of yes-
terday in which people usually sup, and what
supping is. For if I had not remembered
anything at all of this kind, I could not wish
to remember what I supped on yesterday.
Whence we may perceive that the will of
remembering proceeds, indeed, from those
things which are retained in the memory, with
the addition also of those which, by the act
of discerning, are copied thence through
recollection; that is, from the combination
of something which we have remembered,
and of the vision which was thence wrought,
when we remembered, in the mind's eye of
him who thinks. But the will itself which
unites both requires also some other thing,
which is, as it were, close at hand, and ad-
jacent to him who remembers. There are,
then, as many trinities of this kind as there
are remembrances; because there is no one
of them wherein there are not these three
things, viz. that which was stored up in the
memory also before it was thought, and that
which takes place in the conception when
this is discerned, and the will that unites
both, and from both and itself as a third,
completes one single thing. Or is it rather
that we so recognize some one trinity in this
kind, as that we are to speak generally, of
whatever corporeal species lie hidden in the
memory, as of a single unity, and again of the
general vision of the mind which remembers
and conceives such things, as of a single
unity, to the combination of which two there
is to be joined as a third the will that com-
bines them, that this whole may be a certain
unity made up from three ?
CHAP. 8. DIFFERENT MODES OF CONCEIVING.
But since the eye of the mind cannot look
at all things together, in one glance, which
the memory retains, these trinities of thought
alternate- in a series of withdrawals and suc-
cessions, and so that trinity becomes most
innumerably numerous; and yet not infinite,
if it pass not beyond the number of things
stored up in the memory. . For, although we
begin to reckon from the earliest perception
which any one has of material things through
any bodily sense, and even take in also those
things which he has forgotten, yet the num-
ber would undoubtedly be certain and deter-
mined, although innumerable. For we not
only call infinite things innumerable, but also
those, which, although finite, exceed any
one's power of reckoning.
13. But we can hence perceive a little
more clearly that what the memory stores up
and retains is a different thing from that
which is thence copied in the conception of
the man who remembers, although, when
both are combined together, they appear to
be one and the same; because we can only
remember just as many species of bodies as
we have actually seen, and so great, and
such, as we have actually seen; for the mind
imbibes them into the memory from the
bodily sense; whereas the things seen in con-
ception, although drawn from those things
which are in the memory, yet are multiplied
152
THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[Book XI.
and varied innumerably, and altogether with-
out end. For I remember, no doubt, but
one sun, because according to the fact, I
have seen but one; but if I please, I conceive
of two, or three, or as many as I will; but
the vision of m)' mind, when I conceive of
many, is formed from the same memory by
which I remember one. And I remember it just
as large as I saw it. For if I remember it as
larger or smaller than I saw it, then I no longer
remember what I saw, and so I do not remem-
ber it. But because I remember it, I remember
it as large as I saw it; yet I conceive of it as
greater or as less according to my will. And
I remember it as I saw it; but I conceive of
it as running its course as I will, and as stand-
ing still where I will, and as coming whence
I will, and whither I will. For it is in my
power to conceive of it as square, although
I remember it as round ; and again, of
what color I please, although I have never
seen, and therefore do not remember, a green
sun; and as the sun, so all other things.
But owing to the corporeal and sensible na-
ture of these forms of things, the mind falls
into error when it imagines them to exist
without, in the same mode in which it con-
ceives them within, either when they have
already ceased to exist without, but are still
retained in the memory, or when in any other
way also, that which we remember is formed
in the mind, not by faithful recollection, but
after the variations of thought.
14. Yet it very often happens that we be-
lieve also a true narrative, told us by others,
of things which the narrators have themselves
perceived by their senses. And in this case,
when we conceive the things narrated to us,
as we hear them, the eye of the mind does
not seem to be turned back to the memory,
in order to bring up visions in our thoughts;
for we do not conceive these things from our
own recollection, but upon the narration of
another; and that trinity does not here seem
to come to its completion, which is made
when the species lying hid in the memory,
and the vision of the man that remembers,
are combined by will as a third. For I do
not conceive that which lay hid in my mem-
ory, but that which I hear, when anything is
narrated to me. I am not speaking of the
words themselves of the speaker, lest any
one should suppose that I have gone off to
that other trinity, which is transacted without,
in sensible things, or in the senses: but I am
conceiving of those species of material things,
which the narrator signifies to me by words
and sounds; which species certainly I con-
ceive of not by remembering, but by hearing.
But if we consider the matter more carefully,
even in this case, the limit of the memory is not
overstepped. For I could not even understand
the narrator, if I did not remember generi-
cally the individual things of which he speaks,
even although I then hear them for the first
time as connected together in one tale. For
he who, for instance, describes to me some
mountain stripped of timber, and clothed
with olive trees, describes it to me who
remembers the species both of mountains,
and of timber, and of olive trees; and if I
had forgotten these, I should not know at all
of what he was speaking, and therefore could
not conceive that description. And so it
comes to pass, that every one who conceives
things corporeal, whether he himself imagine
anything, or hear, or read, either a narrative
of things past, or a foretelling of things
future, has recourse to his memory, and finds
there the limit and measure of all the forms
at which he gazes in his thought. For no
one can conceive at all, either a color or a
form of body, which he never saw, or a
sound which he never heard, or a flavor which
he never tasted, or a scent which he never
smelt, or any touch of a corporeal thing
which he never felt. But if no one conceives
anything corporeal except What he has [sen-
suously] perceived, because no one remem-
bers anything corporeal except what he has
thus perceived, then, as is the limit of per-
ceiving in bodies, so is the limit of thinking
in the memory. For the sense receives the
species from that body which we perceive,
and the memory from the sense; but the
mental eye of the concipient, from the
memory.
15. Further, as the will applies the sense
to the bodily object, so it applies the memory
to the sense, and the eye of the mind of the
concipient to the memory. But that which
harmonizes those things and unites them,
itself also disjoins and separates them, that
is, the will. But it separates the bodily senses
from the bodies that are to be perceived, by
movement of the body, either to hinder our
perceiving the thing, or that we may cease to
perceive it: as when we avert our eyes from
that which we are unwilling to see, or shut
them; so, again, the ears from sounds, or the
nostrils from smells. So also we turn away
from tastes, either by shutting the mouth, or
by casting the thing out of the mouth. In
touch, also, we either remove the bodily
thing, that we may not touch what we do not
wish, or if we were already touching it, we
fling or push it away. Thus the will acts by
movement of the body, so that the bodily
sense shall not be joined to the sensible
things. And it does this according to its
Chap. X.]
ON THE TRINITY.
*53
power; for when it endures hardship in so
doing, on account of the condition of slavish
mortality, then torment is the result, in
such wise that nothing remains to the will
save endurance. But the will averts the
memory from ttie sense; when, through its
being intent on something else, it does not
suffer things present to cleave to it. As any
one may see, when often we do not seem to
ourselves to have heard some one who was
speaking to us, because we were thinking of
something else. But this is a mistake; for
we did hear, but we do not remember, be-
cause the words of the speaker presently
slipped out of the perception of our ears,
through the bidding of the will being diverted
elsewhere, by which they are usually fixed
in the memory. Therefore, we should say
more accurately in such a case, we do not
remember, than, we did not hear; for it hap-
pens even in reading, and to myself very
frequently, that when I have read through a
page or an epistle, I do not know what I have
read, and I begin it again. For the purpose
of the will being fixed on something else, the
memory was not so applied to the bodily
sense, as the sense itself was applied to the
letters. So, too, any one who walks with
the will intent on something else, does not
know where he has got to; for if he had not
seen, he would not have walked thither, or
would have felt his way in walking with greater
attention, especially if he was passing through
a place he did not know; yet, because he
walked easily, certainly he saw; but because
the memory was not applied to the sense it-
self in the same way as the sense of the eyes
was applied to the places through which he
was passing, he could not remember at all
even the last thing he saw. Now, to will to
turn away the eye of the mind from that
which is in the memory, is nothing else but
not to think thereupon.
CHAP. 9. SPECIES IS PRODUCED BY SPECIES IN
SUCCESSION.
16. In this arrangement, then, while we
begin from the bodily species and arrive fi-
nally at the species which comes to be in the
intuition (contuitit) of the concipient, we find
four species born, as it were, step by step one
from the other, the second from the first,
the third from the second, the fourth from
the third: since from the species of the body
itself, there arises that which comes to be in
the sense of the percipient; and from this,
that which comes to be in the memory; and
from this, that which comes to be in the
mind's eye of the concipient. And the will,
therefore, thrice combines as it were parent
with offspring: first the species of the body
with that to which it gives birth in the sense
of the body; and that again with that which
from it comes to be in the memory; and this
also, thirdly, with that which is born from
it in the intuition of the concipient's mind.
But the intermediate combination which is
the second, although it is nearer to the first,
is yet not so like the first as the third is.
For there are two kinds of vision, the one of
[sensuous] perception (smtientis), the other of
conception {cogita?itis). But in order that
the vision of conception may come to be,
there is wrought for the purpose, in the
memory, from the vision of [sensuous]
perception something like it, to which the
eye of the mind may turn itself in conceiving,
as the glance {acies) of the eyes turns itself in
[sensuously] perceiving to the bodily object.
I have, therefore, chosen to put forward two
trinities in this kind: one when the vision of
[sensuous] perception is formed from the
bodily object, the other when the vision of
conception is formed from the memory. But
I have refrained from commending an inter-
mediate one; because we do not commonly
call it vision, when the form which comes to
be in the sense of him who perceives, is en-
trusted to the memory. Yet in all cases the
will does not appear unless as the combiner
as it were of parent and offspring; and so,
proceed from whence it may, it can be called
neither parent nor offspring. 1
CHAP. IO. THE IMAGINATION ALSO ADDS EVEN
TO THINGS WE HAVE NOT SEEN, THOSE
THINGS WHICH WE HAVE SEEN ELSEWHERE.
17. But if we do not remember except
what we have [sensuously] perceived, nor
conceive except what we remember; why
do we often conceive things that are false,
when certainly we do not remember falsely
those things which we have perceived, unless
it be because that will (which I have already
taken pains to show as much as I can to be
the uniter and the separater of things of this
kind) leads the vision of the conceiver that is
to be formed, after its own will and pleasure,
1 [Augustin's map of consciousness is as follows: (1). The
corporeal species=the external object (outward appearance). (2).
The sensible species=the sensation (appearance for the sense).
(3). The mental species in its first form = present perception. (4).
The mental species in its second form = remembered perception.
These three "species" or appearances of the object: namely,
corporeal, sensible, and mental, according to him, are combined in
one synthesis with the object by the operation of the will. By
" will," he does not mean distinct and separate volitions : but the
spontaneity of the ego what Kant denominates the mechanism
of the understanding, seen in the spontaneous employment of the
categories of thought, as the mind ascends from empirical sensa-
tion to rational conception.
The English translator has failed to make clear the sharply de-
fined psychology of these chapters, by loosely rendering "sen-
tire,'' "to perceive," and " cogitare" 1 to think. W.G.T.S.]
154
THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[Book XL
through the hidden stores of the memory;
and, in order to conceive [imagine] those
things which we do not remember, impels it
to take one thing from hence, and another
from thence, from those which we do remem-
ber; and these things combining into one
vision make something which is called false,
because it either does not exist externally in
the nature of corporeal things, or does not
seem copied from the memory, in that we do
not remember that we ever saw such a thing.
For who ever saw a black swan ? And there-
fore no one remembers a black swan; yet who
is there that cannot conceive it ? For it is easy
to apply to that shape which we have come to
know by seeing it, a black color, which we have
not the less seen in other bodies; and be-
cause we have seen both, we remember both.
Neither do I remember a bird with four feet,
because I never saw one; but I contemplate
such a phantasy very easily, by adding to
some winged shape such as I have seen, two
other feet, such as I have likewise seen. 1 And
therefore, in conceiving conjointly, what we
remember to have seen singly, we seem not
to conceive that which we remember; while
we really do this under the law of the mem-
ory, whence we take everything which we join
together after our own pleasure in manifold
and diverse ways. For we do not conceive
even the very magnitudes of bodies, which
magnitudes we never saw, without help of the
memory; for the measure of space to which
our gaze commonly reaches through the
magnitude of the world, is the measure also
to which we enlarge the bulk of bodies, what-
ever they may be, when we conceive them as
great as we can. And reason, indeed, pro-
ceeds still beyond, but phantasy does not
follow her; as when reason announces the
infinity of number also, which no vision of
him who conceives according to corporeal
things can apprehend. The same reason
also teaches that the most minute atoms are
infinitely divisible; yet when we have come
to those slight and minute particles which we
remember to have seen, then we can no
longer behold phantasms more slender and
more minute, although reason does not cease
to continue to divide them. So we conceive
no corporeal things, except either those we
remember, or from those things which we
remember.
i Vid. Retract. II. xv. 2. [Augustin here says that when he
wrote the above, he forgot what is said in Leviticus xi. 20, of " fowls
that creep, going upon all four, which have legs above their feet
to leap withal upon the earth." W.G.T.S.]
CHAP. II. NUMBER, WEIGHT, MEASURE.
18. But because those things which are
impressed on the memory singly, can be
conceived according to number, measure
seems to belong to the memory, but number
to the vision; because, although the multi-
plicity of such visions is innumerable, yet a
limit not to be transgressed is prescribed for
each in the memory. Therefore, measure
appears in the memory, number in the vision
of things: as there is some measure in visible
bodies themselves, to which measure the
sense of those who see is most numerously
adjusted, and from one visible object is
formed the vision of many beholders, so that
even a single person sees commonly a single
thing under a double appearance, on account
of the number of his two eyes, as we have
laid down above. Therefore there is some
measure in those things whence visions are
copied, but in the visions themselves there
is number. But the will which unites and
regulates these things, and combines them
into a certain unity, and does not quietly rest
its desire of [sensuously] perceiving or of
conceiving, except in those things from
whence the visions are formed, resembles
weight. And therefore I would just notice
by way of anticipation these three things,
measure, number, weight, which are to be
perceived in all other things also. In the
meantime, I have now shown as much as I
can, and towhom I can, that the will is the
uniter of the visible thing and of the vision;
as it were, of parent and of offspring; whether
in [sensuous] perception or in conception,
and that it cannot be called either parent or
offspring. Wherefore time admonishes us
to seek for this same trinity in the inner man,
and to strive to pass inwards from that ani-
mal and carnal and (as he is called) outward
man, of whom I have so long spoken. And
here we hope to be able to find an image of
God according to the Trinity, He Himself
helping our efforts, who as things themselves
show, and as Holy Scripture also witnesses,
has regulated all things in measure, and
number, and weight. 2
2 Wisd. xi. 21.
BOOK XII.
COMMENCING WITH A DISTINCTION BETWEEN WISDOM AND KNOWLEDGE, POINTS OUT A KIND OF
TRINITY, OF A PECULIAR SORT, IN THAT WHICH IS PROPERLY CALLED KNOWLEDGE, A*ND
WHICH IS THE LOWER OF THE TWO ; AND THIS TRINITY, ALTHOUGH IT CERTAINLY PERTAINS
TO THE INNER MAN, IS STILL NOT YET TO BE CALLED OR THOUGHT AN IMAGE OF GOD.
CHAP. I. OF WHAT KIND ARE THE OUTER AND
THE INNER MAN.
i. Come now, and let us see where lies, as
it were, the boundary line between the outer
and inner man. For whatever we have in
the mind common with the beasts, thus much
is rightly said to belong to the outer man.
For the outer man is not to be considered
to be the body only, but with the addition
also of a certain peculiar life of the body,
whence the structure of the body derives its
vigor, and all the senses with which he is
equipped for the perception of outward things;
and when the images of these outward things
already perceived, that have been fixed in the
memory, are seen again by recollection, it is
still a matter pertaining to the outer man.
And in all these things we do not differ from
the beasts, except that in shape of body we
are not prone, but upright. And we are ad-
monished through this, by Him who made
us, not to be like the beasts in that which is
our better part that is, the mind while we
differ from them by the uprightness of the
body. Not that we are to throw our mind
into those bodily things which are exalted;
for to seek rest for the will, even in such
things, is to prostrate the mind. But as the
body is naturally raised upright to those
bodily things which are most elevated, that
is, to things celestial; so the mind, which is
a spiritual substance, must be raised upright to
those things which are most elevated in spirit-
ual things, not by the elation of pride, but by
the dutifulness of righteousness.
CHAP. 2. MAN ALONE OF ANIMATE CREATURES
PERCEIVES THE ETERNAL REASONS OF THINGS
PERTAINING TO THE BODY.
2. And the beasts, too, are able both to per-
ceive things corporeal from without, through
the senses of the body, and to fix them in the
memory, and remember them, and in them
to seek after things suitable, and shun things
inconvenient. But to note these things, and
to retain them not only as caught up naturally
but also as deliberately committed to mem-
ory, and to imprint them again by recollec-
tion and conception when now just slipping
away into forgetfulness; in order that as con-
ception is formed from that which the memory
contains, so also the contents themselves of
the memory may be fixed firmly by thought:
to combine again imaginary objects of sight,
by taking this or that of what the memory
remembers, and, as it were, tacking them to
one another: to examine after what manner
it is that in this kind things like the true are
to be distinguished from the true, and this
not in things spiritual, but in corporeal things
themselves; these acts, and the like, al-
though performed in reference to things
sensible, and those which the mind has de-
duced through the bodily senses, yet, as they
are combined with reason, so are not common
to men and beasts. But it is the part of the
higher reason to judge of these corporeal
things according to incorporeal and eternal
reasons; which, unless they were above the
human mind, would certainly not be un-
changeable; and yet, unless something of
our own were subjoined to them, we should
not be able to employ them as our measures
oy which to judge of corporeal things. But
we judge of corporeal things from the rule of
dimensions and figures, which the mind knows
to remain unchangeably. 1
1 [The distinction drawn here is between that low form of in-
telligence which exists in the brute, and that high form character-
istic of man. In the Kantian nomenclature, the brute has under-
standing, but unenlightened by reason ; either theoretical or
i?6
THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[Book XII.
CHAP. 3. THE HIGHER REASON WHICH BE-
LONGS TO CONTEMPLATION, AND THE LOWER
WHICH BELONGS TO ACTION, ARE IN ONE
MIND.
3. But that of our own which thus has to
do with the handling of corporeal and tem-
poral things, is indeed rational, in that it is
not common to us with the beasts; but it is
drawn, as it were, out of that rational sub-
stance of our mind, by which we depend upon
and cleave to the intelligible and unchangea-
ble truth, and which is deputed to handle
and direct the inferior things. For as among
all the beasts there was not found for the
man a help like unto him, unless one were
taken from himself, and formed to be his
consort: so for that mind, by which we consult
the supernal and inward truth, there is no
like help for such employment as man's
nature requires among things corporeal out
of those parts of the soul which we have in
common with the beasts. And so a certain
part of our reason, not separated so as to
sever unity, but, as it were, diverted so as to
be a help to fellowship, is parted off for the
performing of its proper work. And as the
twain is one flesh in the case of male and
female, so in the mind one nature embraces
our intellect and action, or our counsel and
performance, or our reason and rational ap-
petite, or whatever other more significant
terms there may be by which to express
them; so that, as it was said of the former,
"And they two shall be in one flesh," 1 it
may be said of these, they two are in one
mind.
CHAP. 4. THE TRINITY AND THE IMAGE OF
GOD IS IN THAT PART OF THE MIND ALONE
WHICH BELONGS TO THE CONTEMPLATION OF
ETERNAL THINGS.
4. When, therefore, we discuss the nature
of the human mind, we discuss a single sub-
ject, and do not double it into those two
which I have mentioned, except in respect
to its functions. Therefore, when we seek
the trinity in the mind, we seek it in the
whole mind, without separating the action
of the reason in things temporal from the
contemplation of things eternal, so as to
have further to seek some third thing, by
which a trinity may be completed. But this
trinity must needs be so discovered in the
whole nature of the mind, as that even if
practical. He has intelligence, but not as modified by the forms
of space and time and the categories of quantity, quality, relation
etc.; and still less as modified and exalted by the ideas of reason
namely, the mathematical ideas, and the moral ideas of God, free-
dom, and immortality. The animal has no rational intelligence.
He has mere understanding without reason. W. G. T. S."]
1 Gen. ii. 24.
action upon temporal things were to be with-
drawn, for which work that help is necessary,
with a view to which some part of the mind is
diverted in order to deal with these inferior
things, yet a trinity would still be found in
the one mind that is no where parted off; and
that when this distribution has been already
made, not only a trinity may be found, but
also an image of God, in that alone which
belongs to the contemplation of eternal
things; while in that other which is diverted
from it in the dealing with temporal things,
although there may be a trinity, yet there
cannot be found an image of God.
CHAP. 5. THE OPINION WHICH DEVISES AN
IMAGE OF THE TRINITY IN THE MARRIAGE OF
MALE AND FEMALE, AND IN THEIR OFF-
SPRING.
5. Accordingly they do not seem to me to
advance a probable opinion, who lay it down
that a trinity of the image of God in three
persons, so far as regards human nature,
can so be discovered as to be completed in
the marriage of male and female and in their
offspring; in that the man himself, as it were,
indicates the person of the Father, but that
which has so proceeded from him as to be
born, that of the Son; and so the third
person as of the Spirit, is, they say, the
woman, who has so proceeded from the man
as not herself to be either son or daughter, 2
although it was by her conception that the
offspring was born. For the Lord hath said
of the Holy Spirit that He proceedeth from
the Father, 3 and yet he is not a son. In
this erroneous opinion, then, the only point
probably alleged, and indeed sufficiently
shown according to the faith of the Holy
Scripture, is this, in the account of the
original creation of the woman, that what
so comes into existence from some person as
to make another person, cannot in every case
be called a son; since the person of the
woman came into existence from the person
of the man, and yet she is not called his
daughter. All the rest of this opinion is in
truth so absurd, nay indeed so false, that it
is most easy to refute it. For I pass over
such a thing, as to think the Holy Spirit to
be the mother of the Son of God, and the
wife of the Father; since perhaps it may be
answered that these things offend us in car-
nal things, because we think of bodily con-
ceptions and births. Although these very
things themselves are most chastely thought
of by the pure, to whom all things are pure;
but to the defiled and unbelieving, of whom
2 Gen. ii. 22.
3 John xv. 26.
Chap. VI.]
ON THE TRINITY.
157
both the mind and conscience are polluted,
nothing is pure; 1 so that even Christ, born
of a virgin according to the flesh, is a stum-
bling-block to some of them. But yet in the
case of those supreme spiritual things, after
the likeness of which those kinds of the in-
ferior creature also are made although most
remotely, and where there is nothing that
can be injured and nothing corruptible, noth-
ing born in time, nothing formed from that
which is formless, or whatever like expressions
there may be; yet they ought not to disturb
the sober prudence of any one, lest in avoid-
ing empty disgust he run into pernicious
error. Let him accustom himself so to find
in corporeal things the traces of things spirit-
ual, that when he begins to ascend upwards
from thence, under the guidance of reason,
in order to attain to the unchangeable truth
itself through which these things were made,
he may not draw with himself to things above
what he despises in things below. For no
one ever blushed to choose for himself wisdom
as a wife, because the name of wife puts into
a man's thoughts the corruptible connection
which consists in begetting children; or
because in truth wisdom itself is a woman in
sex, since it is expressed in both Greek and
Latin tongues by a word of the feminine
gender.
CHAP. 6. WHY THIS OPINION IS TO BE RE-
JECTED.
6. We do not therefore reject this opinion,
because we fear to think of that holy and
inviolable and unchangeable Love, as the
spouse of God the Father, existing as it does
from Him, but not as an offspring in order
to beget the Word by which all things are
made; but because divine Scripture evidently
shows it to be false. For God said, " Let
us make man in our image, after our like-
ness; " and a little after it is said, " So God
created man in the image of God." 2 Cer-
tainly, in that it is of the plural number, the
word "our" would not be rightly used if
man were made in the image of one person,
whether of the Father, or of the Son, or of
the Holy Spirit; but because he was made
in the image of the Trinity, on that account
it is said, " After our image." But again,
lest we should think that three Gods were to
be believed in the Trinity, whereas the same
Trinity is one God, it is said, " So God
created man in the image of God," instead of
saying, "In His own image."
7. For such expressions are customary in
the Scriptures; and yet some persons, while
1 Tit. i. 15.
2 Gen. i. 26, 27.
maintaining the Catholic faith, do not care-
fully attend to them, in such wise that they
think the words, "God made man in the
image of God," to mean that the Father
made man after the image of the Son; and
they thus desire to assert that the Son also
is called God in the divine Scriptures, as if
there were not other most true and clear
proofs wherein the Son is called not only
God, but also the true God. For whilst
they aim at explaining another difficulty in
this text, they become so entangled that they
cannot extricate themselves. For if the
Father made man after the image of the Son,
so that he is not the image of the Father, but
of the Son, then the Son is unlike the Father.
But if a pious faith teaches us, as it does,
that the Son is like the Father after an equal-
ity of essence, then that which is made in
the likeness of the Son must needs also be
made in the likeness of the Father. Further,
if the Father made man not in His own
image, but in the image of His Son, why
does He not say, " Let us make man after
Thy image and likeness," whereas He does
say, "our;" unless it be because the image
of the Trinity was made in man, that in this
way man should be the image of the one
true God, because the Trinity itself is the
one true God ? Such expressions are innu-
merable in the Scriptures, but it will suffice to
have produced these. It is so said in the
Psalms, "Salvation belongeth unto the Lord;
Thy blessing is upon Thy people;" 3 as if
the words were spoken to some one else, not
to Him of whom it had been said, " Salvation
belongeth unto the Lord." And again, " For
by Thee," he says, "I shall be delivered
from temptation, and by hoping in my God
I shall leap over the wall; " 4 as if he said to
someone else, " By Thee I shall be deliv-
ered from temptation." And again, " In the
heart of the king's enemies; whereby the
people fall under Thee;" 5 as if he were to
say, in the heart of Thy enemies. For he
had said to that King, that is, to our Lord
Jesus Christ, " The people fall under Thee/'
whom he intended by the word King, when
he said, "In the heart of the king's ene-
mies." Things of this kind are found more
rarely in the New Testament. But yet the
apostle says to the Romans, " Concerning
His Son who was made to Him of the seed
of David according to the flesh, and declared
to be the Son of God with power, according
to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection
of the dead of Jesus Christ our Lord; " 6 as
though he were speaking above of some one
3 Ps. iii. 8.
5 Ps. xlv. 5.
4 Ps. xviii. 29.
6 Rom. i. 3, 4.
158
THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[Book XTI.
else. For what is meant by the Son of God
declared by the resurrection of the dead of
Jesus Christ, except of the same Jesus Christ
who was declared to be Son of God with
power? And as then in this passage, when
we are told, "the Son of God with power of
Jesus Christ/' or "the Son of God according
to the spirit of holiness of Jesus Christ," or
"the Son of God by the resurrection of the
dead of Jesus Christ," whereas it might have
been expressed in the ordinary way, In His
own power, or according to the spirit of His
own holiness, or by the resurrection of His
dead, or of their dead: as, I say, we are not
compelled to understand another person, but
one and the same, that is, the person of the
Son of God our Lord Jesus Christ; so, when
we are told that "God made man in the
image of God/' although it might have been
more usual to say, after His own image, yet
we are not compelled to understand any other
person in the Trinity, but the one and self-
same Trinity itself, who is one God, and after
whose image man is made.
