Chapter 7.—That It is Not Easy to Discover the Trinity that is God from the Trinities We Have Spoken of.

11. But these three are in such way in man, that they are not themselves man. For man, as the ancients defined him, is a rational mortal animal. These things, therefore, are the chief things in man, but are not man themselves. And any one person, i.e. each individual man, has these three things in his mind. But if, again, we were so to define man as to say, Man is a rational substance consisting of mind and body, then without doubt man has a soul that is not body, and a body that is not soul. And hence these three things are not man, but belong to man, or are in man. If, again, we put aside the body, and think of the soul by itself, the mind is somewhat belonging to the soul, as though its head, or eye, or countenance; but these things are not to be regarded as bodies. It is not then the soul, but that which is chief in the soul, that is called the mind. But can we say that the Trinity is in such way in God, as to be somewhat belonging to God, and not itself God? And hence each individual man, who is called the image of God, not according to all things that pertain to his nature, but according to his mind alone, is one person, and is an image of the Trinity in his mind. But that Trinity of which he is the image is nothing else in its totality than God, is nothing else in its totality than the Trinity. Nor does anything pertain to the nature of God so as not to pertain to that Trinity; and the Three Persons are of one essence, not as each individual man is one person.

12. There is, again, a wide difference in this point likewise, that whether we speak of the mind in a man, and of its knowledge and love; or of memory, understanding, will,—we remember nothing of the mind except by memory, nor understand anything except by understanding, nor love anything except by will. But in that Trinity, who would dare to say that the Father understands neither Himself, nor the Son, nor the Holy Spirit, except by the Son, or loves them except by the Holy Spirit; and that He remembers only by Himself either Himself, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit; and in the same way that the Son remembers neither Himself nor the Father, except by the Father, nor loves them except by the Holy Spirit; but that by Himself He only understands both the Father and Son and Holy Spirit: and in like manner, that the Holy Spirit by the Father remembers both the Father and the Son and Himself, and by the Son understands both the Father and the Son and Himself; but by Himself only loves both Himself and the Father and the Son;—as though the Father were both His own memory, and that of the Son and of the Holy Spirit; and the Son were the understanding of both Himself, and the Father and the Holy Spirit; but the Holy Spirit were the love both of Himself, and of the Father and of the Son? Who would presume to think or affirm this of that Trinity? For if therein the Son alone understands both for Himself and for the Father and for the Holy Spirit, we have returned to the old absurdity, that the Father is not wise from Himself, but from the Son, and that wisdom has not begotten wisdom, but that the Father is said to be wise by that wisdom which He begat. For where there is no understanding there can be no wisdom; and hence, if the Father does not understand Himself for Himself, but the Son understands for the Father, assuredly the Son makes the Father wise. But if to God to be is to be wise, and essence is to Him the same as wisdom, then it is not the Son that has His essence from the Father, which is the truth, but rather the Father from the Son, which is a most absurd falsehood. And this absurdity, beyond all doubt, we have discussed, disproved, and rejected, in the seventh book. Therefore God the Father is wise by that wisdom by which He is His own wisdom, and the Son is the wisdom of the Father from the wisdom which is the Father, from whom the Son is begotten; whence it follows that the Father understands also by that understanding by which He is His own understanding (for he could not be Wise that did not understand); and that the Son is the understanding of the Father, begotten of the understanding which is the Father. And this same may not be unfitly said of memory also. For how is he wise, that remembers nothing, or does not remember himself? Accordingly, since the Father is wisdom, and the Son is wisdom, therefore, as the Father remembers Himself, so does the Son also remember Himself; and as the Father remembers both Himself and the Son, not by the memory of the Son, but by His own, so does the Son remember both Himself and the Father, not by the memory of the Father, but by His own. Where, again, there is no love, who would say there was any wisdom? And hence we must infer that the Father is in such way His own love, as He is His own understanding and memory. And therefore these three, i.e. memory, understanding, love or will in that highest and unchangeable essence which is God, are, we see, not the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, but the Father alone. And because the Son too is wisdom begotten of wisdom, as neither the Father nor the Holy Spirit understands for Him, but He understands for Himself; so neither does the Father remember for Him, nor the Holy Spirit love for Him, but He remembers and loves for Himself: for He is Himself also His own memory, His own understanding, and His own love. But that He is so comes to Him from the Father, of whom He is born. And because the Holy Spirit also is wisdom proceeding from wisdom, He too has not the Father for a memory, and the Son for an understanding, and Himself for love: for He would not be wisdom if another remembered for Him, and yet another understood for Him, and He only loved for Himself; but Himself has all three things, and has them in such way that they are Himself. But that He is so comes to Him thence, whence He proceeds.