8. And since the case stands thus, if we
are to accept the same image of the Trin-
ity, as not in one, but in three human beings,
father and mother and son, then the man
was not made after the image of God before
a wife was made for him, and before they
procreated a son; because there was not yet
a trinity. Will any one say there was al-
ready a trinity, because, although not yet in
their proper form, yet in their original nature,
both the woman was already in the side of
the man, and the son in the loins of his
father? Why then, when Scripture had
said, "God made man after the image of
God," did it go on to say, " God created him;
male and female created He them: and God
blessed them " ? ' (Or if it is to be so divided,
"And God created man," so that thereupon
is to be added, " in the image of God created
He him," and then subjoined in the third
place, " male and female created He them; "
for some have feared to say, He made him
male and female, lest something monstrous,
as it were, should be understood, as are
those whom they call hermaphrodites, al-
though even so both might be understood not
falsely in the singular number, on account
of that which is said, " Two in one flesh.")
Why then, as I began by saying, in regard
to the nature of man made after the imaare of
God, does Scripture specify nothing except
male and female ? Certainly, in order to
complete the image of the Trinity, it ought
to have added also son, although still placed
1 Gen i. 27, 28.
in the loins of his father, as the woman was
in his side. Or was it perhaps that the
woman also had been already made, and that
Scripture had combined in a short and com-
prehensive statement, that of which it was
going to explain afterwards more carefully,
how it was done; and that therefore a son
could not be mentioned, because no son was
yet born ? As if the Holy Spirit could not
have comprehended this, too, in that brief
statement, while about to narrate the birth of
the son afterwards in its own place; as it
narrated afterwards in its own place, that the
woman was taken from the side of the man, 2
and yet has not omitted here to name her.
CHAP. 7. HOW MAN IS THE IMAGE OF GOD.
WHETHER THE WOMAN IS NOT ALSO THE IM-
AGE OF GOD. HOW THE SAYING OF THE
APOSTLE, THAT THE MAN IS THE IMAGE OF
GOD, BUT THE WOMAN IS THE GLORY OF THE
MAN, IS TO BE UNDERSTOOD FIGURATIVELY
AND MYSTICALLY.
9. We ought not therefore so to under-
stand that man is made in the image of the
supreme Trinity, that is, in the image of
God, as that the same image should be under-
stood to be in three human beings; especially
when the apostle says that the man is the
image of God, and on that account removes
the covering from his head, which he warns
the woman to use, speaking thus: " For a
man indeed ought not to cover his head, for-
asmuch as he is the image and glory of God;
but the woman is the glory of the man.''
What then shall we say to this? If the
woman fills up the image of the trinity after
the measure of her own person, why is the
man still called that image after she has been
taken out of his side ? Or if even one person
of a human being out of three can be called
the image of God, as each person also is God
in the supreme Trinity itself, why is the
woman also not the image of God ? For she
is instructed for this very reason to cover her
head, which he is forbidden to do because he
is the image of God. 3
10. But we must notice how that which the
apostle says, that not the woman but the man
is the image of God, is not contrary to that,
which is written in Genesis, "God created
man: in the image of God created He him;
male and female created He them: and He
blessed them." For this text says that
human nature itself, which is complete [only]
in both sexes, was made in the image of God;
and it does not separate the woman from the
image of God which it signifies. For after
2 Gen. ii. 24, 22.
3 1 Cor. xi. 7, 5.
Chap. VII.]
ON THE TRINITY.
159
saying that God made man in the image of
God, " He created him," it says, " male and
female:" or at any rate, punctuating the words
otherwise, " male and female created He
them." How then did the apostle tell us
that the man is the image of God, and there-
fore he is forbidden to cover his head; but
that the woman is not so, and therefore is
commanded to cover hers ? Unless, forsooth,
according to that which I have said already,
when I was treating of the nature of the
human mind, that the woman together with
her own husband is the image of God, so that
that whole substance may be one image; but
when she is referred separately to her quality
of help-meet, which regards the woman herself
alone, then she is not the image of God; but
as regards the man alone, he is the image of
God as fully and completely as when the
woman too is joined with him in one. As
we said of the nature of the human mind,
that both in the case when as a whole it con-
templates the truth it is the image of God;
and in the case when anything is divided
from it, and diverted in order to the cogni-
tion of temporal things; nevertheless on that
side on which it beholds and consults truth,
here also it is the image of God, but on that
side whereby it is directed to the cognition
of the lower things, it is not the image of
God. And since it is so much the more
formed after the image of God, the more it
has extended itself to that which is eternal,
and is on that account not to be restrained,
so as to withhold and refrain itself from
thence; therefore the man ought hot to cover
his head. But because too great a progres-
sion towards inferior things is dangerous to
that rational cognition that is conversant
with things corporeal and temporal; this
ought to have power on its head, which the
covering indicates, by which it is signified
that it ought to be restrained. For a holy
and pious meaning is pleasing to the holy
angels. * For God sees not after the way of
time, neither does anything new take place
in His vision and knowledge, when anything
is done in time and transitorily, after the
way in which such things affect the senses,
whether the carnal senses of animals and
men, or even the heavenly senses of the
angels.
11. For that the Apostle Paul, when speak-
ing outwardly of the sex of male and female,
figured the mystery of some more hidden
truth, may be understood from this, that
when he says in another place that she is a
widow indeed who is desolate, without chil-
1 1 Cor. xi. 10.
dren and nephews, and yet that she ought to
trust in God, and to continue in prayers
night and day, 2 he here indicates, that the
woman having been brought into the trans-
gression by being deceived, is brought to sal-
vation by child-bearing; and then he has add-
ed, "If they continue in faith, and charity,
and holiness, with sobriety." 3 As if it could
possibly hurt a good widow, if either she had
not sons, or if those whom she had did not
choose to continue in good works. But be-
cause those things which are called good
works are, as it were, the sons of our life,
according to that sense of life in which it
answers to the question, What is a man's life ?
that is, How does he act in these temporal
things ? which life the Greeks do not call cwtj
but fttos; and because these good works are
chiefly performed in the way of offices of
mercy, while works of mercy are of no pro-
fit, either to Pagans, or to Jews who do not
believe in Christ, or to any heretics or schis-
matics whatsoever in whom faith and charity
and sober holiness are not found: what the
apostle meant to signify is plain, and in so
far figuratively and mystically, because he
was speaking of covering the head of the
woman, which will remain mere empty words,
unless referred to some hidden sacrament.
12. For, as not only most true reason but
also the authority of the apostle himself de-
clares, man was not made in the image of
God according to the shape of his body, but
according to his rational mind. For the
thought is a debased and empty one, which
holds God to be circumscribed and limited
by the lineaments of bodily members. But
further, does not the same blessed apostle
say, " Be renewed in the spirit of your mind,
and put on the new man, which is created
after God;" 4 and in another place more
clearly, "Putting off the old man," he says,
"with his deeds; put on the new man, which
is renewed to the knowledge of God after the
image of Him that created him ? " 5 If, then,
vve are renewed in the spirit of our mind, and
he is the new man who is renewed to the
knowledge of God after the image of Him
that created him; no one can doubt, that man
was made after the image of Him that created
him, not according to the body, nor indis-
criminately according to any part of the mind,
but according to the rational mind, wherein
the knowledge of God can exist And it is
according to this renewal, also, that we are
made sons of God by the baptism of Christ;
and putting on the new man, certainly put on
Christ through faith. Who is there, then,
2 1 Tim. v. 5.
4 Eph. iv. 23, 24.
3 1 Tim. ii. 15.
5 Col. iii. 9, 10,
i6o
THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
|Book XII.
who will hold women to be alien from this
fellowship, whereas they are fellow-heirs of
grace with us; and whereas in another place
the same apostle says, " For ye are all the
children of God by faith in Christ Jesus; for
as many as have been baptized into Christ
have put on Christ: there is neither Jew nor
Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there
is neither male nor female; for ye are all one
in Christ Jesus ? '' l Pray, have faithful
women then lost their bodily sex ? But be-
cause they are there renewed after the image
of God, where there is no sex; man is there
made after the image of God, where there is
no sex, that is, in the spirit of his mind.
Why, then, is the man on that account not
bound to cover his head, because he is the
image and glory of God, while the woman is
bound to do so, because she is the glory of
the man; as though the woman were not re-
newed in the spirit of her mind, which spirit
is renewed to the knowledge of God after the
image of Him who created him ? But because
she differs from the man in boddy sex, it was
possible rightly to represent under her bodily
covering that part of the reason which is di-
verted to the government of temporal things;
so that the image of God may remain on that
side of the mind of man on which it cleaves
to the beholding or the consulting of the eter-
nal reasons of things; and this, it is clear, not
men only, but also women have.
CHAP. 8. TURNING ASIDE FROM THE IMAGE OF
GOD.
13. A common nature, therefore, is recog-
nized in their minds, but in their bodies a di-
vision of that one mind itself is figured. As
we ascend, then, by certain steps of thought
within, along the succession of the parts of
the mind, there where something first meets
us which is not common to ourselves with the
beasts reason begins, so that here the inner
man can now be recognized. And if this in-
ner man himself, through that reason to which
the administering of things temporal has been
delegated, slips on too far by over-much pro-
gress into outward things, that which is his
head moreover consenting, that is, the (so to
call it) masculine part which presides in the
watch-tower of counsel not restraining or
bridling it: then he waxeth old because of all
his enemies, 2 viz. the demons with their
prince the devil, who are envious of virtue;
and that vision of eternal things is withdrawn
also from the head himself, eating with his
spouse that which was forbidden, so that the
light of his eyes is gone from him ; 3 and so both
being naked from that enlightenment of truth,
and with the eyes of their conscience opened
to behold how they were left shameful and
unseemly, like the leaves of sweet fruits, but
without the fruits themselves, they so weave
together good words without the fruit of good
works, as while living wickedly to cover over
their disgrace as it were by speaking well. 4
CHAP. 9. THE SAME ARGUMENT IS CONTINUED.
14. For the soul loving its own power, slips
onwards from the whole which is common, to
a part, which belongs especially to itself.
And that apostatizing pride, which is called
"the beginning of sin," 5 whereas it might
have been most excellently governed by the
laws of God, if it had followed Him as its
ruler in the universal creature, by seeking
something more than the whole, and strug-
gling to govern this by a law of its own, is
thrust on, since nothing is more than the
whole, into caring for a part; and thus by lust-
ing after something more, is made less;
whence also covetousness is called " the root
of all evil.-" 6 And it administers that whole,
wherein it strives to do something of its own
against the laws by which the whole is gov-
erned, by its own body, which it possesses
only in part; and so being delighted by cor-
poreal forms and motions, because it has not
the things themselves within itself, and be-
cause it is wrapped up in their images, which
it has fixed in the memory, and is foully pol-
luted by fornication of the phantasy, while it
refers all its functions to those ends, for
which it curiously seeks corporeal and tem-
poral things through the senses of the body,
either it affects with swelling arrogance to be
more excellent than other souls that are given
up to the corporeal senses, or it is plunged
into a foul whirlpool of carnal pleasure.
CHAP. IO. THE LOWEST DEGRADATION IS
REACHED BY DEGREES.
15. When the soul then consults either for
itself or for others with a good will towards
perceiving the inner and higher things, such
as are possessed in a chaste embrace, with-
out any narrowness or envy, not individually,
but in common by all who love such things;
then even if it be deceived in anything,
through ignorance of things temporal (for its
action in this case is a temporal one), and if
it does not hold fast to that mode of acting
which it ought, the temptation is but one com-
mon to man. And it is a great thing so to
pass through this life, on which we travel, as
it were, like a road on our return home, that
1 Gal. iii. 26-23.
2 Ps. vi. 7.
3 Ps.
XXXVlll. 10
4 Gen. iii. 4.
5 Ecclus. x. 15.
6 1 Tim. vi. 10.
Chap. XII.]
ON THE TRINITY.
161
no temptation may take us, but what is com-
mon to man. ' For this is a sin without the
body, and must not be reckoned fornication,
and on that account is very easily pardoned.
But when the soul does anything- in order to
attain those things which are perceived
through the body, through lust of proving or
of surpassing or of handling them, in order
that it may place in them its final good, then
whatever it does, it does wickedly, and com-
mits fornication, sinning against its own body: 2
and while snatching from within the deceitful
images of corporeal things, and combining
them by vain thought, so that nothing seems
to it to be divine, unless it be of such a kind
as this; by selfish greediness it is made fruit-
ful in errors, and by selfish prodigality it is
emptied of strength. Yet it would not leap
on at once from the commencement to such
shameless and miserable fornication, but, as
it is written, " He that contemneth small
things, shall fall by little and little." 3
CHAP. II. THE IMAGE OF THE BEAST IN MAN.
1 6. For as a snake does not creep on with
open steps, but advances by the very minutest
efforts of its several scales; so the slippery
motion of falling away [from what is good]
takes possession of the negligent only gradu-
ally, and beginning from a perverse desire for
the likeness of God, arrives in the end at the
likeness of beasts. Hence it is that being
naked of their first garment, they earned by
mortality coats of skins. 4 For the true honor
of man is the image and likeness of God,
which is not preserved except it be in relation
to Him by whom it is impressed. The less
therefore that one loves what is one's own,
the more one cleaves to God. But through
the desire of making trial of his own power,
man by his own bidding falls down to himself
as to a sort of intermediate grade. And so,
while he wishes to be as God is, that is, un-
der no one, he is thrust on, even from his own
middle grade, by way of punishment, to that
which is lowest, that is, to those things in
which beasts delight: and thus, while his
honor is the likeness of God, but his dishonor
is the likeness of the beast, " Man being in
honor abideth not: he is compared to the
beasts that are foolish, and is made like to
them." 5 By what path, then, could he pass
so great a distance from the highest to the
lowest, except through his own intermediate
grade ? For when he neglects the love of wis-
dom, which remains always after the same
fashion, and lusts after knowledge by experi-
1 i. Cor. x. 13.
4 Gen. iii. 21.
11
= 1 Cor. vi. 18
5 Ps. xlix. 12.
3 Ecclus. xix. 1.
ment upon things temporal and mutable, that
knowledge puffeth up, it does not edify: 6 so
the mind is overweighed and thrust out, as it
were, by its own weight from blessedness;
and learns by its own punishment, through
that trial of its own intermediateness, what
the difference is between the good it has
abandoned and the bad to which it has com-
mitted itself; and having thrown away and
destroyed its strength, it cannot return, un-
less by the grace of its Maker calling it to re-
pentance, and forgiving its sins. For who
will deliver the unhappy soul from the body
of this death, unless the grace of God through
Jesus Christ our Lord ? 7 Of which grace we
will discourse in its place, so far as He Him-
self enables us.
CHAP. 12. THERE IS A KIND OF HIDDEN WED-
LOCK IN THE INNER MAN. UNLAWFUL PLEAS-
URES OF THE THOUGHTS.
17. Let us now complete, so far as the
Lord helps us, the discussion which we have
undertaken, respecting that part of reason to
which knowledge belongs, that is, the cogniz-
ance of things temporal and changeable,
which is necessary for managing the affairs
of this life. For as in the case of that visible
wedlock of the two human beings who were
made first, the serpent did not eat of the for-
bidden tree, but only persuaded them to eat
of it; and the woman did not eat alone, but
gave to her husband, and they eat together;
although she alone spoke with the serpent,
and she alone was led away by him: 8 so also
in the case of that hidden and secret kind of
wedlock, which is transacted and discerned
in a single human being, the carnal, or as I
may say, since it is directed to the senses of
the body, the sensuous movement of the soul,
which is common to us with beasts, is shut
off from the reason of wisdom. For certainly
bodily things are perceived by the sense of
the body; but spiritual things, which are
eternal and unchangeable, are understood by
the reason of wisdom. But the reason of
knowledge has appetite very near to it: see-
ing that what is called the science or know-
ledge of actions reasons concerning the bodily
things which are perceived by the bodily
sense; if well, in order that it may refer that
knowledge to the end of the chief good; but
if ill, in order that it may enjoy them as be-
ing such good things as those wherein it re-
poses with a false blessedness. Whenever,
then, that carnal or animal sense introduces
into this purpose of the mind which is con-
versant about things temporal and corporeal,
6 1 Cor. viii. 1.
7 Rom. vii. 24, 25.
8 Gen. iii. 1-6.
l62
THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[Book XII.
with a view to the offices of a man's actions,
by the living force of reason, some induce-
ment to enjoy itself, that is, to enjoy itself as
if it were some private good of its own, not as
the public and common, which is the un-
changeable, good; then, as it were, the ser-
pent discourses with the woman. And to
consent to this allurement, is to eat of the
forbidden tree. But if that consent is satis-
fied by the pleasure of thought alone, but the
members are so restrained by the authority
of higher counsel that they are not yielded
as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin; 1
this, I think, is to be considered as if the
woman alone should have eaten the forbidden
food. But if, in this consent to use wickedly
the things which are perceived through the
senses of the body, any sin at all is so deter-
mined upon, that if there is the power it is
also fulfilled by the body; then that woman
must be understood to have given the unlaw-
ful food to her husband with her, to be eaten
together. For it is not possible for the mind
to determine that a sin is not only to be
thought of with pleasure, but also to be effect-
ually committed, unless also that intention of
the mind yields, and serves the bad action,
with which rests the chief power of applying
the members to an outward act, or of restrain-
ing them from one.
18. And yet, certainly, when the mind is
pleased in thought alone with unlawful things,
while not indeed determining that they are to
be done, but yet holding and pondering gladly
things which ought to have been rejected the
very moment they touched the mind, it can-
not be denied to be a sin, but far less than
if it were also determined to accomplished it
in outward act. And therefore pardon must
be sought for such thoughts too, and the
breast must be smitten, and it must be said,
"Forgive us our debts;" and what follows
must be done, and must be joined in our
prayer, "As we also forgive our debtors." 2
For it is not as it was with those two first
human beings, of which each one bare his own
person; and so, if the woman alone had eaten
the forbidden food, she certainly alone would
have been smitten with the punishment of
death: it cannot, I say, be so said also in the
case of a single human being now, that if the
thought, remaining alone, be gladly fed with
unlawful pleasures, from which it ought to
turn away directly, while yet there is no de-
termination that the bad actions are to be
done, but only that they are retained with
pleasure in remembrance, the woman as it
were can be condemned without the man.
1 Rom. vi. 13.
Matt. vi. 12.
Far be it from us to believe this. For here
is one person, one human being, and he as a
whole will be condemned, unless those things
which, as lacking the will to do, and yet hav-
ing the will to please the mind with them,
are perceived to be sins of thought alone, are
pardoned through the grace of the Mediator. 3
19. This reasoning, then, whereby we have
sought in the mind of each several human
being a certain rational wedlock of contem-
plation and action, with functions distributed
through each severally, yet with the unity of
the mind preserved in both; saving meanwhile
the truth of that history which divine testi-
mony hands down respecting the first two
human beings, that is, the man and his wife,
from whom the human species is propagated; 4
this reasoning, I say, must be listened to
only thus far, that the apostle may be under-
stood to have intended to signify something
to be sought in one individual man, by assign-
ing the image of God to the man only, and
not also to the woman, although in the merely
different sex ui two human beings.
CHAP. 13. THE OPINION OF THOSE WHO HAVE
THOUGHT THAT THE MIND WAS SIGNIFIED BY
THE MAN, THE BODILY SENSE BY THE WOMAN.
20. Nor does it escape me, that some who
before us were eminent defenders of the Cath-
olic faith and expounders of the word of God,
while they looked for these two things in one
human being, whose entire soul they per-
ceived to be a sort of excellent paradise, as-
serted that the man was the mind, but that the
woman was the bodily sense. And according
to this distribution, by which the man is as-
sumed to be the mind, but the woman the
bodily sense, all things seem aptly to agree
together if they are handled with due atten-
tion: unless that it is written, that in all the
beasts and flying things there was not found
for man an helpmate like to himself; and
then the woman was made out of his side. 5
And on this account I, for my part, have not
thought that the bodily sense should be taken
for the woman, which we see to be common
to ourselves and to the beasts; but I have
desired to find something which the beasts
had not; and I have rather thought the bodily
sense should be understood to be the serpent,
whom we read to have been more subtle than
all beasts of the field. 6 For in those natural
good things which we see are common to our-
3 [Augustin here teaches that the inward lust is guilt as well
as the outward action prompted by it. This is in accordance with
Matt. v. 28 ; Acts viii. 21-22 ; Rom. vii. 7 ; James i. 14. W.G.T.S.]
4 [Augustin means, that while he has given an allegorical and
mystical interpretation to the narrative of the fall, in Genesis, he
also holds to its historical sense. W. G. T. S."|
5 Gen. ii. 20-22. 6 Gen. iii. 1.
Chap. XIV.]
ON THE TRINITY.
163
selves and to the irrational animals, the sense
excels by a kind of living power; not the sense
of which it is written in the epistle addressed
to the Hebrews, where we read, that " strong
meat belongeth to them that are of full age,
even those who by reason of use have their
senses exercised to discern both good and
evil;" 5 for these " senses '' belong to the ra-
tional nature and pertain to the understanding;
but that sense which is divided into five parts
in the body, through which corporeal species
and motion is perceived not only by ourselves,
but also by the beasts.
21. But whether that the apostle calls the
man the image and glory of God, but the
woman the glory of the man, - is to be re-
ceived in this, or that, or in any other way;
yet it is clear, that when we live according
to God, our mind which is intent on the
invisible things of Him ought to be fashioned
with proficiency from His eternity, truth,
charity; but that something of our own ra-
tional purpose, that is, of the same mind,
must be directed to the using of changeable
and corporeal things, without which this life
does not go on; not that we may be con-
formed to this world, 3 by placing our end in
such good things, and by forcing the desire
of blessedness towards them, but that what-
ever we do rationally in the using of temporal
things, we may do it with the contemplation
of attaining eternal things, passing through
the former, but cleaving to the latter.
CHAP. 14. WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
WISDOM AND KNOWLEDGE. THE WORSHIP OF
GOD IS THE LOVE OF HIM. HOW THE INTEL-
LECTUAL COGNIZANCE OF ETERNAL THINGS
COMES TO PASS THROUGH WISDOM.
For knowledge also has its own good
measure, if that in it which puffs up, or is
wont to puff up, is conquered by love of
eternal things, which does not puff up, but,
as we know, edifieth. 4 Certainly without
knowledge the virtues themselves, by which
one lives rightly, cannot be possessed, by
which this miserable life may be so governed,
that we may attain to that eternal life which
is truly blessed.
22. Yet action, by which we use temporal
things well, differs from contemplation of
eternal things; and the latter is reckoned to
wisdom, the former to knowledge. For al-
though that which is wisdom can also be
called knowledge, as the apostle too speaks,
where he says, " Now I know in part, but
then shall I know even as also I am
1 Heb. v. 14.
3 Rom. xii. 2
2 1 Cor. xi. 7.
4 1 Cor. viii. 1.
known;" 5 when doubtless he meant his
words to be understood of the knowledge of
the contemplation of God, which will be the
highest reward of the saints; yet where he says,
" For to one is given by the Spirit the word
of wisdom, to another the word of knowledge
by the same Spirit," 6 certainly he distinguishes
without doubt these two things, although he
does not there explain the difference, nor in
what way one may be discerned from the
other. But having examined a great number
of passages from the Holy Scriptures, I find
it written in the Book of Job, that holy man
being the speaker, "Behold, piety, that is
wisdom; but to depart from evil is knowl-
edge." 7 In thus distinguishing, it must be
understood that wisdom belongs to contem-
plation, knowledge to action. For in this
place he meant by piety the worship of God,
which in Greek is called deooifisia. For the
sentence in the Greek mss. has that word.
And what is there in eternal things more
excellent than God, of whom alone the nature
is unchangeable? And what is the worship
of Him except the love of Him, by which we
now desire to see Him, and we believe and
hope that we shall see Him; and in propor-
tion as we make progress, see now through
a glass in an enigma, but then in clearness ?
For this is what the Apostle Paul means by
"face to face." 8 This is also what John
says, " Beloved, now we are the sons of God,
and it doth not yet appear /vhat we shall be;
but we know that, when He shall appear, we
shall be like Him; for we shall see Him as
He is." 9 Discourse about these and the like
subjects seems to me to be the discourse
itself of wisdom. But to depart from evil,
which Job says is knowledge, is without doubt
of temporal things. Since it is in reference
to time [and this world] that we are in
evil, from which we ought to abstain that we
may come to those good eternal things. And
therefore, whatsoever we do prudently, boWly,
temperately, and justly, belongs to that
knowledge or discipline wherewith our action
is conversant in avoiding evil and desiring
good; and so also, whatsoever we gather by
the knowledge that comes from inquiry, in
the way of examples either to be guarded
against or to be imitated, and in the way of
necessary proofs respecting any subject,
accommodated to our use.
23. When a discourse then relates to these
things, I hold it to be a discourse belonging
to knowledge, and to be distinguished from
a discourse belonging to wisdom, to which
those things belong, which neither have been,
5 i Cor. xiii. 12.
8 1 Cor. xiii. 12.
6 1 Cor. xii. 8,
9 1 John iii. 2,
7 Job xxviii. 8.
164
THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
Book XII.
nor shall be, but are; and on account of that
eternity in which they are, are said to have
been, and to be, and to be about to be, with-
out any changeableness of times. For neither
have they been in such way as that they
should cease to be, nor are they about to be
in such way as if they were not now; but
they have always had and always will have
that very absolute being. And they abide,
but not as if fixed in some place as are
bodies; but as intelligible things in incor-
poreal nature, they are so at hand to the
glance of the mind, as things visible or tangi-
ble in place are to the sense of the body.
And not only in the case of sensible things
posited in place, there abide also intelligible
and incorporeal reasons of them apart from
local space; but also of motions that pass by
in successive times, apart from any transit
in time, there stand also like reasons, them-
selves certainly intelligible, and not sensible.
And to attain to these with the eye of the
mind is the lot of few; and when they are
attained, as much as they can be, he himself
who attains to them does not abide in them,
but is as it were repelled by the rebounding
of the eye itself of the mind, and so there
comes to be a transitory thought of a thing
not transitory. And yet this transient
thought is committed to the memory through
the instructions by which the mind is taught;
that the mind which is compelled to pass
from thence, may be able to return thither
again; although, if the thought should not
return to the memory and find there what it
had committed to it, it would be led thereto
like an uninstructed person, as it had been
led before, and would find it where it had
first found it, that is to say, in that incorporeal
truth, whence yet once more it may be as it
were written down and fixed in the mind.
For the thought of man, for example, does
not so abide in that incorporeal and un-
changeable reason of a square body, as that
reason itself abides: if, to be sure, it could
attain to it at all without the phantasy of
local space. Or if one were to apprehend
the rhythm of any artificial or musical sound,
passing through certain intervals of time, as
it rested without time in some secret and
deep silence, it could at least be thought as
long as that song could be heard; yet what
the glance of the mind, transient though it
was, caught from thence, and, absorbing as
it were into a belly, so laid up in the mem-
ory, over this it will be able to ruminate in
some measure by recollection, and to transfer
what it has thus learned into systematic
knowledge. But if this has been blotted out
by absolute forgetfulness, yet once again,
under the guidance of teaching, one will
come to that which had altogether dropped
away, and it will be found such as it was.
CHAP. 15. IN OPPOSITION TO THE REMINIS-
CENCE OF PLATO AND PYTHAGORAS. PYTHA-
GORAS THE SAMIAN. OF THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN WISDOM AND KNOWLEDGE, AND OF
SEEKING THE TRINITY IN THE KNOWLEDGE OF
TEMPORAL THINGS.
24. And hence that noble philosopher
Plato endeavored to persuade us that the
souls of men lived even before they bare
these bodies; and that hence those things
which are learnt are rather remembered,
as having been known already, than taken
into knowledge as things new. For he has
told us that a boy, when questioned I know
not what respecting geometry, replied as if
he were perfectly skilled in that branch of
learning. For being questioned step by step
and skillfully, he saw what was to be seen,
and said that which he saw. ' But if this
had been a recollecting of things previously
known, then certainly every one, or almost
every one, would not have been able so to an-
swer when questioned. For not every one was
a geometrician in the former life, since geome-
tricians are so few among men that scarcely
one can be found anywhere. But we ought
rather to believe, that the intellectual mind
is so formed in its nature as to see those
things, which by the disposition of the
Creator are subjoined to things intelligible in
a natural order, by a sort of incorporeal light
of an unique kind; as the eye of the flesh
sees things adjacent to itself in this bodily
light, of which light it is made to be recep-
tive, and adapted to it. For none the more
does this fleshly eye, too, distinguish black
things from white without a teacher, because
it had already known them before it was
created in this flesh. Why, lastly, is it
possible only in intelligible things that any
one properly questioned should answer ac-
cording to any branch of learning, although
ignorant of it ? Why can no one do this with
things sensible, except those which he has
seen in this his present body, or has believed
the information of others who knew them,
whether somebody's writings or words ? For
we must not acquiesce in their story, who
assert that the Samian Pythagoras recollected
some things of this kind, which he had ex-
perienced when he was previously here in
another body; and others tell yet of others,
that they experienced something of the same
1 [This fine specimen of the " obstetric method " of Socrates is
given in Plato's dialogue, Meno. W. G. T. S.]
Chap. XV.]
ON THE TRINITY.
165
sort in their minds: but it may be conjec-
tured that these were untrue recollections,
such as we commonly experience in sleep,
when we fancy we remember, as though we
had done or seen it, what we never did or
saw at all; and that the minds of these per-
sons, even though awake, were affected in
this way at the suggestion of malignant and
deceitful spirits, whose care it is to confirm
or to sow some false belief concerning the
changes of souls, in order to deceive men.
This, I say, may be conjectured from this,
that if they really remembered those things
which they had seen here before, while oc-
cupying other bodies, the same thing would
happen to many, nay to almost all; since
they suppose that as the dead from the liv-
ing, so, without cessation and continually, the
living are coming into existence from the
dead; as sleepers from those that are awake,
and those that are awake from them that
sleep.
25. If therefore this is the right distinction
between wisdom and knowledge, that the in-
tellectual cognizance of eternal things be-
longs to wisdom, but the rational cognizance
of temporal things to knowledge, it is not
difficult to judge which is to be preferred or
postponed to which. But if we must employ
some other distinction by which to know
these two apart, which without doubt the
apostle teaches us are different, saying, "To
one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom;
to another the word of knowledge, by the
same Spirit;" still the difference between
those two which we have laid down is a most
evident one, in that the intellectual cogni-
zance of eternal things is one thing, the rational
cognizance of temporal things another; and no
one doubts but that the former is to be pre-
ferred to the latter. As then we leave behind
those things which belong to the outer man,
and desire to ascend within from those things
which we have in common with beasts, before
we come to the cognizance of things intel-
ligible and supreme, which are eternal, the
rational cognizance of temporal things pre-
sents itself. Let us then find a trinity in this
also, if we can, as we found one in the senses
of the body, and in those things which
through them entered in the way of images
into our soul or spirit; so that instead of
corporeal things which we touch by corporeal
sense, placed as they are without us, we
might have resemblances of bodies impressed
within on the memory from which thought
might be formed, while the will as a third
united them; just as the sight of the eyes was
formed from without, which the will applied
to the visible thing in order to produce vision,
and united both, while itself also added itself
thereto as a third. But this subject must
not be compressed into this book; so that in
that which follows, if God help, it may be
suitably examined, and the conclusions to
which we come may be unfolded.
BOOK XIII.
THE INQUIRY IS PROSECUTED RESPECTING KNOWLEDGE, IN WHICH, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM WIS-
DOM, AUGUSTIN HAD BEGUN IN THE FORMER BOOK TO LOOK FOR A KIND OF TRINITY. AND
OCCASION IS TAKEN OF COMMENDING CHRISTIAN FAITH, AND OF EXPLAINING HOW THE FAITH
OF BELIEVERS IS ONE AND COMMON. NEXT, THAT ALL DESIRE BLESSEDNESS, YET THAT ALL
HAVE NOT THE FAITH WHEREBY WE ARRIVE AT BLESSEDNESS ; AND THAT THIS FAITH IS DE-
FINED IN CHRIST, WHO IN THE FLESH ROSE FROM THE DEAD ; AND THAT NO ONE IS SET FREE
FROM THE DOMINION OF THE DEVIL THROUGH FORGIVENESS OF SINS, SAVE THROUGH HIM.
IT IS SHOWN ALSO AT LENGTH THAT IT WAS NEEDFUL THAT THE DEVIL SHOULD BE CON-
QUERED BY CHRIST, NOT BY POWER, BUT BY RIGHTEOUSNESS. FINALLY, THAT WHEN THE
WORDS OF THIS FAITH ARE COMMITTED TO MEMORY, THERE IS IN THE MIND A KIND OF
TRINITY, SINCE THERE ARE, FIRST, IN THE MEMORY THE SOUNDS OF THE WORDS, AND THIS
EVEN WHEN THE MAN IS NOT THINKING OF THEM ; AND NEXT, THE MIND'S EYE OF HIS
RECOLLECTION IS FORMED THEREUPON WHEN HE THINKS OF THEM J AND, LASTLY, THE WILL,
WHEN HE SO THINKS AND REMEMBERS, COMBINES BOTH.
CHAP. I. THE ATTEMPT IS MADE TO DISTIN-
GUISH OUT OF THE SCRIPTURES THE OFFICES
OF WISDOM AND OF KNOWLEDGE. THAT IN
THE BEGINNING OF JOHN SOME THINGS THAT
ARE SAID BELONG TO WISDOM, SOME TO
KNOWLEDGE. SOME THINGS THERE ARE ONLY
KNOWN BY THE HELP OF FAITH. HOW WE
SEE THE FAITH THAT IS IN US. IN THE
SAME NARRATIVE OF JOHN, SOME THINGS ARE
KNOWN BY THE SENSE OF THE BODY, OTHERS
ONLY BY THE REASON OF THE MIND.
i. In the book before this, viz. the twelfth
of this work, we have done enough to distin-
guish the office of the rational mind in tem-
poral things, wherein not only our knowing
but our action is concerned, from the more
excellent office of the same mind, which is
employed in contemplating eternal things,
and is limited to knowing alone. But I think
it more convenient that I should insert some-
what out of the Holy Scriptures, by which the
two may more easily be distinguished.
2. John the Evangelist has thus begun his
Gospel: " In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God, and the Word
was God. The same was in the beginning
with God. All things were made by Him;
and without Him was not anything made that
was made. In Him was life; and the life was
the light of men. And the light shineth in
darkness; and the darkness comprehended it
not. There was a man sent from God, whose
name was John. The same came for a wit-
ness, to bear witness of the Light, that all
men through Him might believe. He was
not that Light, but was sent to bear witness
of that Light. That was the true Light,
which lighteth every man that cometh into
the world. He was in the world, and the
world was made by Him, and the world knew
Him not. He came unto His own, and His
own received Him not. But as many as re-
ceived Him, to them gave He power to be-
come the sons of God, even to them that be-
lieve on His name: which were born, not of
blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the
will of man, but of God. And the Word was
made flesh, and dwelt among us (and we be-
held His glory, the glory as of the only-be-
gotten of the Father), full of grace and
truth." 1 This entire passage, which I have
1 John i. 1-14.
Chap. I.]
ON THE TRINITY
167
here taken from the Gospel, contains in its
earlier portions what is immutable and eter-
nal, the contemplation of which makes us
blessed; but in those which follow, eternal
things are mentioned in conjunction with
temporal things. And hence some things
there belong to knowledge, some to wisdom,
according to our previous distinction in the
twelfth book. For the words, "In the be-
ginning was the Word, and the Word was
with God, and the Word was God. The same
was in the beginning with God. All things
were made by Him; and without Him was
not anything made that was made. In Him
was life; and the life was the light of men.
And the light shineth in darkness, and the
darkness comprehended it not:" require a
contemplative life, and must be discerned by
the intellectual mind; and the more any one
has profited in this, the wiser without doubt
will he become. But on account of the verse,
" The light shineth in darkness, and the dark-
ness comprehended it not," faith certainly
was necessary, whereby that which was not
seen might be believed. For by " darkness "
he intended to signify the hearts of mortals
turned away from light of this kind, and
hardly able to behold it; for which reason he
subjoins, " There was a man sent from God,
whose name was John. The same came for
a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that
all men through Him might believe." But
here we come to a thing that was done in time,
and belongs to knowledge, which is comprised
in the cognizance of facts. And we think of
the man John under that phantasy which is
impressed on our memory from the notion
of human nature. And whether men believe
or not, they think this in the same manner.
For both alike know what man is, the outer
part of whom, that is, his body, they have
learned through the eyes of the body; but
of the inner, that is, the soul, they possess
the knowledge in themselves, because they
also themselves are men, and through inter-
course with men; so that they are able to
think what is said, " There was a man, whose
name was John,'' because they know the
names also by interchange of speech. But
that which is there also, viz. " sent from
God," they who hold at all, hold by faith;
and they who do not hold it by faith, either
hesitate through doubt, or deride it through
unbelief. Yet both, if they are not in the
number of those over-foolish ones, who say
in their heart " There is no God,'' 1 when they
hear these words, think both things, viz. both
what God is, and what it is to be sent from
God; and if they do not do this as the things
themselves really are, they do it at any rate
as they can.
3. Further, we know from other sources
the faith itself which a man sees to be in his
own heart, if he believes, or not to be there,
if he does not believe: but not as we know
bodies, which we see with the bodily eyes,
and think of even when absent through the
images of themselves which we retain in
memory; nor yet as those things which we
have not seen, and which we frame howso-
ever we can in thought from those which we
have seen, and commit them to memory, that
we may recur to them when we will, in order
that therein we may similarly by recollection
discern them, or rather discern the images of
them, of what sort soever these are which we
have fixed there; nor again as a living man,
whose soul we do not indeed see, but conjec-
ture from our own, and from corporeal mo-
tions gaze also in thought upon the living
man, as we have learnt him by sight. Faith
is not so seen in the heart in which it is, by
him whose it is; but most certain knowledge
holds it fast, and conscience proclaims it.
Although therefore we are bidden to believe
on this account, because we cannot see what
we are bidden to believe; nevertheless we see
faith itself in ourselves, when that faith is in
us; because faith even in absent things is
present, and faith in things which are without
us is within, and faith in things which are not
seen is itself seen, and itself none the less
comes into the hearts of men in time; and if
any cease to be faithful and become unbe-
lievers, then it perishes from them. And
sometimes faith is accommodated even to
falsehoods; for we sometimes so speak as to
say, I put faith in him, and he deceived me.
And this kind of faith, if indeed it too is to
be called faith, perishes from the heart with-
out blame, when truth is found and expels it.
But faith in things that are true, passes, as
one should wish it to pass, into the things
themselves. For we must not say that faith
perishes, when those things which were be-
lieved are seen. For is it indeed still to be
called faith, when faith, according to the
definition in the Epistle to the Hebrews, is
the evidence of things not seen ? =
4. In the words which follow next, " The
same came for a witness, to bear witness of
the Light, that all men through him might
believe;" the action, as we have said, is one
done in time. For to bear witness even to
that which is eternal, as is that light that is
intelligible, is a thing done in time. And
1 Ps.
2 Heb. xi. 1.
1 68
THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[Book XIII.
of this it was that John came to bear witness,
who "was not that Light, but was sent to
bear witness of that Light." For he adds,
" That was the true Light that lighteth every
man that cometh into the world. He was in
the world, and the world was made by Him,
and the world knew Him not. He came unto
His own, and His own received Him not."
Now they who know the Latin language, un-
derstand all these words, from those things
which they know: and of these, some have
become known to us through the senses of
the body, as man, as the world itself, of
which the greatness is so evident to our sight;
as again the sounds of the words themselves,
for hearing also is a sense of the body; and
some through the reason of the mind, as that
which is said, "And His own received Him
not;" for this means, that they did not be-
lieve in Him; and what belief is, we do not
know by any sense of the body, but by the
reason of the mind. We have learned, too,
not the sounds, but the meanings of the words
themselves, partly through the sense of the
body, partly through the reason of the mind.
Nor have we now heard those words for the
first time, but they are words we had heard
before. And we were retaining in our mem-
ory as things known, and we here recognized,
not only the words themselves, but also what
they meant. For when the bisyllabic word
mundiis is uttered, then something that is cer-
tainly corporeal, for it is a sound, has become
known through the body, that is, through the
ear. But that which it means also, has be-
come known through the body, that is,
through the eyes of the flesh. For so far as
the world is known to us at all, it is known
through sight. But the quadri-syllabic word
crediderunt reaches us, so far as its sound,
since that is a corporeal thing, through the
ear of the flesh; but its meaning is discover-
able by no sense of the body, but by the
reason of the mind. For unless we knew
through the mind what the word credidenmt
meant, we should not understand what they
did not do, of whom it is said, " And His own
received Him not." The sound then of the
word rings upon the ears of the body from
without, and reaches the sense which is called
hearing. The species also of man is both
known to us in ourselves, and is presented to
the senses of the body from without, in other
men; to the eyes, when it is seen; to the ears,
when it is heard; to the touch, when it is held
and touched; and it has, too, its image in our
memory, incorporeal indeed, but like the
body. Lastly, the wonderful beauty of the
world itself is at hand from without, both to
our gaze, and to that sense which is called
touch, if we come in contact with any of it:
and this also has its image within in our
memory, to which we revert, when we think
of it either in the enclosure of a room, or
again in darkness. But we have already
sufficiently spoken in the eleventh book of
these images of corporeal things; incorporeal
indeed, yet having the likeness of bodies, and
belonging to the life of the outer man. But
we are treating now of the inner man, and of
his knowledge, namely, that knowledge which
is of things temporal and changeable; into
the purpose and scope of which, when any-
thing is assumed, even of things belonging
to the outer man, it must be assumed for this
end, that something may thence be taught
which may help rational knowledge. And
hence the rational use of those things which
we have in common with irrational animals
belongs to the inner man; neither can it
rightly be said that this is common to us with
the irrational animals.
CHAP. 2. FAITH A THING OF THE HEART, NOT
OF THE BODY ; HOW IT IS COMMON AND ONE
AND THE SAME IN ALL BELIEVERS. THE FAITH
OF BELIEVERS IS ONE, NO OTHERWISE THAN
THE WILL OF THOSE WHO WILL IS ONE.
5. But faith, of which we are compelled,
by reason of the arrangement of our subject,
to dispute somewhat more at length in this
book: faith I say, which they who have are
called the faithful, and they who have not,
unbelievers, as were those who did not receive
the Son of God coming to His own; although
it is wrought in us by hearing, yet does not
belong to that sense of the body which is
called hearing, since it is not a sound; nor to
the eyes of this our flesh, since it is neither
color nor bodily form; nor to that which is
called touch, since it has nothing of bulk; nor
to any sense of the body at all, since it is a
thing of the heart, not of the body; nor is it
without apart from us, but deeply seated within
us; nor does any man see it in another, but
each one in himself. Lastly, it is a thing
that can both be feigned by pretence, and be
thought to be in him in whom it is not.
Therefore every one sees his own faith in
himself; but does not see, but believes, that
it is in another; and believes this the more
firmly, the more he knows the fruits of it,
which faith is wont to work by love. ' And
therefore this faith is common to all of whom
the evangelist subjoins, " But as many as re-
ceived Him, to them gave He power to be-
come the sons of God, even to them that be-
lieve on His name: which were born, not of
Gal. v. 6.
Chap. III.]
ON THE TRINITY.
169
blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the
will of man, but of God;" common I say, not
as any form of a bodily object is common, as
regards sight, to the eyes of all to whom it is
present, for in some way the gaze of all that
behold it is informed by the same one form;
but as the human countenance can be said to
be common to all men; for this is so said,
that yet each certainly has his own. We say
certainly with perfect truth, that the faith of
believers is impressed from one doctrine upon
the heart of each several person who believes
the same thing. But that which is believed
is a different thing from the faith by which
it is believed. For the former is in things
which are said either to be, or to have been,
or to be about to be; bit the latter is in the
mind of the believer, and is visible to him
only whose it is; although not indeed itself,
but a faith like it, is also in others. For it is
not one in number, but in kind; yet on ac-
count of the likeness, and the absence of all
difference, we rather call it one than many.
For when, too, we see two men exceedingly
alike, 'we wonder, and say that both have one
countenance. It is therefore more easily
said that the souls were many, a several
soul, of course, for each several person of
whom we read in the Acts of the Apostles,
that they were of one soul, 1 than it is, where
the apostle speaks of "one faith," 2 for any
one to venture to say that there are as many
faiths as there are faithful. And yet He who
says, "O woman, great is thy faith;" 3 and
to another, "O thou of little faith, where-
fore didst thou doubt ?" 4 intimates that each
has his own faith. But the like faith of be-
lievers is said to be one, in the same way as
a like will of those who will is said to be one;
since in the case also of those who have the
same will, the will of each is visible to him-
self, but that of the other is not visible, al-
though he wills the same thing; and if it in-
timate itself by any signs, it is believed rather
than seen. But each being conscious of his
own mind certainly does not believe, but
manifestly sees outright, that this is his own
will.
CHAP. 3. SOME DESIRES BEING THE SAME
IN ALL, ARE KNOWN TO EACH. THE POET
ENNIUS.
6. There is, indeed, so closely conspiring a
harmony in the same nature living and using
reason, that although one knows not what
the other wills, yet there are some wills of all
which are also known to each; and although
1 Acts. iv. 32.
3 Matt. xv. 2S.
2 Eph. iv. 5.
4 Matt. xiv. 31.
each man does not know what any other one
man wills, yet in some things he may know
what all will. And hence comes that story
of the comic actor's witty joke, who promised
that he would say in the theatre, in some
other play, what all had in their minds, and
what all willed; and when a still greater crowd
had come together on the day appointed,
with great expectation, all being in suspense
and silent, is affirmed to have said: You
will to buy cheap, and sell dear. And mean
actor though he was, yet all in his words rec-
ognized what themselves were conscious of,
and applauded him with wonderful goodwill,
for saying before the eyes of all what was
confessedly true, yet what no one looked for.
And why was so great expectation raised by
his promising that he would say what was the
will of all, unless because no man knows the
wills of other men ? But did not he know
that will ? Is there any one who does not
know it ? Yet why, unless because there are
some things which not unfitly each conjec-
tures from himself to be in others, through
sympathy or agreement either in vice or vir-
tue ? But it is one thing to see one's own
will; another to conjecture, however certainly,
what is another's. For, in human affairs, I
am as certain that Rome was built as that
Constantinople was, although I have seen
Rome with my eyes, but know nothing of the
other city, except what I have believed on the
testimony of others. And truly that comic
actor believed it to be common to all to will
to buy cheap and sell dear, either by observ-
ing himself or by making experiment also
of others. But since such a will is in truth a
fault, every one can attain the counter virtue,
or run into the mischief of some other fault
which is contrary to it, whereby to resist and
conquer it. For I myself know a case where
a manuscript was offered to a man for pur-
chase, who perceived that the vendor was ig-
norant of its value, and was therefore asking
something very small,* and who thereupon
gave him, though not expecting it, the just
price, which was much more. Suppose even
the case of a man possessed with wickedness
so great as to sell cheap what his parents left
to him, and to buy dear, in order to waste it
on his own lusts ? Such wanton extravagance,
I fancy, is not incredible; and if such men
are sought, they may be found, or even fall
in one's way although not sought; who. by a
wickedness more than that of the theatre,
make a mock of the theatrical proposition or
declaration, by buying dishonor at a great
price, while selling lands at a small one. We
have heard, too, of persons that, for the sake
of distribution, have bought corn at a higher
I/O
THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[Book XIII.
price, and sold it to their fellow-citizens at a
lower one. And note also what the old poet
Ennius has said: that '"'all mortals wish
themselves to be praised;" wherein, doubt-
less, he conjectured what was in others, both
by himself, and by those whom he knew by
experience; and so seems to have declared
what it is that all men will. Lastly, if that
comic actor himself, too, had said, You all
will to be praised, no one of you wills to be
abused; he would have seemed in like man-
ner to have expressed what all will. Yet
there are some who hate their own faults, and
do not desire to be praised by others for that
for which they are displeased with themselves;
and who thank the kindness of those who re-
buke them, when the purpose of that rebuke
is their own amendment. But if he had said,
You all will to be blessed, you do not will to
be wretched; he would have said something
which there is no one that would not recognize
in his own will. For whatever else a man
may will secretly, he does not withdraw from
that will, which is well known to all men, and
well known to be in all men.
CHAP. 4. THE WILL TO POSSESS BLESSEDNESS
IS ONE IN ALL, BUT THE VARIETY OF WILLS IS
VERY GREAT CONCERNING THAT BLESSEDNESS
ITSELF.
7. It is wonderful, however, since the will
to obtain and retain blessedness is one in all,
whence comes, on the other hand, such a
variety and diversity of wills concerning that
blessedness itself; not that any one is unwill-
ing to have it, but that all do not know it.
For if all knew it, it would not be thought by
some to be in goodness of mind; by others,
in pleasure of body; by others, in both; and
by some in one thing, by others in another.
For as men find special delight in this thing
or that, so have they placed in it their idea
of a blessed life. How, then, do all love so
warmly what not all know? Who can love
what he does not know? a subject which I
have already discussed in the preceding
books. z Why, therefore, is blessedness
loved by all, when it is not known by all ? Is
it perhaps that all know what it is itself, but
all do not know where it is to be found, and
that the dispute arises from this ? as if, for-
sooth, the business was about some place in
this world, where every one ought to will to
live who wills to live blessedly; and as if the
question where blessedness is were not im-
plied in the question what it is. For cer-
tainly, if it is in the pleasure of the body, he
is blessed who enjoys the pleasure of the
P.ks.
fin. c. 4, etc., x. c. 1.
body; if in goodness of mind, he has it who
enjoys this; if in both, he who enjoys both.
When, therefore, one says, to live blessedly
is to enjoy the pleasure of the body; but an-
other, to live blessedly is to enjoy goodness
of mind; is it not, that either both know, or
both do not know, what a blessed life is ?
How, then, do both love it, if no one can love
what he does not know? Or is that perhaps
false which we have assumed to be most true
and most certain, viz. that all men will to live
blessedly? For if to live blessedly is, for
argument's sake, to live according to good-
ness of mind, how does he will to live bless-
edly who does not will this ? Should we not
say more truly, That man does not will to
live blessedly, because he does not wish to
live according to goodness, which alone is to
live blessedly ? Therefore all men do not
will to live blessedly; on the contrary, few
wish it; if to live blessedly is nothing else
but to live according to goodness of mind,
which many do not will to do. Shall we,
then, hold that to be false of which the Aca-
demic Cicero himself did not doubt (although
Academics doubt every thing), who, when he
wanted in the dialogue Hortcnsius to find
some certain thing, of which no one doubted,
from which to start his argument, says, We
certainly all will to be blessed ? Far be it
from me to say this is false. But what then ?
Are we to say that, although there is no other
way of living blessedly than living according
to goodness of mind, yet even he who does
not will this, wills to live blessedly? This,
indeed, seems too absurd. For it is much
as if we should say, Even he who does not will
to live blessedly, wills to live blessedly.
Who could listen to, who could endure, such
a contradiction? And yet necessity thrusts
us into this strait, if it is both true that all
will to live blessedly, and yet all do not will
to live in that way in which alone one can
live blessedly.
CHAP. 5. OF THE SAME THING.
8. Or is, perhaps, the deliverance from our
difficulties to be found in this, that, since we
have said that every one places his idea of a
blessed life in that which has most pleased
him, as pleasure pleased Epicurus, and good-
ness Zeno, and something else pleased other
people, we say that to live blessedly is noth-
ing else but to live according to one's own
pleasure: so that it is not false that all will
to live blessedly, "because all will that which
pleases each? For if this, too, had been
proclaimed to the people in the theatre, all
would have found it in their own wills. But
Chap. VII.]
ON THE TRINITY.