13. What man, then, is there who can comprehend that wisdom by which God knows all things, in such wise that neither what we call things past are past therein, nor what we call things future are therein waited for as coming, as though they were absent, but both past and future with things present are all present; nor yet are things thought severally, so that thought passes from one to another, but all things simultaneously are at hand in one glance;—what man, I say, is there that comprehends that wisdom, and the like prudence, and the like knowledge, since in truth even our own wisdom is beyond our comprehension? For somehow we are able to behold the things that are present to our senses or to our understanding; but the things that are absent, and yet have once been present, we know by memory, if we have not forgotten them. And we conjecture, too, not the past from the future, but the future from the past, yet by all unstable knowledge. For there are some of our thoughts to which, although future, we, as it were, look onward with greater plainness and certainty as being very near; and we do this by the means of memory when we are able to do it, as much as we ever are able, although memory seems to belong not to the future, but to the past. And this may be tried in the case of any words or songs, the due order of which we are rendering by memory; for we certainly should not utter each in succession, unless we foresaw in thought what came next. And yet it is not foresight, but memory, that enables us to foresee it; for up to the very end of the words or the song, nothing is uttered except as foreseen and looked forward to. And yet in doing this, we are not said to speak or sing by foresight, but by memory; and if any one is more than commonly capable of uttering many pieces in this way, he is usually praised, not for his foresight, but for his memory. We know, and are absolutely certain, that all this takes place in our mind or by our mind; but how it takes place, the more attentively we desire to scrutinize, the more do both our very words break down, and our purpose itself fails, when by our understanding, if not our tongue, we would reach to something of clearness. And do such as we are, think, that in so great infirmity of mind we can comprehend whether the foresight of God is the same as His memory and His understanding, who does not regard in thought each several thing, but embraces all that He knows in one eternal and unchangeable and ineffable vision? In this difficulty, then, and strait, we may well cry out to the living God, “Such knowledge is too wonderful for me: it is high, I cannot attain unto it.”950    Ps. cxxxix. 6 For I understand by myself how wonderful and incomprehensible is Thy knowledge, by which Thou madest me, when I cannot even comprehend myself whom Thou hast made! And yet, “while I was musing, the fire burned,”951    Ps. xxxix. 3 so that “I seek Thy face evermore.”952    Ps. cv. 4

CAPUT VII.

11. Haud facile posse ex dictis trinitatibus deprehendi Trinitatem Deum. Sed haec tria ita sunt in homine, ut non ipsa sint homo. Homo est enim, sicut veteres definierunt, animal rationale mortale. Illa ergo excellunt in homine, non ipsa sunt homo. Et una persona, id est singulus quisque homo, habet illa tria in mente . Quod si etiam sic definiamus hominem, ut dicamus, Homo est substantia rationalis constans ex anima et corpore; non est dubium hominem habere animam quae non est corpus, habere corpus quod non est anima. Ac per hoc illa tria non homo sunt, sed hominis sunt, vel in homine sunt. Detracto etiam corpore, si sola anima cogitetur, aliquid ejus est mens, tanquam caput ejus, vel oculus, vel facies: sed non haec ut corpora cogitanda sunt. Non igitur anima, sed quod excellit in anima mens vocatur. Numquid autem possumus dicere Trinitatem sic esse in Deo, ut aliquid Dei sit, nec ipsa sit Deus? Quapropter singulus quisque homo, qui non secundum omnia quae ad naturam pertinent ejus, sed secundum solam mentem imago Dei dicitur, una persona est, et imago est Trinitatis in mente. Trinitas vero illa cujus imago est, nihil aliud est tota quam Deus, nihil est aliud tota quam Trinitas. Nec aliquid ad naturam Dei pertinet, quod ad illam non pertineat Trinitatem: et tres personae sunt unius essentiae, non sicut singulus quisque homo una persona.