171
when Cicero, too, had propounded this in
opposition to himself, he so refuted it as to
make them blush who thought so. For he
says: "But, behold! people who are not
indeed philosophers, but who yet are prompt
to dispute, say that all are blessed, whoever
live as they will; " which is what we mean
by, as pleases each. But by and by he has
subjoined: " But this is indeed false. For
to will what is not fitting, is itself most mis-
erable; neither is it so miserable not to obtain
what one wills, as to will to obtain what one
ought not." Most excellently and altogether
most truly does he speak. For who can be
so blind in his mind, so alienated from all
light of decency, and wrapped up in the
darkness of indecency, as to call him blessed,
because he lives as he will, who lives wickedly
and disgracefully; and with no one restraining
him, no one punishing, and no one daring
even to blame him, nay more, too, with most
people praising him, since, as divine Scripture
says, "The wicked is praised in his heart's
desire; and he who works iniquity is
blessed," 1 gratifies all his most criminal and
flagitious desires; when, doubtless, although
even so he would be wretched, yet he would
be less wretched, if he could have had nothing
of those things which he had wrongly willed ?
For every one is made wretched by a wicked
will also, even though it stop short with will;
but more wretched by the power by which the
longing of a wicked will is fulfilled. And,
therefore, since it is true that all men will to be
blessed, and that they seek for this one thing
with the most ardent love, and on account of
this seek everything which they do seek; nor
can any one love that of which he does not
know at all what or of what sort it is, nor can
be ignorant what that is which he knows that
he wills; it follows that all know a blessed
life. But all that are blessed have what they
will, although not all who have what they will
are forewith blessed. But they are forewith
wretched, who either have not what they will,
or have that which they do not rightly will.
Therefore he only is a blessed man, who
both has all things which he wills, and wills
nothing ill.
CHAP. 6. WHY, WHEN ALL WILL TO BE BLESSED,
THAT IS RATHER CHOSEN BY WHICH ONE
WITHDRAWS FROM BEING SO.
9. Since, then, a blessed life consists of
these two things, and is known to all, and dear
to all; what can we think to be the cause
why, when they cannot have both, men
choose, out of these two, to have all things
that they will, rather than to will all things
1 Ps.
well, even although they do not have them ?
Is it the depravity itself of the human race,
in such wise that, while they are not unaware
that neither is he blessed who has not what
he wills, nor he who has what he wills
wrongly, but he who both has whatsoever
good things he wills, and wills no evil ones,
yet, when both are not granted of those two
things in which the blessed life consists, that
is rather chosen by which one is withdrawn
the more from a blessed life (since he cer-
tainly is further from it who obtains things
which he wickedly desired, than he who only
does not obtain the things which he desired);
whereas the good will ought rather to be
chosen, and to be preferred, even if it do not
obtain the things which it seeks ? For he
comes near to being a blessed man, who wills
well whatsoever he wills, and wills things,
which when he obtains, he will be blessed.
And certainly not bad things, but good,
make men blessed, when they do so make
them. And of good things he already has
something, and that, too, a something not
to be lightly esteemed, namely, the very
good will itself; who longs to rejoice in those
good things of which human nature is capa-
ble, and not in the performance or the attain-
ment of any evil; and who follows diligently,
and attains as much as he can, with a pru-
dent, temperate, courageous, and right mind,
such good things as are possible in the pre-
sent miserable life; so as to be good even in
evils, and when all evils have been put an end
to, and all good things fulfilled, then to be
blessed.
CHAP. 7. FAITH IS NECESSARY, THAT MAN MAY
AT SOME TIME BE BLESSED, WHICH HE WILL
ONLY ATTAIN IN THE FUTURE LIFE. THE
BLESSEDNESS OF PROUD PHILOSOPHERS RIDIC-
ULOUS AND PITIABLE.
10. And on this account, faith, by which
men believe in God, is above all things nec-
essary in this mortal life, most full as it is of
errors and hardships. For there are no good
things whatever, and above all, not those by
which any one is made good, or those by
which he will become blessed, of which any
other source can be found whence they come
to man, and are added to man, unless it be
from God. But when he who is good and
faithful in these miseries shall have come
from this life to the blessed life, then will
truly come to pass what now is absolutely
impossible, namely, that a man may live
as he will. 2 For he will not will to live badly
2 [The prophet Nathan enunciates the same truth, in his words
to David, " Go do all that is in thine heart ; for the Lord is with
thee." 2 Sam. vii. 3. W. G. T. S.]
172
THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[Book XIII.
in the midst of that felicity, nor will he will
anything that will be wanting, nor will there
be wanting anything which he shall have
willed. Whatever shall be loved, will be
present; nor will that be longed for, which
shall not be present. Everything which will
be there will be good, and the supreme God
will be the supreme good and will be present
for those to enjoy who love Him; and what
altogether is most blessed, it will be certain
that it will be so forever. But now, indeed,
philosophers have made for themselves, ac-
cording to the pleasure of each, their own
ideals of a blessed life; that they might be
able, as it were by their own power, to do
that, which by the common conditions of
mortals they were not able to do, namely,
to live as they would. For they felt that no
one could be blessed otherwise than by hav-
ing what he would, and by suffering nothing
which he would not. And who would not
will, that the life whatsoever it be, with which
he is delighted, and which he therefore calls
blessed, were so in his own power, that he
could have it continually ? And yet who is
in tiiis condition ? Who wills to suffer trou-
bles in order that he may endure them man-
fully, although he both wills and is able to
endure them if he does suffer them? Who
would will to live in torments, even although
he is able to live laudably by holding fast to
righteousness in the midst of them through
patience ? They who have endured these
evils, either in wishing to have or in fearing to
lose what they loved, whether wickedly or
laudably, have thought of them as transitory.
For many have stretched boldly through
transitory evils to good things which will last.
And these, doubtless, are blessed through
hope, even while actually suffering such
transitory evils, through which they arrive at
good things which will not be transitory.
But he who is blessed through hope is not yet
blessed: for he expects, through patience,
a blessedness which he does not yet grasp.
Whereas he, on the other hand, who is tor-
mented without any such hope, without any
such reward, let him use as much endurance
as he pleases, is not truly blessed, but bravely
miserable. For he is not on that account
not miserable, because he would be more so
if he also bore misery impatiently. Further,
even if he does not suffer those things which
he would not will to suffer in his own body,
not even then is he to be esteemed blessed,
inasmuch as he does not live as he wills.
For to omit other things, which, while the
body remains unhurt, belong to those annoy-
ances of the mind, without which we should
will to live, and which are innumerable; he
would will, at any rate, if he were able, so
to have his body safe and sound, and so to
suffer no inconveniences from it, as to have
it within his own control, or even to have it
with an imperishableness of the body itself;
and because he does not possess this, and
hangs in doubt about it, he certainly does
not live as he wills. For although he may
be ready from fortitude to accept, and bear
with an equal mind, whatever adversities
may happen to him, yet he had rather they
should not happen, and prevents them if he
is able; and he is in such way ready for both
alternatives, that, as much as is in him, he
wishes for the one and shuns the other; and
if he have fallen into that which he shuns,
he therefore bears it willingly, because that
could not happen which he willed. He bears it,
therefore, in order that he may not be crushed ;
but he would not willingly be even burdened.
How, then, does he live as he wills ? Is it
because he is willingly strong to bear what he
would not will to be put upon him ? Then
he only wills what he can, because he can-
not have what he wills. And here is the
sum-total of the blessedness of proud mor-
tals, I know not whether to be laughed at, or
not rather to be pitied, who boast that they
live as they will, because they willingly bear
patiently what they are unwilling should hap-
pen to them. For this, they say, is like
Terence's wise saying,
"Since that cannot be which you will, will that which
thou canst." "
That this is aptly said, who denies ? But it
is advice given to the miserable man, that
he may not be more miserable. And it is
not rightly or truly said to the blessed man,
such as all wish themselves to be, That cannot
be which you will. For if he is blessed,
whatever he wills can be; since he does not
will that which cannot be. But such a life is
not for this mortal state, neither will it come
to pass unless when immortality also shall
come to pass. And if this could not be
given at all to man, blessedness too would be
sought in vain, since it cannot be without
immortality.
CHAP. 8. BLESSEDNESS CANNOT EXIST WITH-
OUT IMMORTALITY.
11. As, therefore, all men will to be
blessed, certainly, if they will truly, they will
also to be immortal; for otherwise they could
not be blessed. And further, if questioned
also concerning immortality, as before con-
cerning blessedness, all reply that they will
1 Andreia, Act ii. Scene 1, v. 5, 6.
Chap. IX.]
ON THE TRINITY.
l 73
it. But blessedness of what quality soever,
such as is not so, but rather is so called, is
sought, nay indeed is feigned in this life,
whilst immortality is despaired of, without
which true blessedness cannot be. Since
he lives blessedly, as we have already said
before, and have sufficiently proved and con-
cluded, who lives as he wills, and wills noth-
ing wrongly. But no one wrongly wills im-
mortality, if human nature is by God's gift
capable of it; and if it is not capable of it, it
is not capable of blessedness. For, that a
man may live blessedly, he must needs live.
And if life quits him by his dying, how can
a blessed life remain with him ? And when
it quits him, without doubt it either quits
him unwilling, or willing, or neither. If
unwilling, how is the life blessed which is so
within his will as not to be within his power ?
And whereas no one is blessed who wills
something that he does not have, how much
less is he blessed who is quitted against his
will, not by honor, nor by possessions, nor
by any other thing, but by the blessed life
itself, since he will have no life at all ? And
hence, although no feeling is left for his life
to be thereby miserable (for the blessed life
quits him, because life altogether quits him),
yet he is wretched as long as he feels, be-
cause he knows that against -his will that is
being destroyed for the sake of which he
loves all else, and which he loves beyond all
else. A life therefore cannot both be blessed,
and yet quit a man against his will, since no
one becomes blessed against his will; and
hence how much more does it make a man
miserable by quitting him against his will,
when it would make him miserable if he had
it against his will ! But if it quit him with
his will, even so how was that a blessed life,
which he who had it willed should perish ?
It remains then for them to say, that neither
of these is in the mind of the blessed man;
that is, that he is neither unwilling nor willing
to be quitted by a blessed life, when through
death life quits him altogether; for that he
stands firm with an even heart, prepared alike
for either alternative. But neither is that a
blessed life which is such as to be unworthy
of his love whom it makes blessed. For how
is that a blessed life which the blessed man
.does not love? Or how is that loved, of
which it is received indifferently, whether it
is to flourish or to perish ? Unless perhaps
the virtues, which we love in this way on
account of blessedness alone, venture to
persuade us that we do not love blessedness
itself. Yet if they did this, we should cer-
tainly leave off loving the virtues themselves,
when we do not love that on account oi
which alone we loved them. And further,
how will that opinion be true, which has been
so tried, and sifted, and thoroughly strained,
and is so certain, viz. that all men will to be
blessed, if they themselves who are already
blessed neither will nor do not will to be
blessed ? Or if they will it, as truth pro-
claims, as nature constrains, in which indeed
the supremely good and unchangeably
blessed Creator has implanted that will: if, I
say, they will to be blessed who are blessed,
certainly they do no will to be not blessed.
But if they do not will not to be blessed,
without doubt they do not will to be annihi-
lated and perish in regard to their blessed-
ness. But they cannot be blessed except
they are alive; therefore they do not will so
to perish in regard to their life. Therefore,
whoever are either truly blessed or desire to
be so, will to be immortal. But he does not
live blessedly who has not that which he wills.
Therefore it follows that in no way can life
be truly blessed unless it be eternal.
CHAP 9. WE SAY THAT FUTURE BLESSEDNESS
IS TRULY ETERNAL, NOT THROUGH HUMAN
REASONINGS, BUT BY THE HELP OF FAITH.
THE IMMORTALITY OF BLESSEDNESS BECOMES
CREDIBLE FROM THE INCARNATION OF THE
SON OF GOD.
12. Whether human nature can receive
this, which yet it confesses to be desirable,
is no small question. But if faith be present,
which is in those to whom Jesus has given
power to become the sons of God, then there
is no question. Assuredly, of those who
endeavor to discover it from human reason-
ings, scarcely a few, and they endued with
great abilities, and abounding in leisure, and
learned with the most subtle learning, have
been able to attain to the investigation of
the immortality of the soul alone. And even
for the soul they have not found a blessed
life that is stable, that is, true; since they
have said that it returns to the miseries of
this life even after blessedness. And they
among them who are ashamed of this opinion,
and have thought that the purified soul is to
be placed in eternal happiness without a
body, hold such opinions concerning the past
eternity of the world, as to confute this
opinion of theirs concerning the soul: a thing
which here it is too long to demonstrate; but
it has been, as I think, sufficiently explained
by us in the twelfth book of the City of God*
But that faith promises, not by human rea-
soning, but by divine authority, that the
whole man, who certainly consists of soul
1 C. 20.
174
THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[Book XIII.
and body, shall be immortal, and on this ac-
count truly blessed. And so, when it had
been said in the Gospel, that Jesus has given
" power to become the sons of God to them
who received Him; '' and what it is to have
received Him had been shortly explained by
saying, " To them that believe on His name; "
and it was further added in what way they
are to become sons of God, viz., "Which
were born not of blood, nor of the will of the
flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God; "
lest that infirmity of men which we all see
and bear should despair of attaining so great
excellence, it is added in the same place,
"And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt
among us;" 1 that, on the contrary, men
might be convinced of that which seemed
incredible. For if He who is by nature the
Son of God was made the Son of man through
mercy for the sake of the sons of men, for
this is what is meant by " The Word was
made flesh, and dwelt among us " men,
how much more credible is it that the sons of
men by nature should be made the sons of
God by the grace of God, and should dwell
in God, in whom alone and from whom alone
the blessed can be made partakers of that
immortality; of which that we might be con-
vinced, the Son of God was made partaker
of our mortality ?
CHAP. IO. THERE WAS NO OTHER MORE SUIT-
ABLE WAY OF FREEING MAN FROM THE MISERY
OF MORTALITY THAN THE INCARNATION OF
THE WORD. THE MERITS WHICH ARE CALLED
OURS ARE THE GIFTS OF GOD.
13. Those then who say, What, had God
no other way by which He might free men from
the misery of this mortality, that He should
will the only-begotten Son, God co-eternal
with Himself, to become man, by putting on
a human soul and flesh, and being made
mortal to endure death? these, I say, it is
not enough so to refute, as to assert that
that mode by which God deigns to free us
through the Mediator of God and men, the
man Christ Jesus, is good and suitable to the
-dignity of God; but we must show also, not
indeed that no other mode was possible to
God, to whose power all things are equally
subject, but that there neither was nor need
have been any other mode more appropriate for
curing our misery. For what was so neces-
sary for the building up of our hope, and for
the freeing the minds of mortals cast down
by the condition of mortality itself, from
despair of immortality, than that it should be
demonstrated to us at how great a price God
1 John 1. 12-14.
rated us, and how greatly He loved us ? But
what is more manifest and evident in this so
great proof hereof, than that the Son of God,
unchangeably good, remaining what He was
in Himself, and receiving from us and for us
what He was not, apart from any loss of His
own nature, and deigning to enter into the
fellowship of ours, should first, without any
evil desert of His own, bear our evils; and so
with unobligated munificence should bestow
His own gifts upon us, who now believe how
much God loves us, and who now hope that
of which we used to despair, without any
good deserts of our own, nay, with our evil
deserts too going before?
14. Since those also which are called our
deserts, are His gifts. For, that faith may
work by love, 2 "the love of God is shed
abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which
is given unto us/' 3 And He was then given,
when Jesus was glorified by the resurrection.
For then He promised that He Himself
would send Him, and He sent Him; 4 be-
cause then, as it was written and foretold of
Him, "He ascended up on high, He led
captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men." 5
These gifts constitute our deserts, by which
we arrive at the chief good of an immortal
blessedness. " But God," says the apostle,
" commendeth His love towards us, in that,
while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
Much more, then, being now justified by His
blood, we shall be saved from wrath through
Him." To this he goes on to add, " For if,
when we were enemies, we were reconciled to
God by the death of His Son; much more,
being reconciled, we shall be saved by His
life." Those whom he first calls sinners he
afterwards calls the enemies of God; and
those whom he first speaks of as justified by
His blood, he afterwards speaks of as recon-
ciled by the death of the Son of God; and
those whom he speaks of first as saved from
wrath through Him, he afterwards speaks of
as saved by His life. We were not, there-
fore, before that grace merely anyhow sinners,
but in such sins that we were enemies of
God. But the same apostle calls us above
several times by two appellations, viz. sinners
and enemies of God, one as if the most
mild, the other plainly the most harsh,
saying, "For if when we were yet weak, in*
due time Christ died for the ungodly." 6
Those whom he called weak, the same he
called ungodly. Weakness seems something
slight; but sometimes it is such as to be called
impiety. Yet except it were weakness, it
2 Gal. v. 5. 3 Rom. v. 4, 5.
4 John xx, 22, vii. 39, and xv. 26.
5 Eph. iv. 8 and Ps. lxviii. 18. 6 Rom. v. 6-10.
Chap. XII.]
ON THE TRINITY.
175
would not need a physician, who is in the
Hebrew Jesus, in the Greek Iioryjp, but in
our speech Saviour. And this word the Latin
language had not previously, but could have,
seeing that it could have it when it wanted it.
And this foregoing sentence of the apostle,
where he says, " For when we were yet weak,
in due time He died for the ungodly," coheres
with those two following sentences; in the one
of which he spoke of sinners, in the other of
enemies of God, as though he referred each
severally to each, viz. sinners to the weak, the
enemies of God to the ungodly.
CHAP. II. A DIFFICULTY, HOW WE ARE JUSTI-
TIFIED IN THE BLOOD OF THE SON OF GOD.
15. But what is meant by " justified in His
blood ?" What power is there in this blood, I
beseech you, that they who believe should be
justified in it ? And what is meant by "being
reconciled by the death of His Son ?" Was it
indeed so, that when God the Father was wroth
with us, He saw the death of His Son for us, and
was appeased towards us ? Was then His Son
already so far appeased towards us, that He
even deigned to die for us; while the Father
was still so far wroth, that except His Son
died for us, He would not be appeased ? And
what, then, is that which the same teacher of
the Gentiles himself says in another place:
"What shall we then say to these things ? If
God be for us, who can be against us ? He
that spared not His own Son, but delivered
Him up for us all; how has He not with Him
also freely given us all things?" 1 Pray, unless
the Father had been already appeased, would
He have delivered up His own Son, not
sparing Him for us ? Does not this opinion
seem to be as it were contrary to that ? In
the one, the Son dies for us, and the Father
is reconciled to us by His death; in the other,
as though the Father first loved us, He Him-
self on our account does not spare the Son,
He Himself for us delivers Him up to death.
But I see that the Father loved us also before,
not only before the Son died for us, but before
He created the world; the apostle himself be-
ing witness, who says, "According as He
hath chosen us in Him before the foundation
of the world." 2 Nor was the Son delivered
up for us as it were unwillingly, the Father
Himself not sparing Him; for it is said also
concerning Him, "Who loved me, and de-
livered up Himself for me." 3 Therefore to-
gether both the Father and the Son, and the
Spirit of both, work all things equally and
harmoniously; yet we are justified in the
blood of Christ, and we are reconciled to God
1 Rom. vili. 31.
32.
Eph. i. 4.
3 Gal. ii. 20.
by the death of His Son. And I will explain,
as I shall be able, here also, how this was
done, as much as may seem sufficient.
CHAP. 12. ALL, ON ACCOUNT OF THE SIN OF
ADAM, WERE DELIVERED INTO THE POWER OF
THE DEVIL.
16. By the justice of God in some sense,
the human race was delivered into the power
of the devil; the sin of the first man passing
over originally into all of both sexes in their
birth through conjugal union, and the debt of
our first parents binding their whole posteri-
ty. This delivering up is first signified in
Genesis, where, when it had been said to the ser-
pent, " Dust shalt thou eat," it was said to the
man, " Dust thou art, and unto dust thou
shalt return." 4 In the words, "Unto dust
shalt thou return/' the death of the body is
fore-announced, because he would not have
experienced that either, if he had continued
to the end upright as he was made; but in
that it is said to him whilst still living, " Dust
thou art," it is shown that the whole man was
changed for the worse. For " Dust thou art"
is much the same as, " My spirit shall not al-
ways remain in these men, for that they also are
flesh." 5 Therefore it was at that time shown,
that he was delivered to him, in that it had
been said to him, " Dust shalt thou eat." But
the apostle declares this more clearly, where
he says: "And you who were dead in tres-
passes and sins, wherein in time past ye
walked according to the course of this world,
according to the prince of the power of the
air, the spirit that now worketh in the children
of unfaithfulness; among whom we also had
our conversation in times past, in the lusts of
our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh
and of the mind; and were by nature the
children of wrath, even as others." 6 The
" children of unfaithfulness" are the unbeliev-
ers; and who is not this before he becomes
a believer ? And therefore all men are origi-
nally under the prince of the power of the air,
"who worketh in the children of unfaithful-
ness." And that which I have expressed by
" originally " is the same that the apostle ex-
presses when he speaks of themselves who "by
nature " were as others; viz. by nature as it
has been depraved by sin, not as it was
created upright from the beginning. But the
way in which man was thus delivered into the
power of the devil, ought not to be so under-
stood as if God did this, or commanded it to
be done; but that He only permitted it, yet
that justly. For when He abandoned the sin-
4 Gen. iii. 14-19.
6 Eph. ii. 1-3.
5 Gen. vi. 3. "Strive with man," A. V.
176
THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[Book Xlil.
ner, the author of the sin immediately entered.
Yet God did not certainly so abandon His
own creature as not to show Himself to him
as God creating and quickening, and among
penal evils bestowing also many good things
upon the evil. For He hath not in anger shut
up His tender mercies. 1 Nor did He dismiss
man from the law of His own power, when
He permitted him to be in the power of the
devil; since even the devil himself is not sepa-
rated from the power of the Omnipotent, as
neither from His goodness. For whence do
even the evil angels subsist in whatever man-
ner of life they have, except through Him
who quickens all things ? If, therefore, the
commission of sins through the just anger
of God subjected man to the devil, doubtless
the remission of sins through the merciful
reconciliation of God rescues man from the
devil.
CHAP. 13. MAN WAS TO BE RESCUED FROM
THE POWER OF THE DEVIL, NOT BY POWER,
BUT BY RIGHTEOUSNESS.
17. But the devil was to be overcome, not
by the power of God, but by His righteous-
ness. For what is more powerful than the
Omnipotent? Or what creature is there of
which the power can be compared to the
power of the Creator? But since the devil,
by the fault of his own perversity, was made
a lover of power, and a forsaker and assailant
of righteousness, for thus also men imitate
him so much the more in proportion as they
set their hearts on power, to the neglect or even
hatred of righteousness, and as they either re-
joice in the attainment of power, or are in-
flamed by the lust of it, it pleased God, that
in order to the rescuing of man from the grasp
of the devil, the. devil should be conquered,
not by power, but by righteousness; and that
so also men, imitating Christ, should seek to
conquer the devil by righteousness, not by
power. Not that power is to be shunned as
though it were something evil; but the order
must be preserved, whereby righteousness is
before it. For how great can be the power of
mortals ? Therefore let mortals cleave to
righteousness; power will be given to immor-
tals. And compared to this, the power, how
great soever, of those men who are called
powerful on earth, is found to be ridiculous
weakness, and a pitfall is dug there for the
sinner, where the wicked seem to be most
powerful. And the righteous man says in
his song, " Blessed is the man whom Thou
chasteneth, O Lord, and teachest him out of
Thy law: that Thou mayest give him rest
1 Ps. lxxvn 9.
from the days of adversity, until the pit be
digged for the wicked. For the Lord will not
cast off His people, neither will He forsake
His inheritance, until righteousness return
unto judgment, and all who follow it are up-
right in heart." 2 At this present time, then,
in which the might of the people of God is
delayed, "the Lord will not cast off His
people, neither will He forsake His inheri-
tance," how bitter and unworthy things so-
ever it may suffer in its humility and weak-
ness; "until the righteousness," which the
weakness of the pious now possesses, "shall
return to judgment," that is, shall receive the
power of judging; which is preserved in the
end for the righteous when power in its due
order shall have followed after righteousness
going before. For power joined to righteous-
ness, or righteousness added to power, con-
stitutes a judicial authority. But righteousness
belongs to a good will; whence it was said by
the angels when Christ was born: "Glory to
God in the highest, and on earth peace to'
men of good will." 3 But power ought to fol-
low righteousness, not to go before it; and ac-
cordingly it is placed in "second," that is,
prosperous fortune; and this is called "sec-
ond," 4 from "following." For whereas two
things make a man blessed, as we have
argued above, to will well, and to be able to
do what one wills, people ought not to be so
perverse, as has been noted in the same dis-
cussion, as that a man should choose from the
two things which make him.blessed, the being
able to do what he wills, and should neglect
to will what he ought; whereas he ought first
to have a good will, but great power afterwards.
Further, a good will must be purged from
vices, by which if a man is overcome, he is
in such wise overcome as that he wills evil;
and then how will his will be still good ? It
is to be wished, then,. that power may now
be given, but power against vices, to conquer
which men do not wish to be powerful, while
they wish to be so in order to conquer men;
and why is this, unless that, being in truth
conquered, they feignedly conquer, and are
conquerors not in truth, but in opinion ? Let
a man will to be prudent, will to be strong,
will to be temperate, will to be just; and that
he may be able to have these things truly, let
him certainly desire power, and seek to be
powerful in himself, and (strange though it
be) against himself for himself. But all the
other things which he wills rightl)% and yet is
not able to have, as, for instance, immortality
and true and full felicity, let him not cease to
long for, and let him patiently expect.
2 Ps. xciv. 12-15.
3 Luke ii. 14.
4 Res secundce.
Chap. XV.]
ON THE TRINITY.
177
CHAP. 14. "THE UNOBLIGATED DEATH OF CHRIST
HAS FREED THOSE WHO WERE LIABLE TO
DEATH.
18. What, then, is the righteousness by
which the devil was conquered ? What, ex-
cept the righteousness of Jesus Christ ? And
how was he conquered ? Because, when he
found in Him nothing worthy of death, yet he
slew Him. And certainly it is just, that we
whom he held as debtors, should be dismissed
free by believing in Him whom he slew with-
out any debt. In this way it is that we are
said to be justified in the blood of Christ.'
For so that innocent blood was shed for the
remission of our sins. Whence He calls Him-
self in the Psalms, " Free among the dead." 2
For he only that is dead is free from the debt
of death. Hence also in another psalm He
says, "Then I restored that which I seized
not;" 3 meaning sin by the thing seized, be-
cause sin is laid hold of against what is lawful.
Whence also He says, by the mouth of His own
Flesh, as is read in the Gospel: " For the
prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing
in me," that is, no sin; but " that the world
may know," He says, "that I do the command-
ment of the Father; arise, let us go hence." 4
And hence He proceeds to His passion, that
He might pay for us debtors that which He
Himself did not owe. Would then the devil
be conquered by this most just right, if Christ
had willed to deal with him by power, not by
righteousness ? But He held back what was
possible to Him, in order that He might first
do what was fitting. And hence it was nec-
essary that He should be both man and God.
For unless He had been man, He could not
have been slain; unless He had been God,
men would not have believed that He would
not do what He could, but that He could not
do what He would; nor should we have
thought that righteousness was preferred by
Him to power, but that He lacked power. But
now He suffered for us things belonging to
man, because He was man ; but if He had been
unwilling, it would have been in His power to
not so to suffer, because He was also God.
And righteousness was therefore made more
acceptable in humility, because so great pow-
er as was in His Divinity, if He had been un-
willing, would have been able not to suffer
humility; and thus by Him who died, being
thus powerful, both righteousness was com-
mended, and power promised, to us, weak
mortals. For He did one of these two things
by dying, the other by rising again. For
what is more righteous, than to come even to
1 Rom. v. q.
3 Ps. Ixix. 4.
2 Ps. Ixxxviii. 5.
4 John xiv. 30-31.
the death of the cross for righteousness ? And
what more powerful, than to rise from the
dead, and to ascend into heaven with that
very flesh in which He was slain ? And there-
fore He conquered the devil first by righteous-
ness, and afterwards by power: namely, by
righteousness, because He had no sin, and
was slain by him most unjustly; but by power,
because having been dead He lived again,
never afterwards to die. 5 But He would have
conquered the devil by power, even though
He could not have been slain by him: al-
though it belongs to a greater power to conquer
death itself also by rising again, than to avoid
it by living. But the reason is really a differ-
ent one, why we are justified in the blood of
Christ, when we are rescued from the power
of the devil through the remission of sins: it
pertains to this, that the devil is conquered
by Christ by righteousness, not by power. For
Christ was crucified, not through immortal
power, but through the weakness which He
took upon Him in mortal flesh; of which
weakness nevertheless the apostle says, " that
the weakness of God is stronger than men." 6
CHAP. 15 OF THE SAME SUBJECT.
19. It is not then difficult to see that the
devil was conquered, when he who was slain by
Him rose again. It is something more, and
more profound of comprehension, to see that
the devil was conquered when he thought
himself to have conquered, that is, when
Christ was slain. For then that blood, since
it was His who had no sin at all, was poured
out for the remission of our sins; that, be-
cause the devil deservedly held those whom,
as guilty of sin, he bound by the condition of
death, he might deservedly loose them through
Him, whom, as guilty of no sin, the punish-
ment of death undeservedly affected. The
strong man was conquered by this righteous-
ness, and bound with this chain, that his ves-
sels might be spoiled, 7 which with himself and
his angels had been vessels of wrath while
with him, and might be turned into vessels of
mercy. 8 For the Apostle Paul tells us, that
these words of our Lord Jesus Christ Himself
were spoken from heaven to him when he was
first called. For among the other things which
he heard, he speaks also of this as said to him
thus: " For I have appeared unto thee for this
purpose, to make thee a minister and a wit-
ness both of these things which thou hast seen
from me, and of those things in the which I
will appear unto thee; delivering thee from
the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom
now I send thee, to open the eyes of the blind,
5 Rom. vi. 9. 6 1 Cor. i. 2S. 7 Mark iii. 27. a Rom. ix. 22, 23.
i 7 8
THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[Book XIII.
and to turn them from darkness [to light],
and from the power of Satan unto God, that
they may receive forgiveness of sins, and in-
heritance among them which are sanctified,
and faith that is in me." * And hence the same
apostle also, exhorting believers to the giving
of thanks to God the Father, says: " Who
hath delivered us from the power of darkness,
and hath translated us into the kingdom of
His dear Son: in whom we have redemption,
even the forgiveness of sins." " In this re-
demption, the blood of Christ was given, as
it were, as a price 'for us, by accepting which
the devil was not enriched, but bound: 3 that
we might be loosened from his bonds, and
that he might not with himself involve in the
meshes of sins, and so deliver to the destruc-
tion of the second and eternal death/ any
one of those whom Christ, free from all debt,
had redeemed by pouring out His own blood
unindebtedly; but that they who belong to
the grace of Christ, foreknown, and predes-
tinated, and elected before the foundation of
the world, 5 should only so far die as Christ
Himself died for them, i.e. only by the death
of the flesh, not of the spirit.
CHAP. 1 6. THE REMAINS OF DEATH AND THE
EVIL THINGS OF THE WORLD TURN TO GOOD
FOR THE ELECT. HOW FITLY THE DEATH OF
CHRIST WAS CHOSEN, THAT WE MIGHT BE
JUSTIFIED IN HIS BLOOD. WHAT THE ANGER
OF GOD IS.
20. For although the death, too, of the
flesh itself came originally from the sin of the
first man, yet the good use of it has made
most glorious martyrs. And so not only that
death itself, but all the evils of this world,
and the griefs and labors of men, although
they come from the deserts of sins, and es-
pecially of original sin, whence life itself too
became bound by the bond of death, yet
have fitly remained, even when sin is for-
given; that man might have wherewith to
contend for truth, and whereby the goodness
of the faithful might be exercised; in order
that the new man through the new covenant
might be made ready among the evils of this
world for a new world, by bearing wisely the
misery which this condemned life deserved,
and by rejoicing soberly because it will be
1 Acts xxvi. 16-18. - Col. i. 13, 14.
3 [In this representation of A ugustin, the relics of that mis-
conception which appears in the earlier soteriology, particularly
that of Irenaeus, are seen : namely, that the death of Christ ran-
soms the sinner from Satan. Certain texts which teach that re-
demption delivers from the captivity to sin and Satan, were inter-
preted to teach deliverance from the claims of Satan. Augustin's
soteriology is more free from this error than that of Irenaeus, yet
not entirely free from it. The doctrine of justification did not ob-
tain its most consistent and complete statement in the Patristic
church. W. G. T. S.]
4 Apoc. xxi. 8. 5 1 Pet. i. 20.
finished, but expecting faithfully and pa-
tiently the blessedness which the future life,
being set free, will have for ever. For the
devil being cast forth from his dominion, and
from the hearts of the faithful, in the con-
demnation and faithlessness of whom he, al-
though himself also condemned, yet reigned,
is only so far permitted to be an adversary
according to the condition of this mortality,
as God knows to be expedient for them: con-
cerning which the sacred writings speak
through the mouth of the apostle: ''God is
faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted
above that ye are able; but will with the
temptation also make a way to escape, that
ye may be able to bear it." 6 And those evils
which the faithful endure piously, are of pro-
fit either for the correction of sins, or for the
exercising and proving of righteousness, or to
manifest the misery of this life, that the life
where will be that true and perpetual blessed-
ness may be desired more ardently, and
sought out more earnestly. But it is on their
account that these evils are still kept in be-
ing, of whom the apostle says: " For we know
that all things work together for good to
them that love God, to them who are called
to be holy according to His purpose. For
whom He did foreknow, He also did predes-
tinate to be conformed to the image of His
Son, that He might be the first-born among
many brethren. Moreover, whom He did
predestinate, them He also called; and whom
He called, them He also justified; and whom
He justified, them He also glorified." It is
of these who are predestinated, that not one
shall perish with the devil; not one shall re-
main even to death under the power of the
devil. And then follows what I have already
cited above: 7 "What shall we then say to
these things? If God be for us, who can be
against us ? He that spared not His own Son,
but delivered Him up for us all; how has He
not with Him also freely given us all things ?" 8
21. Why then should the death of Christ,
not have come to pass ? Nay, rather, why
should not that death itself have been chosen
above all else to be brought to pass, to the
passing by of the other innumerable ways
which He who is omnipotent could have em-
ployed to free us; that death, I say, wherein
neither was anything diminished or changed
from His divinity, and so great benefit was
conferred upon men, from the humanity which
He took upon Him, that a temporal death,
which was not due, was rendered by the eter-
nal Son of God, who was also the Son of man,
whereby He might free them from an eternal
6 1 Cor. x. 13.
7 C. 2.
8 Rom. viii. 28-32.
Chap. XVII.]
ON THE TRINITY.
179
death which was due ? The devil was hold-
ing fast our sins, and through them was fix-
ing us deservedly in death. He discharged
them, who had none of His own, and who was
led by him to death undeservedly. That j
blood was of such price, that he who even
slew Christ for a time by a death which was !
not due, can as his due detain no one, who
has put on Christ, in the eternal death which
was due. Therefore " God commendeth His
love towards us, in that, while we were yet
sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then,
being now justified in His blood, we shall be
saved from wrath through Him." Justified,
he says, in His blood, justified plainly, in
that we are freed from all sin; and freed from
all sin, because the Son of God, who knew no
sin, was slain for us. Therefore "we shall
be saved from wrath through Him;" from the
wrath certainly of God, which is nothing else
but just retribution. For the wrath of God
is not, as is that of man, a perturbation of the
mind; but it is the wrath of Him to whom
Holy Scripture says in another place, " But
Thou, O Lord, mastering Thy power, judg-
est with calmness." ' If, therefore, the just
retribution of God has received such a name,
what can be the right understanding also of
the reconciliation of God, unless that then
such wrath comes to an end ? Neither were
we enemies to God, except as sins are enemies
to righteousness; which being forgiven, such
enmities come to an end, and they whom He
Himself justifies are reconciled to the Just
One. And yet certainly He loved them even
while still enemies, since " He spared not His
own Son, but delivered Him up for us all,"
when we were still enemies. And therefore
the apostle has rightly added: " For if, when
we were enemies, we were reconciled to God
by the death of His Son," by which that re-
mission of sins was made, " much more, be-
ing reconciled, we shall be saved in His life."
Saved in life, who were reconciled by death.
For who can doubt that He will give His life
for His friends, for whom, when enemies,
He gave His death? "And not only so,"
he says, "but we also joy in God, through
our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now
received the atonement." "Not only," he
says, "shall we be saved," but "we also
joy;" and not in ourselves, but "in God;"
nor through ourselves, "but through our
Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now re-
ceived the atonement," as we have argued
above. Then the apostle adds, "Wherefore,
as by one man sin entered into the world, and
death by sin; and so death passed upon all
1 Wisd. xii. 18.
men, in whom all have sinned;" 2 etc.: in
which he disputes at some length concerning
the two men; the one the first Adam, through
whose sin and death we, his descendants, are
bound by, as it were, hereditary evils; and
the other the second Adam, who is not only
man, but also God, by whose payment for us
of what He owed not, we are freed from the
debts both of our first father and of ourselves.
Further, since on account of that one the
devil held all who were begotten through his
corrupted carnal concupiscence, it is just that
on account of this one he should loose all who
are regenerated through His immaculate
spiritual grace.
CHAP. 17. OTHER ADVANTAGES OF THE IN-
CARNATION.
22. There are many other things also in
the incarnation of Christ, displeasing as it is
to the proud, that are to be observed and
thought of advantageously. And one of
them is, that it has been demonstrated to man
what place he has in the things which God
has created; since human nature could so be
joined to God, that one person could be made
of two substances, and thereby indeed of
three God, soul, and flesh: so that those
proud malignant spirits, who interpose them-
selves as mediators to deceive, although as
if to help, do not therefore dare to place
themselves above man because they have not
flesh; and chiefly because the Son of God
deigned to die also in the same flesh, lest
they, because they seem to be immortal,
should therefore succeed in getting them-
selves worshipped as gods. Further, that the
grace of God might be commended to us in
the man Christ without any precedent merits;
because not even He Himself obtained by any
precedent merits that He should be joined in
such great unity with the true God, and
should become the Son of God, one Person
with Him; but from the time when He began
to be man, from that time He is also God;
whence it is said, "The Word was made
flesh." 3 Then, again, there is this, that the c
pride of man, which is the chief hindrance \
against his cleaving to God, can be confuted
and healed through such great humility of
God. Man learns also how far he has gone
away from God; and what it is worth to him
as a pain to cure him, when he returns
through such a Mediator, who both as God
assists men by His divinity, and as man
agrees with men by His weakness. For what
greater example of obedience could be given
to us, who had perished through disobedience,
Rom. v. 8, 12.
3 John i. 14.
i8o
THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[Book XIII.
than God the Son obedient to God the Father,
even to the death of the cross ? * Nay,
wherein could the reward of obedience itself
be better shown, than in the flesh of so great
a Mediator, which rose again to eternal life ?
It belonged also to the justice and goodness
of the Creator, that the devil should be con-
quered by the same rational creature which
he rejoiced to have conquered, and by one
that came from that same race which, by the
corruption of its origin through one, he held
altogether.
CHAP. 1 8. WHY THE SON OF GOD TOOK MAN
UPON HIMSELF FROM THE RACE OF ADAM,
AND FROM A VIRGIN.
23. For assuredly God could have taken
upon Himself to be man, that in that man-
hood He might be the Mediator between
God and men, from some other source, and
not from the race of that Adam who bound
the human race by his sin; as He did not
create him whom He first created, of the
race of some one else. Therefore He was
able, either so, or in any other mode that He
would, to create yet one other, by whom the
conqueror of the first might be conquered.
But God judged it better both to take upon
Him man through whom to conquer the
enemy of the human race, from the race it-
self that had been conquered; and yet to do
this of a virgin, whose conception, not flesh
but spirit, not? lust but faith, preceded. 2 Nor
did that concupiscence of the flesh intervene,
by which the rest of men, who derive original
sin, are propagated and conceived; but holy
virginity became pregnant, not by conjugal
intercourse, but by faith, lust being utterly
absent, so that that which was born from the
root of the first man might derive only the
origin of race, not also of guilt. For there
was born, not a nature corrupted by the con-
tagion of transgression, but the one only
remedy of all such corruptions. There was
born, I say, a Man having nothing at all, and
to have nothing at all, of sin; through whom
they were to be born again so as to be freed
from sin, who could not be born without sin.
For although conjugal chastity makes a right
use of the carnal concupiscence which is in
our members; yet it is liable to motions not
voluntary, by which it shows either that it
could not have existed at all in paradise be-
fore sin, or if it did, that it was not then such
as that sometimes it should resist the will.
But now we feel it to be such, that in oppo-
sition to the law of the mind, and even if
there is no question of begetting, it works in
1 Phil. ii. 3.
2 Luke i. 26-32.
us the incitement of sexual intercourse; and
if in this men yield to it, then it is satisfied
by an act of sin; if they do not, then it is
bridled by an act of refusal: which two things
who could doubt to have been alien from
paradise before sin ? For neither did the
chastity that then was do anything indecor-
ous, nor did the pleasure that then was suffer
anything unquiet. It was necessary, there-
fore, that this carnal concupiscence should
be entirely absent, when the offspring of the
Virgin was conceived; in whom the author of
death was to find nothing worthy of death,
and yet was to slay Him in order that he
might be conquered by the death of the
Author of life: the conqueror of the first
Adam, who held fast the human race, con-
quered by the second Adam, and losing the
Christian race, freed out of the human race
from human guilt, through Him who was not
in the guilt, although He was of the race;
that that deceiver might be conquered by
that race which he had conquered by guilt.
And this was so done, in order that man may
not be lifted up, but "that he that glorieth
should glory in the Lord." 3 For he who was
conquered was only man; and he was there-
fore conquered, because he lusted proudiy to
be a god. But He who conquered was both
man and God; and therefore He so con-
quered, being born of a virgin, because God
in humility did not, as He governs other
saints, so govern that Man, but bare Him [as
a Son]. These so great gifts of God, and
whatever else there are, which it is too long
for us now upon this subject both to inquire
and to discuss, could not exist unless the
Word had been made flesh.
CHAP. 19. WHAT IN THE INCARNATE WORD
BELONGS TO KNOWLEDGE, .WHAT TO WISDOM.
24. And all these things which the Word
made flesh did and bare for us in time and
place, belong, according to the distinction
which we have undertaken to demonstrate,
to knowledge, not to wisdom. And as the
Word is without time and without place, it
is co-eternal with the Father, and in its
wholeness everywhere; and if any one can,
and as much as he can, speak truly concern-
ing this Word, then his discourse will pertain
to wisdom. And hence the Word made flesh,
which is Christ Jesus, has the treasures both
of wisdom and of knowledge. For the apos-
tle, writing to the Colossians, says: "For I
would that ye knew what great conflict I have
for you, and for them at Laodicea, and for
as many as have not seen my face in the
3 2 Cor. x. 17.
Chap. XX.]
ON THE TRINITY.
181
flesh; that their hearts might be comforted,
being knit together in love, and unto all riches
of the full assurance of understanding, to the
acknowledgment of the mystery of God,
which is Christ Jesus: in whom are hid all
the treasures of wisdom and knowledge." x
To what extent the apostle knew all those
treasures, how much of them he had pene-
trated, and in them to how great things he
had reached, who can know ? Yet, for my
part, according to that which is written, "But
the manifestation of the Spirit is given to
every man to profit withal; for to one is given
by the Spirit the word of wisdom, to another
the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; " 2
if these two are in such way to be distin-
guished from each other, that wisdom is to be
assigned to divine things, knowledge to human,
I acknowledge both in Christ, and so with me
do all His faithful ones. And when I read,
"The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among
us," I understand by the Word the true Son
of God, I acknowledge in the flesh the true
Son of man, and both together joined into
one Person of God and man, by an ineffable
copiousness of grace. And on account of
this, the apostle goes on to say, "And we
beheld His glory, the glory as of the Only-
begotten of the Father, full of grace and
truth. 3 If we refer grace to knowledge, and
truth to wisdom, I think we shall not swerve
from that distinction between these two things
which we have commended. For in those
things that have their origin in time, this is
the highest grace, that man is joined with
God in unity of person; but in things eternal
the highest truth is rightly attributed to the
Word of God. But that the same is Himself
the Only-begotten of the Father, full of
grace and truth, this took place, in order
that He Himself in things done for us in time
should be the same for whom we are cleansed
by the same faith, that we may contemplate
Him steadfastly in things eternal. And
those distinguished philosophers of the
heathen who have been able to understand and
discern the invisible things of God by those
things which are made, have yet, as is said
of them, " held down the truth in iniquity; " 4
because they philosophized without a Medi-
ator, that is, without the man Christ, whom
they neither believed to be about to come at
the word of the prophets, nor to have come
at that of the apostles. For, placed as they
were in these lowest things, they could not
but seek some media through which they
might attain to those lofty things which they
had understood; and so they fell upon deceit-
Col. ii. 1-3.
John i. 14.
2 1 Cor. xii. 7, 8.
4 Rom. i. 23 ; detinueru ,
ful spirits, through whom it came to pass,
that "they changed the glory of the incorrup-
tible God into an image made like to corrup-
tible man, and to birds, and four-footed
beasts, and creeping things." 5 For in such
forms also they set up or worshipped idols.
Therefore Christ is our knowledge, and the
same Christ is also our wisdom. He Himself
implants in us faith concerning temporal
things, He Himself shows forth the truth con-
cerning eternal things. Through Him we
reach on to Himself: we stretch through
knowledge to wisdom; yet we do not withdraw
from one and the same Christ, " in whom are
hidden all the treasures of wisdom and of
knowledge/' But now we speak of knowl-
edge, and will hereafter speak of wisdom as
much as He Himself shall grant. And let
us not so take these two things, as if it were
not allowable to speak either of the wisdom
which is in human things, or of the knowl-
edge which is in divine. For after a laxer
custom of speech, both can be called wisdom,
and both knowledge. Yet the apostle could
not in any way have written, " To one is given
the word of wisdom, to another the word of
knowledge," except also these several things
had been properly called by the several names,
of the distinction between which we are now
treating.
CHAP. 20. WHAT HAS BEEN TREATED OF IN
THIS BOOK. HOW WE HAVE REACHED BY STEPS
TO A CERTAIN TRINITY, WHICH IS FOUND IN
PRACTICAL KNOWLEDGE AND TRUE FAITH.
25. Now, therefore, let us see what this
prolix discourse has effected, what it has
gathered, whereto it has reached. It belongs
to all men to will to be blessed; yet all men
have not faith, whereby the heart is cleansed,
and so blessedness is reached. And thus it
comes to pass, that by means of the faith
which not all men will, we have to reach on
to the blessedness which every one wills. All
see in their own heart that they will to be
blessed; and so great is the agreement of
human nature on this subject, that the man
is not deceived who conjectures this concern-
ing another's mind, out of his own: in short,
we know ourselves that all will this. But
many despair of being immortal, although no
otherwise can any one be that which all will,
that is, blessed. Yet they will also to be im-
mortal if they could; but through not believ-
ing that they can, they do not so live that
they can. Therefore faith is necessary, that
we' may attain blessedness in all the good
things of human nature, that is, of both soul
S Rom. i. 18, 20.
182
THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[Book XIIL
and body. But that same faith requires that
this faith be limited in Christ, who rose in the
flesh from the dead, not to die any more;
and that no one is freed from the dominion
of the devil, through the forgiveness of sins,
save by Him; and that in the abiding place
of the devil, life must needs be at once miser-
able and never-ending, which ought rather to
be called death than life. All which I have
also argued, so far as space permitted, in this
book, while I have already said much on the
subject in the fourth book of this work as
well; 1 but in that place for one purpose, here
for another, namely, there, that I might
show why and how Christ was sent in the full-
ness of time by the Father, 2 on account of
those who say that He who sent and He who
was sent cannot be equal in nature; but here,
in order to distinguish practical knowlege
from contemplative wisdom.
26. For we wished to ascend, as it were,
by steps, and to seek in the inner man, both
in knowledge and in wisdom, a sort of trinity
of its own special kind, such as we sought be-
fore in the outer man; in order that we may
come, with a mind more practised in these
lower things, to the contemplation of that
Trinity which is God, according to our little
measure, if indeed, we can even do this, at
least in a riddle and as through a glass. 3 If,
then, any one have committed to memory the
words of this faith in their sounds alone, not
knowing what they mean, as they commonly
who do not know Greek hold in memory
Greek words, or similarly Latin ones, or those
of any other language of which they are ig-
norant, has not he a sort of trinity in his
mind ? because, first, those sounds of words
are in his memory, even when he does not
think thereupon; and next, the mental vision
(aa'es) of his act of recollection is formed
thence when he conceives of them; and next,
the will of him who remembers and thinks
unites both. Yet we should by no means say
that the man in so doing busies himself with
a trinity of the interior man, but rather of the
exterior; because he remembers, and when
he wills, contemplates as much as he wills,
that alone which belongs to the sense of the
body, which is called hearing. Nor in such
an act of thought does he do anything else
than deal with images of corporeal things,
that is, of sounds. But if he holds and recol-
lects what those words signify, now indeed
something of the inner man is brought into
1 Cc. 19-21.
2 Gal. iv. 4.
3 1 Cor. xiii. 12.
action; not yet, however, ought he to be said
or thought to live according to a trinity of the
inner man, if he does not love those things
which are there declared, enjoined, promised.
For it is possible for him also to hold and
conceive these things, supposing them to be
false, in order that he may endeavor to dis-
prove them. Therefore that will, which in
this case unites those things which are held
in the memory with those things which are
thence impressed on the mind's eye in con-
ception, completes, indeed, some kind of trin-
ity, since itself is a third added to two others;
but the man does not live according to this,
when those things which are conceived are
taken to be false, and are not accepted. But
when those things are believed to be true, and
those things which therein ought to be loved,
are loved, then at last the man does live accord-
ing to a trinity of the inner man; for every one
lives according to that which he loves. But how
can things be loved which are not known, but
only believed? This question has been al-
ready treated of in former books; 4 and we
found, that no one loves what he is wholly
ignorant of, but that when things not known
are said to be loved, they are loved from
those things which are known. And now we
so conclude this book, that we admonish the
just to live by faith, 5 which faith worketh by
love, 6 so that the virtues also themselves, by
which one lives prudently, boldly, temper-
ately, and justly, be all referred to the same
faith; for not otherwise can they be true vir-
tues. And yet these in this life are not of so
great worth, as that the remission of sins, of
some kind or other, is not' sometimes neces-
sary here; and this remission comes not to
pass, except through Him, who by His own
blood conquered the prince of sinners. What-
soever ideas are in the mind of the faithful
man from this faith, and from such a life,
when they are contained in the memory, and
are looked at by recollection, and please the
will, set forth a kind of trinity of its own
sort. 7 But the image of God, of which by
His help we shall afterwards speak, is not yet
in that trinity; a thing which will then be
more apparent, when it shall have been shown
where it is, which the reader may expect in a
succeeding book.
4 Ek. viii. cc. 8 seqq., and Bk. x. c. 1, etc.
5 Rom. i. 1-. 6 Gal. v. 6.
7 [The ternary is this : 1. The idea of a truth or fact held in
the memory. 2. The contemplation of it as thus recollected. 3.
The love of it. This last is the " will" that " unites" the first
two.-W. G. T. S.]
BOOK XIV.
THE TRUE WISDOM OF MAN IS TREATED OF ; AND IT IS SHOWN THAT THE IMAGE OF COD, WHICH
MAN IS IN RESPECT TO HIS MIND, IS NOT PLACED PROPERLY IN TRANSITORY THINGS, AS IN
MEMORY, UNDERSTANDING, AND LOVE, WHETHER OF FAITH ITSELF AS EXISTING IN TIME, OR
EVEN OF THE MIND AS BUSIED WITH ITSELF, BUT IN THINGS THAT ARE PERMANENT ; AND
THAT THIS WISDOM IS THEN PERFECTED, WHEN THE MIND IS RENEWED IN THE KNOWLEDGE
OF GOD, ACCORDING TO THE IMAGE OF HIM WHO CREATED MAN AFTER HIS OWN IMAGE, AND
THUS ATTAINS TO WISDOM, WHEREIN THAT WHICH IS CONTEMPLATED IS ETERNAL.
CHAP. I. WHAT THE WISDOM IS OF WHICH WE
ARE HERE TO TREAT. WHENCE THE NAME
OF PHILOSOPHER AROSE. WHAT HAS BEEN
ALREADY SAID CONCERNING THE DISTINCTION
OF KNOWLEDGE AND WISDOM.
i. We must now discourse concerning wis-
dom; not the wisdom of God, which without
doubt is God, for His only-begotten Son is
called the wisdom of God; 1 but we will speak
of the wisdom of man, yet of true wisdom,
which is according to God, and is His true
and chief worship, which is called in Greek
by one term, dsovifieia. And this term, as we
have already observed, when our own coun-
trymen themselves also wished to interpret
it by a single term, was by them rendered
piety, whereas pietv means more commonly
what the Greeks call ebaipeta. But because
Oeoffifieia cannot be translated perfectly by
any one word, it is better translated by two,
so as to render it rather by " the worship of
God." That this is the wisdom of man, as
we have already laid down in the twelfth
book 2 of this work, is shown by the authority
of Holy Scripture, in the book of God's ser-
vant Job, where we read that the Wisdom of
God said to man, " Behold piety, that is wis-
dom; and to depart from evil is knowledge;" 3
or, as some have translated the Greek word
imffTTJfuqv, "learning/' 4 which certainly takes
its name from learning, 4 whence also it may
be called knowledge. For everything is
learned in order that it may be known. Al-
though the same word, indeed, 3 is employed
in a different sense, where any one suffers
evils for his sins, that he may be corrected.