12. Itemque in hoc magna distantia est, quod sive mentem dicamus in homine, ejusque notitiam, et dilectionem, sive memoriam, intelligentiam, voluntatem, nihil mentis meminimus nisi per memoriam, nec intelligimus nisi per intelligentiam, nec amamus nisi per voluntatem. At vero in illa Trinitate quis audeat dicere Patrem, nec se ipsum, nec Filium, nec Spiritum sanctum intelligere nisi per Filium, vel diligere nisi per Spiritum sanctum, per se autem meminisse tantummodo vel sui vel Filii vel Spiritus sancti; eodemque modo Filium nec sui nec Patris meminisse nisi per Patrem, nec diligere nisi per Spiritum sanctum, per se autem non nisi intelligere et Patrem et se ipsum et Spiritum sanctum; similiter et Spiritum sanctum per Patrem meminisse et Patris et Filii et sui, et per Filium intelligere et Patrem et Filium et se ipsum, per se autem non nisi diligere et se et Patrem et Filium: tanquam memoria sit Pater et sua et Filii et Spiritus sancti, Filius autem intelligentia et sua et Patris et Spiritus sancti, Spiritus vero sanctus charitas et sua et Patris et Filii? Quis haec in illa Trinitate opinari vel affirmare praesumat? Si enim solus ibi Filius intelligit , et sibi et Patri et Spiritui sancto, ad illam reditur absurditatem, ut 1066 Pater non sit sapiens de se ipso, sed de Filio; nec sapientia sapientiam genuerit, sed ea sapientia Pater dicatur sapiens esse quam genuit. Ubi enim non est intelligentia, nec sapientia potest esse: ac per hoc si Pater non intelligit ipse sibi, sed Filius intelligit Patri, profecto Filius Patrem sapientem facit. Et si hoc est Deo esse quod sapere, et ea illi essentia est quae sapientia, non Filius a Patre, quod verum est; sed a Filio potius habet Pater essentiam, quod absurdissimum atque falsissimum est. Hanc absurditatem nos in libro septimo discussisse, convicisse, abjecisse certissimum est (Capp. I, 3). Est ergo Deus Pater sapiens, ea qua ipse sua est sapientia, et Filius sapientia Patris de sapientia quod est Pater, de quo genitus est Filius. Quocirca consequenter est et intelligens Pater ea qua ipse sua est intelligentia; neque enim esset sapiens qui non esset intelligens: Filius autem intelligentia Patris de intelligentia genitus quod est Pater. Hoc et de memoria non inconvenienter dici potest. Quomodo est enim sapiens qui nihil meminit, vel sui non meminit? Proinde, quia sapientia Pater, sapientia Filius, sicut sui meminit Pater, ita et Filius: et sicut sui et Filii meminit Pater, memoria non Filii, sed sua; ita sui et Patris meminit Filius, memoria non Patris, sed sua. Dilectio quoque ubi nulla est, quis ullam dicat esse sapientiam? Ex quo colligitur ita esse Patrem dilectionem suam, ut intelligentiam et memoriam suam. Ecce ergo tria illa, id est, memoria, intelligentia, dilectio sive voluntas in illa summa et immutabili essentia quod est Deus, non Pater et Filius et Spiritus sanctus sunt, sed Pater solus. Et quia Filius quoque sapientia est genita de sapientia, sicut nec Pater ei, nec Spiritus sanctus ei intelligit, sed ipse sibi; ita nec Pater ei meminit, nec Spiritus sanctus ei diligit, sed ipse sibi: sua enim est et ipse memoria, sua intelligentia, sua dilectio; sed ita se habere, de Patre illi est, de quo natus est. Spiritus etiam sanctus quia sapientia est procedens de sapientia, non Patrem habet memoriam, et Filium intelligentiam, et se dilectionem; neque enim sapientia esset, si alius ei meminisset, eique alius intelligeret, ac tantummodo sibi ipse diligeret: sed ipse habet haec tria, et ea sic habet, ut haec ipsa ipse sit. Verumtamen ut ita sit, inde illi est unde procedit.

13. Quis ergo hominum potest istam sapientiam qua novit Deus omnia, ita ut nec ea quae dicuntur praeterita, ibi praetereant, nec ea quae dicuntur futura, quasi desint exspectentur ut veniant, sed et praeterita et futura cum praesentibus sint cuncta praesentia; nec singula cogitentur, et ab aliis ad alia cogitando transeatur, sed in uno conspectu simul praesto sint universa: quis, inquam, hominum comprehendit istam sapientiam, eamdemque prudentiam, eamdemque scientiam; quandoquidem a nobis nec nostra comprehenditur ? Ea quippe quae vel sensibus 1067 vel intelligentiae nostrae adsunt, possumus utcumque conspicere: ea vero quae absunt, et tamen adfuerunt, per memoriam novimus, quae obliti non sumus. Nec ex futuris praeterita, sed futura ex praeteritis, non tamen firma cognitione conjicimus. Nam quasdam cogitationes nostras, quas futuras velut manifestius atque certius proximas quasi prospicimus, memoria faciente id agimus, cum agere valemus quantum valemus, quae videtur non ad ea quae futura sunt , sed ad praeterita pertinere. Quod licet experiri in eis dictis vel canticis, quorum seriem memoriter reddimus. Nisi enim praevideremus cogitatione quod sequitur, non utique diceremus. Et tamen ut praevideamus, non providentia nos instruit, sed memoria. Nam donec finiatur omne quod dicimus, sive canimus, nihil est quod non provisum prospectumque proferatur. Et tamen cum id agimus, non dicimur providenter, sed memoriter canere vel dicere; et qui hoc in multis ita proferendis valent plurimum, non solet eorum providentia, sed memoria praedicari. Fieri ista in animo vel ab animo nostro novimus, et certissimi sumus: quomodo autem fiant, quanto attentius voluerimus advertere, tanto magis noster et sermo succumbit, et ipsa non perdurat intentio, ut ad liquidum aliquid nostra intelligentia, et si non lingua, perveniat. Et putamus nos, utrum Dei providentia eadem sit quae memoria et intelligentia, qui non singula cogitando aspicit, sed una, aeterna et immutabili atque ineffabili visione complectitur cuncta quae novit, tanta mentis infirmitate posse comprehendere? In hac igitur difficultate et angustiis libet exclamare ad Deum vivum: Mirificata est scientia tua ex me; invaluit, et non potero ad illam (Psal. CXXXVIII, 6). Ex me quippe intelligo quam sit mirabilis et incomprehensibilis scientia tua, qua me fecisti; quando nec me ipsum comprehendere valeo quem fecisti: et tamen in meditatione mea exardescit ignis (Psal. XXXVIII, 4), ut quaeram faciem tuam semper (Psal. CIV, 4).