Whence is that in the Epistle to the Hebrews,
" For what son is he to whom the father giv-
eth not discipline?" And this is still more
apparent in the same epistle: " Now no chast-
ening 6 for the present seemeth to be joyous,
but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yield-
eth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto
them which are exercised thereby." 7 There-
fore God Himself is the chiefest wisdom; but
the worship of God is the wisdom of man, of
which we now speak. For "the wisdom of
this world is foolishness with God." 8 It is
in respect to this wisdom, therefore, which is
the worship of God, that Holy Scripture says,
" The multitude of the wise is the welfare of
the world. "^
2. But if to dispute of wisdom belongs to
wise men, what shall we do? Shall we dare
indeed to profess wisdom, lest it should be
mere impudence for ourselves to dispute
about it ? Shall we not be alarmed by the ex-
ample of Pythagoras ? who dared not profess
to be a wise man, but answered that he was a
philosopher, i.e., a lover of wisdom; whence
arose the name, that became thenceforth so
much the popular name, that no matter how
great the learning wherein any one excelled,
either in his own opinion or that of others, in
things pertaining to wisdom, he was still
called nothing more than philosopher. Or
was it for this reason that no one, even of
1 Ecclus. xxiv. 5 and i Cor. i. 24.
3 Job. xxviii. 28.
2 C. 14.
Discijiiina, disco.
5 Disriplina.
8 1 Cor. iii. 19.
6 Piscifilina.
9 Wisd. vi. 26.
7 Heb. xii. 7, 11.
1 84
THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[Book XIV.
such as these, dared to profess himself a wise
man, because they imagined that a wise man
was one without sin ? But our Scriptures
do not say this, which say, " Rebuke a wise
man, and he will love thee." * For doubtless
he who thinks a man ought to be rebuked,
judges him to have sin. However, for my
part, I dare not profess myself a wise man
even in this sense; it is enough for me to as-
sume, what they themselves cannot deny,
that to dispute of wisdom belongs also to the
philosopher, i.e., the lover of wisdom. For
they have not given over so disputing who
have professed to be lovers of wisdom rather
than wise men.
3. In disputing, then, about wisdom, they
have defined it thus: Wisdom is the knowl-
edge of things human and divine. And
hence, in the last book, I have not withheld
the admission, that the cognizance of both
subjects, whether divine or human, may be
called both knowledge and wisdom. 2 But
according to the distinction made in the apos-
tle's words, " To one is given the word of wis-
dom, to another the word of knowledge," 3
this definition is to be divided, so that the
knowledge of things divine shall be called
wisdom, and that of things human appropri-
ate to itself the name of knowledge; and of
the latter I have treated in the thirteenth
book, not indeed so as to attribute to this
knowledge everything whatever that can be
known by man about things human, wherein
there is exceeding much of empty vanity and
mischievous curiosity, but only those things
by which that most wholesome faith, which
leads to true blessedness, is begotten, nour-
ished, defended, strengthened; and in this
knowledge most of the faithful are not strong,
however exceeding strong in the faith itself.
For it is one thing to know only what man
ought to believe in order to attain to a blessed
life, which must needs be an eternal one; but
another to know in what way this belief itself
may both help the pious, and be defended
against the impious, which last the apostle
seems to call by the special name of knowl-
edge. And when I was speaking of this
knowledge before, my especial business was
to commend faith, first briefly distinguishing
things eternal from things temporal, and
there discoursing of things temporal; but
while deferring things eternal to the present
book, I showed also that faith respecting
things eternal is itself a thing temporal, and
dwells in time in the hearts of believers, and
yet is necessary in order to attain the things
eternal themselves. 4 I argued also, that faith
1 Prov. ix. S.
3 1 Cor. xiii. 12.
- Bk. xiii. cc. 1, 19.
4 Bk. xiii. c. 7.
respecting the things temporal which He that
is eternal did and suffered for us as man,
which manhood He bare in time and carried
on to things eternal, is profitable also for the
obtaining of things eternal; and that the vir-
tues themselves, whereby in this temporal
and mortal life men live prudently, bravely,
temperately, and justly, are not true virtues,
unless they are referred to that same faith,
temporal though it is, which leads on never-
theless to things eternal.
CHAP. 2. THERE IS A KIND OF TRINITY IN THE
HOLDING, CONTEMPLATING, AND LOVING OF
FAITH TEMPORAL, BUT ONE THAT DOES NOT
YET ATTAIN TO BEING PROPERLY AN IMAGE
OF GOD.
4. Wherefore since, as it is written, " While
we are in the body, we are absent from the
Lord; for we walk by faith, not by sight;" 5
undoubtedly, so long as the just man lives
by faith, 6 howsoever he lives according to the
inner man, although he aims at truth and
reaches on to things eternal by this same
temporal faith, nevertheless in the holding,
contemplating, and loving this temporal faith,
we have not yet reached such a trinity as is to
be called an image of God; lest that should
seem to be constituted in things temporal
which ought to be so in things eternal. For
when the human mind sees its own faith,
whereby it believes what it does not see, it
does not see a thing eternal. For that will
not always exist, which certainly will not then
exist, when this pilgrimage, whereby we are
absent from God, in such way that we must
needs walk by faith, shall be ended, and that
sight shall have succeeded it whereby we
shall see face to face; 7 just as now, because
we believe although we do not see, we shall
deserve to see, and shall rejoice at having
been brought through faith to sight. For
then it will be no longer faith, by which that
is believed which is not seen; but sight, by
which that is seen which is believed. And
then, therefore, although we remember this
past mortal life, and call to mind by recollec-
tion that we once believed what we did not
see, yet that faith will be reckoned among
things past and done with, not among things
present and always continuing. And hence
also that trinity which now consists in the re-
membering, contemplating, and loving this
same faith while present and continuing, will
then be found to be done with and past, and
not still enduring. And hence it is to be
gathered, that if that trinity is indeed an im-
5 2 Cor. v. 6, 7.
6 Rom. i. 17.
7 1 Cor. xiii. 12.
Chap. IV.]
ON THE TRINITY.
185
acre of God, then this image itself would have
to be reckoned, not among things that exist
always, but among things transient.
CHAP> 3 _ A DIFFICULTY REMOVED, WHICH LIES
" IN THE WAY OF WHAT HAS JUST BEEN SAID.
But far be it from us to think, that while
the nature of the soul is immortal, and from
the first beginning of its creation thenceforth
never ceases to be, yet that that which is the
best thing it has should not endure for ever
with its own immortality. Yet what is there
in its nature as created, better than that it is
made after the image of its Creator ? We
must find then what may be fittingly called
the image of God, not in the holding, con-
templating, and loving that faith which will
not exist always, but in that which will exist
always. .
c Shall we then scrutinize somewhat more
carefully and deeply whether the case is really
thus? For it may be said that this trinity
does not perish even when faith itself shall
have passed away; because, as now we both
hold it by memory, and discern it by thought,
and love it by will; so then also, when we
shall both hold in memory, and shall recollect,
that we once had it, and shall unite these two
by the third, namely will, the same trinity will
still continue. Since, if it have left in its pas-
sage as it were no trace in us, doubtless we
shall not have ought of it even in our mem-
ory whereto to recur when recollecting it as
past, and by the third, viz. purpose, coupling
both these, to wit, what was in our memory
though we were not thinking about, it, and
What is formed thence by conception. But
he who speaks thus, does not perceive, that
when we hold, see, and love in ourselves our
present faith, we are concerned with a differ-
ent trinity as now existing, from that trinity
which will exist, when we shall contemplate
by recollection, not the faith itself, but as it
were the imagined trace of it laid up in the
memory, and shall unite by the will, as by a
third, these two things, viz. that which was
in the memory of him who retains, and that
which is impressed thence upon the vision of
the mind of him who recollects. And that
we may understand this, let us take an ex-
ample from things corporeal, of which we
have sufficientlv spoken in the eleventh book. 2
For as we ascend from lower to higher things,
or pass inward from outer to inner things, we
first find a trinity in the bodily object which
is seen, and in the vision of the seer, which
when he sees it, is informed thereby, and
in the purpose of the will which combines
both. Let us assume a trinity like this, when
the faith which is now in ourselves is so es-
tablished in our memory as the bodily object
we spoke of was in place, from which faith is
formed the conception in recollection, as from
that bodily object was formed the vision of
the beholder; and to these two, to complete
the trinity, will is to be reckoned as a third,
which connects and combines the faith estab-
lished in the memory, and a sort of effigy of
that faith impressed upon the vision of recol-
lection; just as in that trinity of corporeal
vision, the form of the bodily object that is
seen, and the corresponding form wrought
in the vision of the beholder, are combined
by the purpose of the will. Suppose, then,
that this bodily object which was beheld was
dissolved and had perished, and that nothing
at all of it remained anywhere, to the vision
of which the gaze might have recourse; are
we then to say, that because the image of the
bodily object thus now past and done with re-
mains in the memory, whence to form the
conception in recollecting, and to have^ the
two united by will as a third, therefore it is
the same trinity as that former one, when
the appearance of the bodily object posited
in place was seen ? Certainly not, but alto-
aether a different one: for, not to say that
that was from without, while this is from
within; the former certainly was produced by
the appearance of a present bodily object, the
latter by the im?ge of that object now past.
So too, in the case of which we are now
treating' to illustrate which we have thought
aood to'adduce this example, the faith which
is even now in our mind, as that bodily ob-
ject was in place, while held, looked at,
loved, produces a sort of trinity; but that
trinity will exist no more, when this faith in
the mind, like that bodily object in place
shall no longer exist. But that which will
then exist, when we shall remember it to have
been, but not now to be, in us, will doubtless
be a different one. For that which now is, is
wrought by the thing itself, actually present
and attached to the mind of one who believes;
but that which shall then be, will be wrought
by the imagination of a past thing left in the
memory of one who recollects.
1 Gen. i. 27.
:c. 2 r,q.
CHAP. 4. THE IMAGE OF GOD IS TO BE SOUGHT
IN THE IMMORTALITY OF THE RATIONAL SOUL.
HOW A TRINITY IS DEMONSTRATED IN THE
MIND.
6 Therefore neither is that trinity arf im-
acre of God, which is not now, nor is that
other an image of God, which then will not
be- but we must find in the soul of man, i.e.,
1 86
THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[Book XIV.
the rational or intellectual soul, that image of
the Creator which is immortally implanted in
its immortality. For as the immortality it-
self of the soul is spoken with a qualification;
since the soul too has its proper death, when
it lacks a blessed life, which is to be called
the true life of the soul; but it is therefore
called immortal, because it never ceases to
live with some life or other, even when it is
most miserable; so, although reason or in-
tellect is at one time torpid in it, at another
appears small, and at another great, yet the
human soul is never anything save rational or
intellectual; and hence, if it is made after the
image of God in respect to this, that it is able
to use reason and intellect in order to under-
stand and behold God, then from the moment
when that nature so marvellous and so great
began to be, whether this image be so worn
out as to be almost none at all, or whether it
be obscure and defaced, or bright and beau-
tiful, certainly it always is. Further, too,
pitying the defaced condition of its dignity,
divine Scripture tells us, that " although man
walks in an image, yet he disquieteth himself
in vain; he heapeth up riches, and cannot tell
who shall gather them. " ' It would not there-
fore attribute vanity to the image of God, un-
less it perceived it to have been defaced. Yet
it sufficiently shows that such defacing does
not extend to the taking away its being an
image, by saying, "Although man walks in
an image." Wherefore in both ways that
sentence can be truly enunciated; in that, as
it is said, "Although man walketh in an image,
yet he disquieteth himself in vain," so it may
be said, " Although man disquieteth himself
in vain, yet he walketh in an image." For
although the nature of the soul is great, yet
it can be corrupted, because it is not the
highest; and although it can be corrupted,
because it is not the highest, yet because it
is capable and can be partaker of the highest
nature, it is a great nature. Let us seek,
then, in this image of God a certain trinity of
a special kind, with the aid of Him who Him-
self made us after His own image. For no
otherwise can we healthfully investigate this
subject, or arrive at any result according to
the wisdom which is from Him. But if the
reader will either hold in remembrance and
recollect what we have said of the human soul
or mind in former books, and especially in
the tenth, or will carefully re-peruse it in the
passages wherein it is contained, he will not
require here any more lengthy discourse re-
specting the inquiry into so great a thing.
7. We said, then, among other things in
1 Ps. xxxix.
the tenth book, that the mind of man knows
itself. For the mind knows nothing so much
as that which is close to itself; and nothing is
more close to the mind than itself. We ad-
duced also other evidences, as much as
seemed sufficient, whereby this might be
most certainly proved.
CHAP. 5. WHETHER THE MIND OF INFANTS
KNOWS ITSELF.
What, then, is to be said of the mind of an
infant, which is still so small, and buried in
such profound ignorance of things, that the
mind of a man which knows anything shrinks
from the darkness of it ? Is that too to be
believed to know itself; but that, as being too
intent upon those things which it has begun
to perceive through the bodily senses, with
the greater delight in proportion to their nov-
elty, it is not able indeed to be ignorant of
itself, but is also not able to think of itself ?
Moreover, how intently it is bent upon sen-
sible things that are without it, may be con-
jectured from this one fact, that it is so
greedy of sensible light, that if any one
through carelessness, or ignorance of the
possible consequences, place a light at night-
time where an infant is lying down, on that
side to which the eyes of the child so lying
down can be bent, but its neck cannot be
turned, the gaze of that child will be so fixed
in that direction, that we have known some
to have come to squint by this means, in that
the eyes retained that form which habit in
some way impressed upon them while tender
and soft. 2 In the case, too, of the other
bodily senses, the souls of infants, as far as
their age permits, so narrow themselves as it
were, and are bent upon them, that they
either vehemently detest or vehemently desire
that only which offends or allures through the
flesh, but do not think of their own inward
self, nor can be made to do so by admonition;
because they do not yet know the signs that
express admonition, whereof words are the
chief, of which as of other things they are
wholly ignorant. And that it is one thing
not to know oneself, another not to think of
oneself, we have shown already in the same
book. 3
8. But let us pass by the infantine age,
since we cannot question it as to what goes
on within itself, while we have ourselves pretty
well forgotten it. Let it suffice only for us
hence to be certain, that when man has come
to be able to think of the nature of his own
mind, and to find out what is the truth, he
2 [This occurred in the case of Edward Irving. Oliphant's Life
of Irving.- -W '. G. T. S.] 3 Bk. x. c. 5.
Chap. VI.]
ON THE TRINITY.
I8 7
will find it nowhere else but in himself. And
he will find, not what he did not know, but
that of which he did not think. For what do
we know, if we do not know what is in our
own mind; when we can know nothing at all
of what we do know, unless by the mind ?
CHAP. 6. HOW A KIND OF TRINITY EXISTS IN
THE MIND THINKING OF ITSELF. WHAT IS
THE PART OF THOUGHT IN THIS TRINITY.
The function of thought, however, is so
great, that not even the mind itself can, so
to say, place itself in its own sight, except
when it thinks of itself; and hence it is so far
the case, that nothing is in the sight of the
mind, except that which is being thought of,
that not even the mind itself, whereby we
think whatever we do think, can be in its own
sight otherwise than by thinking of itself.
But in 7uhat way it is not in its own sight
when it is not thinking of itself, while it can
never be without itself, as though itself were
one thing, and the sight of itself another, it
is not in my power to discover. For this is
not unreasonably said of the eye of the body;
for the eye itself of the body is fixed in its
own proper place in the body, but its sight
extends to things external to itself, and
reaches even to the stars. And the eye is not
in its own sight, since it does not look at it-
self, unless by means of a mirror, as is said
above; 1 a thing that certainly does not hap-
pen when the mind places itself in its own
sight by thinking of itself. Does it then see
one part of itself by means of another part
of itself, when it looks at itself in thought,
7 % o /
as we look at some of our members, which
can be in our sight, with other also of our
members, viz. with our eyes ? What can be
said or thought more absurd ? For by what
is the mind removed, except by itself? or
where is it placed so as to be in its own sight,
except before itself? Therefore it will not
be there, where it was, when it was not in its
own sight; because it has been put down in
one place, after being taken away from an-
other. But if it migrated in order to be be-
held, where will it remain in order to behold ?
Is it as it were doubled, so as to be in this and
in that place at the same time, viz. both where
it can behold, and where it can be beheld;
that in itself it may be beholding, and before
itself beheld ? If we ask the truth, it will tell
us nothing of the sort since it is but feigned
images of bodily objects of which we conceive
when we conceive thus; and that the mind is
not such, is very certain to the few minds by
1 Bk.
which the truth on such a subject can be in-
quired. It appears, therefore, that the be-
holding of the mind is something pertaining
to its nature, and is recalled to that nature
when it conceives of itself, not as if by mov-
ing through space, but by an incorporeal con-
version; but when it is not conceiving of it-
self, it appears that it is not indeed in its own
sight, nor is its own perception formed from
it, but yet that it knows itself as though it
were to itself a remembrance of itself. Like
one who is skilled in many branches of learn-
ing: the things which he knows are contained
in his memory, but nothing thereof is in the
sight of his mind except that of which he is
conceiving; while all the rest are stored up
in a kind of secret knowledge, which is called
memory. The trinity, then, which we were
setting forth, was constituted in this way;
first, we placed in the memory the object by
which the perception of the percipient was
formed; next, the conformation, or as it were
the image which is impressed thereby; lastly,
love or will as that which combines the two.
When the mind, then, beholds itself in con-
ception, it understands and cognizes itself; it
begets, therefore, this its own understanding
and cognition. For an incorporeal thing
is understood when it is beheld, and is
cognized when understood. Yet certainly
the mind does not so beget this knowl-
edge of itself, when it beholds itself as
understood by conception, as though it had
before been unknown to itself; but it was
known to itself, in the way in which things
are known which are contained in the memory,
but of which one is not thinking; since we
say that a man knows letters even when he is
thinking of something else, and not of letters.
And these two, the begetter and the begotten,
are coupled together by love, as by a third,
which is nothing else than will, seeking or
holding fast the enjoyment of something. We
held, therefore, that a trinity of the mind is
to be intimated also by these three terms,
memory, intelligence, will.
9. But since the mind, as we said near the
end of the same tenth book, always remem-
bers itself, and always understands and loves
itself, although it does not always think of it-
self as distinguished from those things which
are not itself; we must inquire in what way
understanding {intellectus) belongs to concep-
tion, while the notion (notitia) of each thing
that is in the mind, even when one is not
thinking of it, is said to belong only to the
memory. For if this is so, then the mind had
not these three things: viz. the remembrance,
the understanding, and the love of itself; but
it only remembered itself, and afterwards,
i88
THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[Book XIV.
when it began to think of itself, then it un-
derstood and loved itself.
CHAP. 7. THE THING IS MADE PLAIN BY AN
EXAMPLE. IN WHAT WAY THE MATTER IS
HANDLED IN ORDER TO HELP THE READER.
Wherefore let us consider more carefully
that example which we have adduced, wherein
it was shown that not knowing a thing is diff-
erent from not thinking [conceiving] of it;
and that it may so happen that a man knows
something of which he is not thinking, when
he is thinking of something else, not of that.
When any one, then, who is skilled in two or
more branches of knowledge is thinking of
one of them, though he is not thinking of the
other or others, yet he knows them. But can
we rightly say. This musician certainly knows
music, but he does not now understand it, be-
cause he is not thinking of it; but he does
now understand geometry, for of that he is
now thinking? Such an assertion, as far as
appears, is absurd. What, again, if we were
to say, This musician certainly knows music,
but he does not now love it, while he is not
now thinking of it; but he does now love
geometry, because of that he is now thinking;
is not this similarly absurd ? But we say
quite correctly, This person whom you per-
ceive disputing about geometry is also a per-
fect musician, for he both remembers music,
and understands, and loves it; but although
he both knows and loves it, he is not now
thinking of it, since he is thinking of geome-
try, of which he is disputing. And hence we
are warned that we have a kind of knowledge
of certain things stored up in the recesses of
the mind, and that this, when it is thought of,
as it were, steps forth in public, and is placed
as if openly in the sight of the mind; for then
the mind itself finds that it both remembers,
and understands, and loves itself, even al-
though it was not thinking of itself, when it
was thinking of something else. But in the
case of that of which we have not thought
for a long time, and cannot think of it unless
reminded; that, if the phrase is allowable, in
some wonderful way I know not how, we do
not know that we know. In short, it is rightly
said by him who reminds, to him whom he re-
minds, You know this, but you do not know
that you know it; I will remind you, and you
will find that you know what you had thought
you did not know. Books, too, lead to the
same results, viz. those that are written upon
subjects which the reader under the guidance
of reason finds to be true; not those subjects
which he believes to be true on the faith of
the narrator, as in the case of history; but
those which he himself also finds to be true,
either of himself, or in that truth itself which
is the light of the mind. But he who cannot
contemplate these things, even when re-
minded, is too deeply buried in the darkness
of ignorance, through great blindness of heart
and too wonderfully needs divine help, to be
able to attain to true wisdom.
10. For this reason I have wished to ad-
duce some kind of proof, be it what it might,
respecting the act of conceiving, such as
might serve to show in what way, out of the
things contained in the memory, the mind's
eye is informed in recollecting, and some
such thing is begotten, when a man conceives,
as was already in him when, before he con-
ceived, he remembered; because it is easier
to distinguish things that take place at suc-
cessive times, and where the parent precedes
the offspring by an interval of time. For if
we refer ourselves to the inner memory of the
mind by which it remembers itself, and to the
inner understanding by which it understands
itself, and to the inner will by which it loves
itself, where these three always are together,
and always have been together since they be-
gan to be at all, whether they were being
thought of or not; the image of this trinity
will indeed appear to pertain even to the
memory alone; but because in this case a
word cannot be without a thought (for we
think all that we say, even if it be said by that
inner word which belongs to no separate lan-
guage), this image is rather to be discerned in
these three things, viz. memory, intelligence,
will. And I mean now by intelligence that
by which we understand in thought, that is,
when our thought is formed by the finding of
those things, which had been at hand to the
memory but were not being thought of; and
I mean that will, or love, or preference, which
combines this offspring and parent, and is in
some way common to both. Hence it was
that I tried also, viz. in the eleventh book, to
lead on the slowness of readers by means of
outward sensible things which are seen by the
eyes of the flesh; and that I then proceeded
to enter with them upon that power of the
inner man whereby he reasons of things tem-
poral, deferring the consideration of that
which dominates as the higher power, by
which he contemplates things eternal. And
I discussed this in two books, distinguishing
the two in the twelfth, the one of them being
higher and the other lower, and that the lower
ought to be subject to the higher; and in the
thirteenth I discussed, with what truth and
brevity I could, the office of the lower, in
which the wholesome knowledge of things
human is contained, in order that we may so
Chap. VIII.]
ON THE TRINITY.
189
act in this temporal life as to attain that which
is eternal; since, indeed, I have cursorily in-
cluded in a single book a subject so manifold
and copious, and one so well known by the
many and great arguments of many and great
men, while manifesting that a trinity exists
also in it, but not yet one that can be called
an image of God.
CHAP g _ T HE TRINITY WHICH IS THE IMAGE
' OF GOD IS NOW TO BE SOUGHT IN THE NO-
BLEST PART OF THE MIND.
t 1 But we have come now to that argu-
ment in which we have undertaken to con-
sider the noblest part of the human mind by
which it knows or can know God, in order
that we may find in it the image of God. t or
although the human mind is not of the same
nature with God, yet the image of that nature
than which none is better, is to be sought and
found in us, in that than which our nature
also has nothing better. But the mind must
first be considered as it is in itself, before it
becomes partaker of God; and His image
must be found in it. For, as we have said,
although worn out and defaced by losing the
participation of God, yet the image of God
still remains. 1 For it is His image in this
very point, that it is capable of Him, and can
be partaker of Him; which so great good is
only made possible by its being His image.
Well then, the mind remembers, under-
stands, loves itself; if we discern this, we
discern a trinity, not yet indeed God, but now
at last an image of God. The memory does
not receive from without that which it is to
hold; nor does the understanding find with-
out that which it is to regard, as the eye of
the body does; nor has will joined these two
from without, as it joins the form of the body-
ily object and that which is thence wrought
in the vision of the beholder; nor has concep-
tion, in being turned to it, found an image of
a thing seen without, which has been some-
how seized and laid up in the memory, whence
the intuition of him that recollects has been
formed, will as a third joining the two: as we
showed to take place in those trinities which
were discovered in things corporeal, or which
were somehow drawn within from bodily ob-
jects by the bodily sense; of all which we
have discoursed in the eleventh book. 2 Nor,
again, as it took place, or appeared to do so,
when we went on further to discuss that knowl-
edge, which had its place now in the work-
ings of the inner man, and which was to be
distinguished from wisdom; of which knowl-
edge the subject-matter was, as it were, ad-
1 Supra, c. iv.
2 Cc. 2 sq.
ventitious to the mind, and either was brought
thither by historical information, as deeds
and words, which are performed in time and
pass away, or which again are established in
the nature of things in their own times and
places, or arises in the man himself not be-
in<r there before, whether on the information
of others, or by his own thinking, as faith,
which we commended at length in the thir-
teenth book, or as the virtues, by which, if
they are true, one so lives well in this mortal-
ity as to live blessedly in that immortality
which God promises. These and other things
of the kind have their proper order in time,
and in that order we discerned more easily a
trinity of memory, sight, and love. For some
of such things anticipate the knowledge of
learners. For they are knowable also before
they are known, and beget in the learner a
knowledge of themselves. And they either
exist in their own proper places, or have hap-
pened in time past; although things that are
past do not themselves exist, but only certain
sio-ns of them as past, the sight or hearing of
which makes it known that they have been
and have passed away. And these signs are
either situate in the places themselves, as e.g.
monuments of the dead or the like; or exist
in written books worthy of credit, as is all his-
tory that is of weight and approved authority;
or are in the minds of those who already know
them; since what is already known to them
is knowable certainly to others also, whose
knowledge it has anticipated, and who are
able to know it on the information of those
who do know it. And all these things, when
they are learned, produce a certain kind of
trinity, viz. by their own proper species, which
was knowable also before it was known, and
by the application to this of the knowledge of
the learner, which then begins to exist when
he learns them, and by will as a third which
combines both; and when they are known, yet
another trinity is produced in the recollecting
of them, and this now inwardly in the mind
itself from those images which, when they
were 'learned, were impressed upon the mem-
ory and from the informing of the thought
when the look has been turned upon these by
recollection, and from the will which as a
third combines these two. But those tnings
which arise in the mind, not having been
there before, as faith and other things of that
kind, although they appear to be adventitious,
since they are implanted by teaching, yet are
not situate without or transacted without as
are those things which are believed; but be-
gan to be altogether within in the mind itself.
For faith is not that which is believed, but
that by which it is believed; and the former
190
THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[Book XIV.
is believed, the latter seen. Nevertheless, be-
cause it began to be in the mind, which was
a mind also before these things began to be
in it, it seems to be somewhat adventitious,
and will be reckoned among things past, when
sight shall have succeeded, and itself shall
have ceased to be. And it makes now by its
presence, retained as it is, and beheld, and
loved, a different trinity from that which it will
then make by means of some trace of itself,
which in passing it will have left in the mem-
ory: as has been already said above.
CHAP. 9. WHETHER JUSTICE AND THE OTHER
VIRTUES CEASE TO EXIST IN THE FUTURE
LIFE.
12. There is, however, some question
raised, whether the virtues likewise by which
one lives well in this present mortality, seeing
that they themselves begin also to be in the
mind, which was a mind none the less when
it existed before without them, cease also to
exist at that time when they have brought us
to things eternal. For some have thought that
they will cease, and in the case of three pru-
dence, fortitude, temperance such an asser-
tion seems to have something in it; but jus-
tice is immortal, and will rather then be made
perfect in us than cease to be. Yet Tullius,
the great author of eloquence, when arguing
in the dialogue Hortensius, says of all four:
" If we were allowed, when we migrated from
this life, to live forever in the islands of the
blessed, as fables tell, what need were there
of eloquence when there would be no trials, or
what need, indeed, of the very virtues them-
selves ? For we should not need fortitude
when nothing of either toil or danger was pro-
posed to us; nor justice, when there was noth-
ing of anybody else's to be coveted; nor tem-
perance, to govern lusts that would not exist;
nor, indeed, should we need prudence, when
there was no choice offered between good and
evil. We should be blessed, therefore, solely
by learning and knowing nature, by which
alone also the life of the gods is praiseworthy.
And hence we may perceive that everything
else is a matter of necessity, but this is one of
free choice." This great orator, then, when
proclaiming the excellence of philosophy,
going over again all that he had learned from
philosophers, and excellently and pleasantly
explaining it, has affirmed all four virtues to
be necessary in this life only, which we see
to be full of troubles and mistakes; but not
one of them when we shall have migrated from
this life, if we are permitted to live there
where is a blessed life; but that blessed souls
are blessed only in learning and knowing, i.e.
in the contemplation of nature, than which
nothing is better and more lovable. It is that
nature which created and appointed all other
natures. And if it belongs to justice to be
subject to the government of this nature, then
justice is certainly immortal; nor will it cease
to be in that blessedness, but will be such and
so great that it cannot be more perfect or
greater. Perhaps, too, the other three virtues
prudence although no longer with any risk
of error, and fortitude without the vexation of
bearing evils, and temperance without the
thwarting of lust will exist in that blessed-
ness: so that it may be the part of prudence to
prefer or equal no good thing to. God; and of
fortitude, to cleave to Him most steadfastly;
and of temperance, to be pleased by no harm-
ful defect. But that which justice is now con-
cerned with in helping the wretched, and pru-
dence in guarding against treachery, and for-
titude in bearing troubles patiently, and tem-
perance in controlling evil pleasures, will not
exist there, where there will be no evil at all.
And hence those acts of the virtues which are
necessary to this mortal life, like the faith to
which they are to be referred, will be reck-
oned among things past; and they make now
a different trinity, whilst we hold, look at,
and love them as present, from that which
they will then make, when we shall discover
them not to be, but to have been, by certain
traces of them which they will have left in
passing in the memory; since then, too, there
will be a trinity, when that trace, be it of what
sort it may, shall be retained in the memory,
and truly recognized, and then these two be
joined by will as a third.
CHAP. IO. HOW A TRINITY IS PRODUCED BY
THE MIND REMEMBERING, UNDERSTANDING,
AND LOVING ITSELF.
13. In the knowledge of all these temporal
things which we have mentioned, there are
some knowable things which precede the ac-
quisition of the knowledge of them by an inter-
val of time, as in the case of those sensible ob-
jects which were already real before they were
known, or of all those things that are learned
through history; but some things begin to be
at the same time with the knowing of them,
just as, if any visible object, which did not ex-
ist before at all, were to rise up before our
eyes, certainly it does not precede our know-
ing it; or if there be any sound made where
there is some one to hear, no doubt the sound
and the hearing that sound begin and end
simultaneously. Yet none the less, whether
preceding in time or beginning to exist simul-
taneously, knowable things generate knowl-
Chap. XII.]
ON THE TRINITY.
I 9 I
edge, and are not generated by knowledge.
But when knowledge has come to pass, when-
ever the things known and laid up in
memory are reviewed by recollection, who
does not see that the retaining them in the
memory is prior in time to the sight of them
in recollection, and to the uniting of the two
things by will as a third ? In the mind, how-
ver, it is not so. For the mind is not adven-
titious to itself, as though there came to itself
already existing, that same self not already
existing, from somewhere else, or did not in-
deed come from somewhere else, but that in
the mind itself already existing, there was
born that same mind not already existing;
just as faith, which before was not, arises in
the mind which already was. Nor does the
mind see itself, as it were, set up in its own
memory by recollection subsequently to the
knowing of itself, as though it was not there
before it knew itself; whereas, doubtless, from
the time when it began to be, it has never
ceased to remember, to understand, and to
love itself, as we have already shown. And
hence, when it is turned to itself by thought,
there arises a trinity, in which now at length
we can discern also a word; since it is formed
from thought itself, will uniting both. Here,
then, we may recognize, more than we have
hitherto done, the image of which we are in
search.
CHAP. II. WHETHER MEMORY IS ALSO OF
THINGS PRESENT.
14. But some one will say, That is not
memory by which the mind, which is ever
present to itself, is affirmed to remember it-
self; for memory is of things past, not of
things present. For there are some, and
among them Cicero, who, in treating of the
virtues, have divided prudence into these
three memory, understanding, forethought:
to wit, assigning memory to things past, un-
derstanding to things present, forethought to
things future; which last is certain only in the
case of those who are prescient of the future;
and this is no gift of men, unless it be granted
from above, as to the prophets. And hence
the book of Wisdom, speaking of men, " The
thoughts of mortals," it says, "are fearful,
and our forethought uncertain." 1 But mem-
ory of things past, and understanding of
things present, are certain: certain, I mean,
respecting things incorporeal, which are pres-
ent; for things corporeal are present to the
sight of the corporeal eyes. But let any one
who denies that there is any memory of things
present, attend to the language used even in
1 Wisd. ix. 14.
profane literature, where exactness of words
was more looked for than truth of things.
" Nor did Ulysses suffer such things, nor did
the Ithacan forget himself in so great a peril. ' ' 2
For when Virgil said that Ulysses did not for-
get himself, what else did he mean, except
that he remembered himself? And since he
was present to himself, he could not possibly
remember himself, unless memory pertained
to things present. And, therefore, as that
is called memory in things past which makes
it possible to recall and remember them; so
in a thing present, as the mind is to itself, that
is not unreasonably to be called memory,
which makes the mind at hand to itself, so
that it can be understood by its own thought,
and then both be joined together by love of it-
self.
CHAP. 12. THE TRINITY IN THE MIND IS THE
IMAGE OF GOD, IN THAT IT REMEMBERS, UN-
DERSTANDS, AND LOVES GOD, WHICH TO DO
IS WISDOM.
15. This trinity, then, of the mind is not
therefore the image of God, because the mind
remembers itself, and understands and loves
itself; but because it can also remember, un-
derstand, and love Him by whom it was made.
And in so doing it is made wise itself. But
if it does not do so, even when it remembers,
understands, and loves itself, then it is fool-
ish. Let it then remember its God, after
whose image it is made, and let it understand
and love Him. Or to say the same thing more
briefly, let it worship God, who is not made,
by whom because itself was made, it is capa-
ble and can be partaker of Him; wherefore it
is written, " Behold, the worship of God, that
is wisdom." 3 And then it will be wise, not
by its own light, but by participation of that
supreme Light; and wherein it is eternal,
therein shall reign in blessedness. For this
wisdom of man is so called, in that it is also
of God. For then it is true wisdom; for if
it is human, it is vain. Yet not so of God, as
is that wherewith God is wise. For He is not
wise by partaking of Himself, as the mind is
by partaking of God. But as we call it the
righteousness of God, not only when we
speak of that by which He Himself is right-
eous, but also of that which He gives to man
when He justifies the ungodly, which latter
righteousness the apostle commending, says
of some, that " not knowing the righteousness
of God and going about to establish their own
righteousness, they are not subject to the right-
eousness of God;" 4 so also it may be said of
some, that not knowing the wisdom of God
2 sEueid, iii. 628, 629. 3 Job. xxviii. 28. 4 Rom. x. 3.
I 9 :
THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[Book XIV.
and going about to establish their own wis-
dom, they are not subject to the wisdom of
God.
16. There is, then, a nature not made,
which made all other natures, great and small,
and is without doubt more excellent than
those which it has made, and therefore also
than that of which we are speaking; viz. than
the rational and intellectual nature, which is
the mind of man, made after the image of
Him who made it. And that nature, more
excellent than the rest, is God. And indeed
" He is not far from every one of us," as the
apostle says, who adds, " For in Him we live,
and are moved, and have our being." x And
if this were said in respect to the body, it
might be understood even of this corporeal
world; for in it too in respect to the body, we
live, and are moved, and have our being.
And therefore it ought to be taken in a more
excellent way, and one that is spiritual, not
visible, in respect to the mind, which is made
after His image For what is there that is not
in Him, of whom it is divinely written, " For
of Him, and through Him, and in Him,
are all things "? 2 If, then, all things are in
Him, in whom can any possibly live that do
live, or be moved that are moved, except in
Him in whom they are? Yet all are not
with Him in that way in which it is said to
Him, " I am continually with Thee." 3 Nor
is He with all in that way in which we say,
The Lord be with you. And so it is the es-
pecial wretchedness of man not to be with
Him, without whom he cannot be. For, be-
yond a doubt, he is not without Him in whom
he is; and yet if he does not remember, and
understand, and love Him, he is not with
Him. And when any one absolutely forgets
a thing, certainly it is impossible even to re-
mind him of it.
CHAP. 13. HOW ANY ONE CAN FORGET AND
REMEMBER GOD.
17. Let us take an instance for the purpose
from visible things. Somebody whom you do
not recognize says to you, You know me; and
in order to remind you, tells you where, when,
and how he became known to you; and if,
after the mention of every sign by which you
might be recalled to remembrance, you still
do not recognize him, then you have so come
to forget, as that the whole of that knowledge
is altogether blotted out of your mind; and
nothing else remains, but that you take his
word for it who tells you that you once knew
him; or do not even do that, if you do not
think the person who speaks to you to be
1 Acts xvii. 27, 28
2 Rom. xi. 36.
3 Ps. lxxiii. 23.
worthy of credit. But if you do remember
him, then no doubt you return to your own
memory, and find in it that which had not been
altogether blotted out by forgetfulness. Let
us return to that which led us to adduce this
instance from the intercourse of men. Among
other things, the 9th Psalm says, " The wicked
shall be turned into hell, and all the nations
that forget God;" 4 and again the 2 2d Psalm,
"All the ends of the world shall be reminded,
and turned unto the Lord." 5 These nations,
then, will not so have forgotten God as to be
unable to remember Him when reminded of
Him; yet, by forgetting God, as though for-
getting their own life, they had been turned
into death, i.e. into hell. 6 But when remind-
ed they are turned to the Lord, as though
coming to life again by remembering their
proper life which they had forgotten. It is
read also in the 94th Psalm, "Perceive now,
ye who are unwise among the people; and ye
fools, when will ye be wise ? He that planted
the ear, shall He not hearj? " etc. 7 For this
is spoken to those, who said vain things con-
cerning God through not understanding Him.
CHAP. 14. THE MIND LOVES GOD IN RIGHTLY
LOVING ITSELF ; AND IF IT LOVE NOT GOD,
IT MUST BE SAID TO HATE ITSELF. EVEN A
WEAK AND ERRING MIND IS ALWAYS STRONG
IN REMEMBERING, UNDERSTANDING, AND
LOVING ITSELF. LET IT BE TURNED TO GOD,
THAT IT MAY BE BLESSED BY REMEMBERING,
UNDERSTANDING, AND LOVING HIM.
18. But there are yet more testimonies in
the divine Scriptures concerning the love of
God. For in it, those other two [namely, mem-
ory and understanding] are understood by
consequence, inasmuch as no one loves that
which he does not remember, or of which he
is wholly ignorant. And hence is that well
known and primary commandment, " Thou
shalt love the Lord thy God." 8 The human
mind, then, is so constituted, that at no time
does it not remember, and understand, and
love itself. But since he who hates any one
is anxious to injure him, not undeservedly is
the mind of man also said to hate itself when
it injures itself. For it wills ill to itself
through ignorance, in that it does not think
that what it wills is prejudicial to it; but it
none the less does will ill to itself, when it
wills what would be prejudicial to it. And
hence it is written, " He that loveth iniquity,
hateth his own soul." 9 He, therefore, who
knows how to love himself, loves God; but
4 Ps. ix. 17. 5 Ps. xxii. 27.
6 [AiiKustin here understands " Sheol," to denote the place of
retribution for the wicked. W. G. T. S.]
7 Ps. xciv. 8, 9. e Deut. vi. 5. 9 Ps, xi. 5.
Chap. XTV.]
ON THE TRINITY.
T 93
he who does not love God, even if he does
love himself, a thing implanted in him by
nature, yet is not unsuitably said to hate him-
self, inasmuch as he does that which is ad-
verse to himself, and assails himself as though
he were his own enemy. And this is no
doubt a terrible delusion, that whereas all will
to profit themselves, many do nothing but that
which is most pernicious to themselves.
When the poet was describing a like disease
of dumb animals, " May the gods," says he,
" grant better things to the pious, and assign
that delusion to enemies. They were rending
with bare teeth their own torn limbs." * Since
it was a disease of the body he was speaking
of, why has he called it a delusion, unless be-
cause, while nature inclines every animal to
take all the care it can of itself, that disease
was such that those animals rent those very
limbs of theirs which they desired should be
safe and sound ? But when the mind loves
God, and by consequence, as has been said,
remembers and understands Him, then it is
rightly enjoined also to love if s neighbor as it-
self; for it has now come to love itself rightly
and not perversely when it loves God, by
partaking of whom that image not only ex-
ists, but is also renewed so as to be. no longer
old, and restored so as to be no longer de-
faced, and beatified so as to be no longer
unhappy. For although it so love itself, that,
supposing the alternative to be proposed to it,
it would lose all things which it loves less
than itself rather than perish; still, by aban-
doning Him who is above it, in dependence
upon whom alone it could guard its own
strength, and enjoy Him as its light, to
whom it is sung in the Psalm, " I will guard
my strength in dependence upon Thee," 2 and
again, "Draw near to Him, and be enlight-
ened," 3 it has been made so weak and so
dark, that it has fallen away unhappily from
itself too, to those things that are not what it-
self is, and which are beneath itself, by affec-
tions that it cannot conquer, and delusions
from which it sees no way to return. And
hence, when by God's mercy now penitent, it
cries out in the Psalms, " My strength faileth
me; as for the light of mine eyes, it also is
gone from me." 4
19. Yet, in the midst of these evils of weak-
ness and delusion, great as they are, it could
not lose its natural memory, understanding
and love of itself. And therefore what I
quoted above 5 can be rightly said, "Al-
though man walketh in an image, surely he is
disquieted in vain: he heapeth up treasures,
Virg. Georg. iii. 513
Ps. xxxiv. 5-
C 4.
13
514.
2 Ps. lix. 9. _
4 Ps. xxxviii. 10.
and knoweth not who shall gather them." 6
For why does he heap up treasures,unless be-
cause his strength has deserted him, through
which he would have God, and so lack noth-
ing ? And why cannot he tell for whom he
shall gather them, unless because the light of
his eyes is taken from him ? And so he does
not see what the Truth saith, "Thou fool,
this night thy soul shall be required of thee.
Then whose shall those things be which thou
hast provided ? " 7 Yet because even such a
man walketh in an image, and the man's
mind has remembrance, understanding, and
love of itself; if it were made plain to it that
it could not have both, while it was permitted
to choose one and lose the other, viz. either
the treasures it has heaped up, or the mind;
who is so utterly without mind, as to prefer
to have the treasures rather than the mind ?
For treasures commonly are able to subvert
the mind, but the mind that is not subverted
by treasures can live more easily and unen-
cumberedly without any treasures. But who
will be able to possess treasures unless it be
by means of the mind ? For if an infant,
born as rich as you please, although lord of
everything that is rightfully his, yet possess-
es nothing if his mind be unconscious, how
can any one possibly possess anything whose
mind is wholly lost ? But why say of treasures,
that anybody, if the choice be given him, pre-
fers going without them to going without a
mind; when there is no one that prefers, nay,
no one that compares them, to those lights
of the body, by which not one man only here
and there, as in the case of gold, but every
man, possesses the very heaven ? For every
one possesses by the eyes of the body what-
ever he gladly sees. Who then is there, who,
if he could not keep both, but must lose one,
would not rather lose his treasures than his
eyes ? And yet if it were put to him on the
same condition, whether he would rather lose
eyes than mind, who is there with a mind that
does not see that he would rather lose the
former than the latter ? For a mind without
the eyes of the flesh is still human, but the
eyes o; the flesh without a mind are bestial.
And who would not rather be a man, even
though blind in fleshly sight, than a beast that
can see ?
20. I have said thus much, that even those
who are slower of understanding, to whose
eyes or ears this book may come, might be
admonished, however briefly, how greatly
even a weak and erring mind loves itself, in
wrongly loving and pursuing things beneath
itself. Now it could not love itself if it
6 Ps. xxxix. 6.
7 Luke xii. 20.
i 9 4
THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[Book XIV.
were altogether ignorant of itself, /. e. if it did
not remember itself, nor understand itself;
by which image of God within itself it has
such power as to be able to cleave to Him
whose image it is. For it is so reckoned in
the order, not of place, but of natures, as
that there is none above it save Him. When,
finally, it shall altogether cleave to Him, then
it will be one spirit, as the apostle testifies,
saying, " But he who cleaves to the Lord is
one spirit.'' 1 And this by its drawing near
to partake of His nature, truth, and blessed-
ness, yet not by His increasing in His own
nature, truth and blessedness. In that nature,
then, when it happily has cleaved to it, it
will live unchangeably, and will see as un-
changeable all that it does see. Then, as
divine Scripture promises, " His desire will
be satisfied with good things," 2 good things
unchangeable, the very Trinity itself, its
own God, whose image it is. And that it may
not ever thenceforward suffer wrong, it will
be in the hidden place of His presence, 3 filled
with so great fullness of Him, that sin thence-
forth will never delight it. But now, when
it sees itself, it sees something not unchange-
able.
CHAP. 15. ALTHOUGH THE SOUL HOPES FOR
BLESSEDNESS, YET IT DOES NOT REMEMBER
LOST BLESSEDNESS, BUT REMEMBERS GOD AND
THE RULES OF RIGHTEOUSNESS. THE UN-
CHANGEABLE RULES OF RIGHT LIVING ARE
KNOWN EVEN TO THE UNGODLY.
21. And of this certainly it feels no doubt,
that it is wretched, and longs to be blessed;
nor can it hope for the possibility of this on
any other ground than its own changeableness;
for if it were not changeable, then, as it could
not become wretched after being blessed, so
neither could it become blessed after being
wretched. And what could have made it
wretched under an omnipotent and good God,
except its own sin and the righteousness of
its Lord ? And what will make it blessed, un-
less its own merit, and its Lord's reward ?
But its merit, too, is His grace, whose reward
will be its blessedness; for it cannot give it-
self the righteousness it has lost, and so has
not. For this it received when man was
created, and assuredly lost it by sinning.
Therefore it receives righteousness, that on
account of this it may deserve to receive
blessedness; and hence the apostle truly says
to it, when beginning to be proud as it were
of its own good, " For what hast thou that
thou didst not receive ? Now if thou didst
receive it, why dost thou glory as if thou
1 1 Cor. vi. 17. - Ps. ciii. 5.
3 Ps. xxxi. 20.
hadst not received it ?" 4 But when it rightly
remembers its own Lord, having received His
Spirit, then, because it is so taught by an in-
ward teaching, it feels wholly that it cannot
rise save by His affection freely given, nor
has been able to fall save by its own defection
freely chosen. Certainly it does not remem-
ber its own blessedness; since that has been,
but is not, and it has utterly forgotten it, and
therefore cannot even be reminded of it. 5 But
it believes what the trustworthy Scriptures
of its God tell of that blessedness, which were
written by His prophet, and tell of the blessed-
ness of Paradise, and hand down to us histori-
cal information of that first both good and
ill of man. And it remembers the Lord its
God; for He always is, nor has been and is
not, nor is but has not been; but as He
never will not be, so He never was not.
And He is whole everywhere. And hence it
both lives, and is moved, and is in Him; 6 and
so it can remember Him. Not because it rec-
ollects the having known Him in Adam or
anywhere else before the life of this present
body, or when it was first made in order to
be implanted in this body; for it remembers
nothing at all of all this. Whatever there is of
this, it has been blotted out by forgetfulness.
But it is reminded, that it may be turned to
God, as though to that light by which it was in
some way touched, even when turned away
from Him. For hence it is that even the
ungodly think of eternity, and rightly blame
and rightly praise many things in the morals
of men. And by what rules do they thus
judge, except by those wherein they see how
men ought to live, even though they them-
selves do not so live ? And where do they
see these rules ? For they do not see them
in their own [moral] nature; since no doubt
these things are to be seen by the mind, and
their minds are confessedly changeable, but
these rules are seen as unchangeable by him
who can see them at all; nor yet in the charac-
ter of their own mind, since these rules are
rules of righteousness, and their minds are
confessedly unrighteous. Where indeed are
these rules written, wherein even the unright-
eous recognizes what is righteous, wherein he
discerns that he ought to have what he him-
self has not ? Where, then, are they written,
unless in the book of that Light which is
called Truth ? whence every righteous law is
4 1 Cor. iv. 7.
5 [In the case of knowledge that is remembered, there is some-
thing latent and potential as when past acquisitions are recalled
by a voluntary act of recollection. The same is true of innate
ideas these also are latent, and brought into consciousness by
reflection. But no man can either remember, or elicit, his original
holiness and blessedness, because this is not latent and potential,
but wholly lost by the fall. W. G. T. S.]
6 Acts xvii. 28.
Chap. XVI.]
ON THE TRINITY.
J 95
copied and transferred (not by migrating to it,
but by being as it were impressed upon it) to
the heart of the man that worketh righteous-
ness; as the impression from a ring passes
into the wax, yet does not leave the ring. But
he who worketh not, and yet sees how he
ought to work, he is the man that is turned
away from that light, which yet touches him.
But he who does not even see how he ought
to live, sins indeed with more excuse,because
he is not a transgressor of a law that he
knows; but even he too is just touched some-
times by the splendor of the everywhere pres-
ent truth, when upon admonition he confesses.
CHAP. 1 6. HOW THE IMAGE OF GOD IS FORMED
ANEW IN MAN.
22. But those who, by being reminded, are
turned to the Lord from that deformity where-
by they were through worldly lusts conformed
to this world, are formed anew from the world,
when they hearken to the apostle, saying," Be
not conformed to this world, but be ye formed
again in the renewing of your mind;" 1 that
that image may begin to be formed again by
Him by whom it had been formed at first.
For that image cannot form itself again, as it
could deform itself. He says again else-
where: "Be ye renewed in the spirit of your
mind; and put ye on the new man, which
after God is created in righteousness and true
holiness." 2 That which is meant by " created
after God," is expressed in another place by
"after the image of God." 3 But it lost right-
eousness and true holiness by sinning, through
which that image became defaced and
tarnished; and this it recovers when it is
formed again and renewed. But when he says,
"In the spirit of your mind," he does not in-
tend to be understood of two things, as though
mind were one, and the spirit of the mind
another; but he speaks thus, because all mind
is spirit, but all spirit is not mind. For there
is a Spirit also that is God, 4 which cannot be
renewed, because it cannot grow old. And
we speak also of a spirit in man distinct from
the mind, to which spirit belong the images
that are formed after the likeness of bodies;
and of this the apostle speaks to the Corinthi-
ans, where he says, " But if I shall have prayed
with a tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my un-
derstanding is unfruitful." 5 For he speaks
thus, when that which is said is not understood ;
since it cannot even be said, unless the im-
ages of the corporeal articulate sounds antici-
pate the oral sound by the thought of the
spirit. The soul of man is also called spirit,
1 Rom. xii. 2.
4 John iv. 2+.
2 Eph. iv. 23, 24.
5 1 Cor. xiv. 14.
3 Gen. i. 27.
whence are the words in the Gospel, "And
He bowed His head, and gave up His spirit;" 6
by which the death of the body, through the
spirit's leaving it, is signified. We speak
also of the spirit of a beast, as it is expressly
written in the book of Solomon called Ecclesi-
astes; "Who knoweth the spirit of man that
goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that
goeth downward to the earth ?" 7 It is written
too in Genesis, where it is said that by the
deluge all flesh died which " had in it the
spirit of life." 8 We speak also of the spirit,
meaning the wind, a thing most manifestly
corporeal; whence is that in the Psalms, " Fire
and hail, snow and ice, the spirit of the
storm." 9 Since spirit, then, is a word of so
many meanings, the apostle intended to ex-
press by " the spirit of the mind " that spirit
which is called the mind. As the same
apostle also, when he says, ' ' In putting off
the body of the flesh," 10 certainly did not in-
tend two things, as though flesh were one,
and the body of the flesh another; but because
body is the name of many things that have no
flesh (for besides the flesh, there are many
bodies celestial and bodies terrestrial), he
expressed by the body of the flesh that body
which is flesh. In like manner, therefore, by
the spirit of the mind, that spirit which is
mind. Elsewhere, too, he has even more plainly
called it an image, while enforcing the same
thing in other words. "Do you," he says,
" putting off the old man with his deeds, put
on the new man, which is renewed in the
knowledge of God after the
mage
of Him
that created him." 11 Where the one passage
reads, "Put ye on the new man, which is
created after God," the other has, " Put ye
on the new man, which is renewed after the
image of Him that created him." In the
one place he says, " After God;" in the
other, " After the image of Him that created
him." But instead of saying, as in the form-
er passage," In righteousness and true holi-
ness," he has put in the latter, " In the
knowledge of God." This renewal, then,
and forming again of the mind, is wrought
either after God, or after the image of God.
But it is said to be after God, in order that it
may not be supposed to be after another
creature; and to be after the image of God,
in order that this renewing may be under-
stood to take place in that wherein is the
image of God, i.e. in the mind. Just as we
say, that he who has departed from the body
a faithful and righteous man, is dead after
the body, not after the spirit. For what do
we mean by dead after the body, unless as to
6 John xix. 30. 7 Eccles. iii. 21. 8 Gen. vii. 22.
9 Ps. cxlviii. 8. ' Col, ii. 11. Col. iii. 9, 10.
iq6
THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[Book XIV.
the body or in the body, and not dead as to
the soul or in the soul ? Or if we want to say
he is handsome after the body, or strong
after the body, not after the mind; what else
is this, than that he is handsome or strong in
body, not in mind ? And the same is the
case with numberless other instances. Let
us not therefore so understand the words,
" After the image of Him that created him,"
as though it were a different image after
which he is renewed, and not the very same
which is itself renewed.
CHAP. 17. HOW THE IMAGE OF GOD IN THE
MIND IS RENEWED UNTIL THE LIKENESS OF
GOD IS PERFECTED IN IT IN BLESSEDNESS.
23. Certainly this renewal does not take
place in the single moment of conversion it-
self, as that renewal in baptism takes place
in a single moment by the remission of all
sins; for not one, be it ever so small, remains
unremitted. But as it is one thing to be free
from fever, and another to grow strong again
from the infirmity which the fever produced;
and one thing again to pluck out of the body
a weapon thrust into it, and another to heal
the wound thereby made by a prosperous
cure; so the first cure is to remove the cause
of infirmity, and this is wrought by the for-
giving of all sins; but the second cure is to
heal the infirmity itself, and this takes place
gradually by making progress in the renewal
of that image: which two things are plainly
shown in the Psalm, where we read, "Who
forgiveth all thine iniquities," which takes
place in baptism; and then follows, "and
healeth all thine infirmities;" 1 and this takes
place by daily additions, while this image is
being renewed. 2 And the apostle has spoken
of this most expressly, saying, "And though
our outward man perish, yet the inner man
is renewed day by day." 3 And "it is re-
newed in the knowledge of God, i.e. in right-
eousness and true holiness," according to the
testimonies of the apostle cited a little before.
He, then, who is day by day renewed by
making progress in the knowledge of God,
and in righteousness and true holiness, trans-
fers his love from things temporal to things
eternal, from things visible to things intelligi-
ble, from things carnal to things spiritual;
1 Ps. ciii. 3.
2 [Justification is instantaneous : sanctification is gradual.
Baptism is the sign, not the cause, of the former. "As many of
us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized with refer-
ence to (eis) his death:" and "are intombed with him by the
baptism that has reference to (ei?) his death." Rom. vi. 3, 4.
According to St. Paul, baptism supposes a trust in the atonement
of Christ, and is a seal of it. In saying that "the forgiveness of
all thine iniquity takes place in baptism," Augustin is liable to be
understood as teaching the efficiency of baptism in producing
forgiveness. This is the weak side of the Post Nicene soteriology.
W. G. T. S.] 3 2 Cor. iv. 16.
and diligently perseveres in bridling and
lessening his desire for the former, and in
binding himself by love to the latter. And
he does this in proportion as he is helped by
God. For it is the sentence of God Himself,
"Without me ye can do nothing." 4 And
when the last day of life shall have found any
one holding fast faith in the Mediator in such
progress and growth as this, he will be wel-
comed by the holy angels, to be led to God,
whom he has worshipped, and to be made
perfect by Him; and so will receive in the
end of the world an incorruptible body, in
order not to punishment, but to glory. For
the likeness of God will then be perfected in
this image, when the sight of God shall be
perfected. And of this the Apostle Paul
speaks: " Now we see through a glass, in an
enigma, but then face to face." 5 And again:
" But we with open face, beholding as in a
glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into
the same image, from glory to glory, even as
by the spirit of the Lord." 6 And this is what
happens from day to day in those that make
good progress.
CHAP. 18. WHETHER THE SENTENCE OF JOHN
IS TO BE UNDERSTOOD OF OUR FUTURE LIKE-
NESS WITH THE SON OF GOD IN THE IMMOR-
TALITY ITSELF ALSO OF THE BODY.
24. But the Apostle John says, " Beloved,
now are we the sons of God; and it doth not
yet appear what we shall be: but we know
that, when He shall appear, we shall be like
Him, for we shall see Him as He is." 7 Hence
it appears, that the full likeness of God is to
take place in that image of God at that time
when it shall receive the full sight of God.
And yet this may also possibly seem to be
said by the Apostle John of the immortality
of the body. For we shall be like to God in
this too, but only to the Son, because He only
in the Trinity took a body, in which He died
and rose again, and which He carried with
Him to heaven above. For this, too, is called
an image of the Son of God, in which we shall
have, as He has, an immortal body, being
conformed in this respect not to the image of
the Father or of the Holy Spirit, but only of
the Son, because of Him alone is it read and
received by a sound faith, that " the Word
was made flesh." 8 And for this reason the
apostle says, " Whom He did foreknow, He
also did predestinate to be conformed to the
image of His Son, that He might be the first-
born among many brethren." 9 "The first-
born " certainly " from the dead," 10 accord-
4 John xv. 5.
7 1 John iii. 2.
Col. 1. 18.
5 1 Cor. xiii. :
8 John i. 14.
6 2 Cor. iii. 18.
9 Rom. viii. 29.
Chap. XIX.]
ON THE TRINITY.
197
ing to the same apostle; by which death His
flesh was sown in dishonor, and rose again in
glory. According to this image of the Son,
to which we are conformed in the body by im-
mortality, we also do that of which the same
apostle speaks, " As we have borne the image
of the earthy, so shall we also bear the image
of the heavenly;" J to wit, that we who are
mortal after Adam, may hold by a true faith,
and a sure and certain hope, that we shall be
immortal after Christ. For so can we now
bear the same image, not yet in sight, but in
faith; not yet in fact, but in hope. For the
apostle, when he said this, was speaking of
the resurrection of the body.
CHAP. 19. JOHN IS RATHER TO BE UNDER-
STOOD OF OUR PERFECT LIKENESS WITH THE
TRINITY IN LIFE ETERNAL. WISDOM IS PER-
FECTED IN HAPPINESS.
25. But in respect to that image indeed, of
which it is said, " Let us make man after our
image and likeness," 2 we believe, and, after
the utmost search we have been able to make,
understand, that man was made after the
image of the Trinity, because it is not said,
After my, or After thy image. And therefore
that place too of the Apostle John must be
understood rather according to this image,
when he says, " We shall be like Him, for we
shall see Him as He is;" because he spoke
too of Him of whom he had said, " We are
the sons of God." 3 And the immortality of
the flesh will be perfected in that moment of
the resurrection, of which the Apostle Paul
says, " In the twinkling of an eye, at the last
trump; and the dead shall be raised incorrupt-
ible, and we shall be changed." 4 For in
that very twinkling of an eye, before the
judgment, the spiritual body shall rise again
in power, in incorruption,in glory, which is now
sown a natural body in weakness, in corruption,
in dishonor. But the image which is renewed
in the spirit of the mind in the knowledge of
God, not outwardly, but inwardly, from day
to day, shall be perfected by that sight itself;
which then after the judgment shall be face
to face, but now makes progress as through a
glass in an enigma. 5 And we must under-
stand it to be said on account of this perfec-
tion, that "we shall be like Him, for we shall
see Him as He is." For this gift will be
given to us at that time, when it shall have
been said, " Come, ye blessed of my Father,
inherit the kingdom prepared for you. " 6 For
tnen will the ungodly be taken away, so that
1 1 Cor. xv. 43, 49.
3 John in. 2.
5 1 Cor. xiii. 12.
2 Gen. i. 26.
4 1 Cor. xv. 52.
6 Matt. xxv. 34.
he shall not see the glory of the Lord, 7 when
those on the left hand shall go into eternal
punishment, while those on the right go into
life eternal. 8 But "this is eternal life," as
the Truth tells us; "to know Thee," He
says, "the one true God, and Jesus Christ
whom Thou hast sent." 9
26. This contemplative wisdom, which I
believe is properly called wisdom as distinct
from knowledge in the sacred writings; but
wisdom only of man, which yet man has not
except from Him, by partaking of whom a
rational and intellectual mind can be made
truly wise; this contemplative wisdom, I say,
it is that Cicero commends, in the end of the
dialogue Hortensius, when he says: "While,
then, we consider these things night and day,
and sharpen our understanding, which is the
eye of the mind, taking care that it be not
ever dulled, that is, while we live in philos-
ophy; we, I say, in so doing, have great hope
that, if, on the one hand, this sentiment and
wisdom of ours is mortal and perishable, we
shall still, when we have discharged our
human offices, have a pleasant setting, and a
not painful extinction, and as it were a rest
from life: or if, on the other, as ancient phil-
osophers thought, and those, too, the great-
est and far the most celebrated, we have
souls eternal and divine, then must we needs
think, that the more these shall have always
kept in their own proper course, i.e. in reason
and in the desire of inquiry, and the less they
shall have mixed and entangled themselves
in the vices and errors of men, the more easy
ascent and return they will have to heaven.''
And then he says, adding this short sentence,
and finishing his discourse by repeating it:
"Wherefore, to end my discourse at last, if
we wish either for a tranquil extinction, after
living in the pursuit of these subjects, or if
to migrate without delay from this present
home to another in no little measure better,
we must bestow all our labor and care upon
these pursuits." And here I marvel, that a
man of such great ability should promise to
men living in philosophy, which makes man
blessed by contemplation of truth, "a pleas-
ant setting after the discharge of human
offices, if this our sentiment and wisdom is
mortal and perishable;" as if that which we
did not love, or rather which we fiercely hated,
were then to die and come to nothing, so that
its setting would be pleasant to us ! But in-
deed he had not learned this from the philos-
ophers, whom he extols with great praise; but
this sentiment is redolent of that New Acad-
emy, wherein it pleased him to doubt of even
7 Isa. xxvi. 10.
8 Matt. xxv. 46.
9 John xvii. 3.
i g8
THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[Book XIV.
the plainest things. But from the philoso-
phers that were greatest and far most cele-
brated, as he himself confesses, he had
learned that souls are eternal. For souls that
are eternal are not unsuitably stirred up by
the exhortation to be found in " their own
proper course," when the end of this life shall
have come, i.e. "in reason and in the desire
of inquiry, '' and to mix and entangle them-
selves the less in the vices and errors of men,
in order that they may have an easier return
to God. But that course which consists in
the love and investigation of truth does not
suffice for the wretched, i.e. for all mortals
who have only this kind of reason, and are
without faith in the Mediator; as I have
taken pains to prove, as much as I could, in
former books of this work, especially in the
fourth and thirteenth.
BOOK XV.
BEGINS BY SETTING FORTH BRIEFLY AND IN SUM THE CONTENTS OF THE PREVIOUS FOURTEEN
BOOKS. THE ARGUMENT IS THEN SHOWN TO HAVE REACHED SO FAR AS TO ALLOW OF OUR
NOW INQUIRING CONCERNING THE TRINITY, WHICH IS GOD, IN THOSE ETERNAL, INCORPOREAL,
AND UNCHANGEABLE THINGS THEMSELVES, IN THE PERFECT CONTEMPLATION OF WHICH A
BLESSED LIFE IS PROMISED TO US. BUT THIS TRINITY, AS HE SHOWS, IS HERE SEEN BY US AS
BY A MIRROR AND IN AN ENIGMA, IN THAT IT IS SEEN BY MEANS OF THE IMAGE OF GOD,
WHICH WE ARE, AS IN A LIKENESS THAT IS OBSCURE AND HARD OF DISCERNMENT. IN LIKE
MANNER, IT IS SHOWN, THAT SOME KIND OF CONJECTURE AND EXPLANATION MAY BE GATH-
ERED RESPECTING THE GENERATION OF THE DIVINE WORD, FROM THE WORD OF OUR OWN
MIND, BUT ONLY WITH DIFFICULTY, ON ACCOUNT OF THE EXCEEDING DISPARITY WHICH IS
DISCERNIBLE BETWEEN THE TWO WORDS; AND, AGAIN, RESPECTING THE PROCESSION OF THE
HOLY SPIRIT, FROM THE LOVE THAT IS JOINED THERETO BY THE WILL.
CHAP. I. GOD IS ABOVE THE MIND.
i . Desiring to exercise the reader in the
things that are made, in order that he may
know Him by whom they are made, we have
now advanced so far as to His image, which
is man, in that wherein he excels the other
animals, i.e. in reason or intelligence, and
whatever else can be said of the rational or
intellectual soul that pertains to what is called
the mind. 1 For by this name some Latin
writers, after their own peculiar mode of
speech, distinguish that which excels in man,
and is not in the beast, from the soul, 2 which
is in the beast as well. If, then, we seek any-
thing that is above this nature, and seek truly,
it is God, namely, a nature not created, but
creating. And whether this is the Trinity, it
is now our business to demonstrate not only
to believers, by authority of divine Scripture,
but also to such as understand, by some kind
of reason, if we can. And why I say, if we
can, the thing itself will show better when we
have begun to argue about it in our inquiry.
CHAP. 2. GOD, ALTHOUGH INCOMPREHENSIBLE,
IS EVER TO BE SOUGHT. THE TRACES OF THE
TRINITY ARE NOT VAINLY SOUGHT IN THE
CREATURE.
2. For God Himself, whom we seek, will,
Me.
ns or animus.
A iii ma.
as I hope, help our labors, that they may not
be unfruitful, and that we may understand
how it is said in the holy Psalm, " Let the
heart of them rejoice that seek the Lord.
Seek the Lord, and be strengthened: seek His
face evermore." 3 For that which is always
being sought seems as though it were never
found; and how then will the heart of them
that seek rejoice, and not rather be made sad,
if they cannot find what they seek ? For it is
not said, The heart shall rejoice of them that
find, but of them that seek, the Lord. And
yet the prophet Isaiah testifies, that the Lord
God can be found when He is sought, when
he says: " Seek ye the Lord; and as soon as
ye have found Him, call upon Him: and when
He has drawn near to you, let the wicked man
forsake his ways, and the unrighteous man
his thoughts." 4 If, then, when sought, He
can be found, why is it said, "Seek ye His
face evermore ? " Is He perhaps to be sought
even when found ? For things incomprehen-
sible must so be investigated, as that no one
may think he has found nothing, when he has
been able to find how incomprehensible that
is which he was seeking. Why then does he
so seek, if he comprehends that which he
seeks to be incomprehensible, unless because
he may not give over seeking so long as he
makes progress in the inquiry itself into things
3 Ps. cv.
3, 4-
4 Isa. lv. 6, j.
200
THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
LBook XV.
incomprehensible, and becomes ever better
and better while seeking so great a good,
which is both sought in order to be found,
and found in order to be sought? For it is
both sought in order that it may be found
more sweetly, and found in order that it may
be sought more eagerly. The words of Wis-
dom in the book of Ecclesiasticus may be
taken in this meaning: "They who eat me
shall still be hungry, and they who drink me
shall still be thirsty." * For they eat and
drink because they find; and they still con-
tinue seeking because they are hungry and
thirst. Faith seeks, understanding finds;
whence the prophet says, " Unless ye believe,
ye shall not understand." 2 And yet, again,
understanding still seeks Him, whom it finds;
for "God looked down upon the sons of
men/' as it is sung in the holy Psalm, " to see
if there were any that would understand, and
seek after God.'' 3 And man, therefore,
ought for this purpose to have understanding,
that he may seek after God.
3. We shall have tarried then long enough
among those things that God has made, in
order that by them He Himself may be known
that made them. " For the invisible things
of Him from the creation of the world are
clearly seen, being understood by the things
that are made." 4 And hence they are re-
buked in the book of Wisdom, "who could
not out of the good things that are seen know
Him that is: neither by considering the works,
did they acknowledge the workmaster; but
deemed either fire, or wind, or the swift air,
or the circle of the stars, or the violent water,
or the lights of heaven, to be the gods which
govern the world: with whose beauty if they,
being delighted, took them to be gods, let
them know how much better the Lord of them
is; for the first Author of beauty hath created
them. But if they were astonished at their
power and virtue, let them understand by
them how much mightier He is that made
them. For by the greatness and beauty of
the creatures proportionably the Maker of
them is seen" 5 I have quoted these words
from the book of Wisdom for this reason,
that no one of the faithful may think me
vainly and emptily to have sought first in the
creature, step by step through certain trini-
ties, each of their own appropriate kind, un-
til I came at last to the mind of man, traces
of that highest Trinity which we seek when
we seek God.
1 Ecclus. xxiv. 29.
3 Ps. xiv. 2.
5 Wisd. xiii. 1-5.
2 Isa. vii. 9.
4 Rom. i. 20.
CHAP. 3. A BRIEF RECAPITULATION OF ALL
THE PREVIOUS BOOKS.
4. But since the necessities of our discus-
sion and argument have compelled us to say
a great many things in the course of fourteen
books, which we cannot view at once in one
glance, so as to be able to refer them quickly
in thought to that which we desire to grasp,
I will attempt, by the help of God, to the best
of my power, to put briefly together, without
arguing, whatever I have established in the
several books by argument as known, and to
place, as it were, under one mental view, not
the way in which we have been convinced of
each point, but the points themselves of which
we have been convinced; in order that what
follows may not be so far separated from that
which precedes, as that the perusal of the
former shall produce forgetfulness of the lat-
ter; or at any rate, if it have produced such
forgetfulness, that what has escaped the
memory may be speedily recalled by re-
perusal.
5. In the first book, the unity and equality
of that highest Trinity is shown from Holy
Scripture. In the second, and third, and
fourth, the same: but a careful handling of
the question respecting the sending of the Son
and of the Holy Spirit has resulted in three
books; and we have demonstrated, that He
who is sent is not therefore less than He who
sends because the one sent, the other was
sent; since the Trinity, which is in all things
equal, being also equally in its own nature
unchangeable, and invisible, and everywhere
present, works indivisibly. In the fifth,
with a view to those who think that the sub-
stance of the Father and of the Son is there-
fore not the same, because they suppose
everything that is predicated of God to be
predicated according to substance, and there-
fore contend that to beget and to be begotten,
or to be begotten and unbegotten, as being
diverse, are diverse substances, it is demon-
strated that not everything that is predicated
of God is predicated according to substance,
as He is called good and great according to
substance, or anything else that is predicated
of Him in respect to Himself, but that some
things also are predicated relatively, i.e. not
in respect to Himself, but in respect to some-
thing which is not Himself; as He is called
the Father in respect to the Son, or the Lord
in respect to the creature that serves Him;
and that here, if anything thus relatively pre-
dicated, i.e. predicated in respect to something
that is not Himself, is predicated also as in
time, as, e.g., " Lord, Thou hast become our
Chap. 1 1 1. J
ON THE TRINITY.
20I
refuge,'' 1 then nothing happens to Him so as
to work a change in Him, but He Himself
continues altogether unchangeable in His own
nature or essence. In the sixth, the question
how Christ is called by the mouth of the apos-
tle "the power of God and the wisdom of
God," 2 is so far argued that the more careful
handling of that question is deferred, viz.
whether He from whom Christ is begotten is
not wisdom Himself, but only the father of
His own wisdom, or whether wisdom begat
wisdom. But be it which it may, the equality
of the Trinity became apparent in this book
also, and that God was not triple, but a
Trinity; and that the Father and the Son are
not, as it were, a double as opposed to the
single Holy Spirit: for therein three are not
anything more than one. We considered,
too, how to understand the words of Bishop
Hilary. " Eternity in the Father, form in the
Image, use in the Gift," In the seventh, the
question is explained which had been de-
ferred: in what way that God who begat the
Son is not only Father of His own power and
wisdom, but is Himself also power and wis-
dom; so, too, the Holy Spirit; and yet that
they are not three powers or three wisdoms,
but one power and one wisdom, as one God
and one essence. It was next inquired, in
what way they are called one essence, three
persons, or by some Greeks one essence,
three substances; and we found that the
words were so used through the needs of
speech, that there might be one term by
which to answer, when it is asked what the
three are, whom we truly confess to be three,
viz. Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit. In
the eighth, it is made plain by reason also to
those who understand, that not only the
Father is not greater than the Son in the sub-
stance of truth, but that both together are not
anything greater than the Holy Spirit alone,
nor that any two at all in the same Trinity are
anything greater than one, nor all three to-
gether anything greater than each severally.
Next, I have pointed out, that by means of
the truth, which is beheld by the understand-
ing, and by means of the highest good, from
which is all good, and by means of the right-
eousness for which a righteous mind is loved
even hy a mind not yet righteous, we might
understand, so far as it is possible to under-
stand, that not only incorporeal but also un-
changeable nature which is God; and by
means, too, of love, which in the Holy Script-
ures is called God, 3 by which, first of all, those
who have understanding begin also, however
feebly, to discern the Trinity, to wit, one that
1 Ps. XC. I.
2 i Cor. i. 24.
3 i John iv. 16.
loves, and that which is loved, and love. In
the ninth, the argument advances as far as to
the image of God, viz. man in respect to his
mind; and in this we found a kind of trinity,
i.e. the mind, and the knowledge whereby
the mind knows itself, and the love whereby
it loves both itself and its knowledge of itself;
and these three are shown to be mutually
equal, and of one essence. In the tenth, the
same subject is more carefully and subtly
handled, and is brought to this point, that we
found in the mind a still more manifest trinity
of the mind, viz. in memory, and understand-
ing, and will. But since it turned out also,
that the mind could never be in such a case
as not to remember, understand, and love it-
self, although it did not always think of it-
self; but that when it did think of itself, it
did not in the same act of thought distinguish
itself from things corporeal; the argument re-
specting the Trinity, of which this is an im-
age, was deferred, in order to find a trinity
also in the things themselves that are seen
with the body, and to exercise the reader's
attention more distinctly in that. Accord-
ingly, in the eleventh, we chose the sense of
sight, wherein that which should have been
there found to hold good might be recognized
also in the other four bodily senses, although
not expressly mentioned; and so a trinity of
the outer man first showed itself in those
things which are discerned from without, to
wit, from the bodily object which is seen, and
from the form which is thence impressed upon
the eye of the beholder, and from the purpose
of the will combining the two. But these
three things, as was patent, were not mutually
equal and of one substance. Next, we found
yet another trinity in the mind itself, intro-
duced into it, as it were, by the things per-
ceived from without; wherein the same three
things, as it appeared, were of one substance:
the image of the bodily object which is in the
memory, and the form thence impressed
when the mind's eye of the thinker is turned
to it, and the purpose of the will combining
the two. But we found this trinity to pertain
to the outer man, on this account, that it was
introduced into the mind from bodily objects
which are perceived from without. In the
twelfth, we thought good to distinguish wis-
dom from knowledge, and to seek first, as be-
ing the lower of the two, a kind of appropri-
ate and special trinity in that which is speci-
ally called knowledge; but that although we
have got now in this to something pertaining
to the inner man, yet it is not yet to be either
called or thought an image of God. And
this is discussed in the thirteenth book by the
commendation of Christian faith. In the
202
THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[Book XV.
fourteenth we discuss the true wisdom of man,
viz. that which is granted him by God's gift
in the partaking of that very God Himself,
which is distinct from knowledge; and the
discussion reached this point, that a trinity is
discovered in the image of God, which is man
in respect to his mind, which mind is "re-
newed in the knowledge " of God, " after the
image of Him that created" man; 1 "after
His own image;" 2 and so obtains wisdom,
wherein is the contemplation of things eter-
nal.
CHAP. 4. WHAT UNIVERSAL NATURE TEACHES
US CONCERNING GOD.
6. Let us, then, now seek the Trinity which
is God, in the things themselves that are
eternal, incorporeal, and unchangeable; in
the perfect contemplation of which a blessed
life is promised us, which cannot be other
than eternal. For not only does the author-
ity of the divine books declare that God is;
but the whole nature of the universe itself
which surrounds us, and to which we also
belong, proclaims that it has a most excel-
lent Creator, who has given to us a mind and
natural reason, whereby to see that things liv-
ing are to be preferred to things that are not
living; things that have sense to things that
have not; things that have understanding to
things that have not; things immortal to
things mortal; things powerful to things
impotent; things righteous to things unright-
eous; things beautiful to things deformed;
things good to things evil; things incor-
ruptible to things corruptible; things un-
changeable to things changeable; things in-
visible to things visible; things incorporeal
to things corporeal; things blessed to things
miserable. And hence, since without doubt
we place the Creator above things created,
we must needs confess that the Creator both
lives in the highest sense, and perceives and
understands all things, and that He cannot
die, or suffer decay, or be changed; and that
He is not a body, but a spirit, of all the most
powerful, most righteous, most beautiful,
most good, most blessed.
CHAP. 5. HOW DIFFICULT IT IS TO DEMON-
STRATE THE TRINITY BY NATURAL REASON.
7. But all that I have said, and whatever
else seems to be worthily said of God after
the like fashion of human speech, applies to
the whole Trinity, which is one God, and to
the several Persons in that Trinity. For who
would dare to say either of the one God,
which is the Trinity itself, or of the Father,
or Son, or Holy Spirit, either that He is not
living, or is without sense or intelligence; or
that, in that nature in which they are affirm-
ed to be mutually equal, any one of them
is mortal, or corruptible, or changeable, or
corporeal ? Or is there any one who would
deny that any one in the Trinity is most
powerful, most righteous, most beautiful,
most good, most blessed ? If, then, these
things, and all others of the kind, can be
predicated both of the Trinity itself, and of
each several one in that Trinity, where or
how shall the Trinity manifest itself? Let
us therefore first reduce these numerous
predicates to some limited number. For
that which is called life in God, is itself His
essence and nature. God, therefore, does
not live, unless by the life which He is to
Himself. And this life is not such as that
which is in a tree, wherein is neither under-
standing nor sense; nor such as is in a beas