Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
| Of the Holy Spirit and the Mystery of the Trinity.
PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP 
Chapter 9.—Of the Holy
Spirit and the Mystery of the Trinity.
16. The divine generation,
therefore, of our Lord, and his human dispensation, having both
been thus systematically disposed and commended to faith,1589
| 1589 Instead of fideique commendata
et divina generatione, etc., another, but weakly supported,
version is, fide atque commendata divina, etc., which makes
the sense = The faith, therefore, having been systematically
disposed, and our Lord’s divine generation and human dispensation
having been commended to the understanding, etc. | there is
added to our Confession, with a view to the perfecting of the faith
which we have regarding God, [the doctrine of]
The Holy
Spirit, who is not of a nature inferior1590
| 1590 Non minore natura quam
Pater. The Benedictine editors suggest
minor for minore = not inferior in nature,
etc. | to the Father and the Son, but, so
to say, consubstantial and co-eternal: for this Trinity is one God,
not to the effect that the Father is the same [Person] as the Son
and the Holy Spirit, but to the effect that the Father is the
Father, and the Son is the Son, and the Holy Spirit is the Holy
Spirit; and this Trinity is one God, according as it is written,
“Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God is one God.”1591
At the
same time, if we be interrogated on the subject of each separately,
and if the question be put to us, “Is the Father God?” we shall
reply, “He is God.” If it be asked whether the Son is God, we
shall answer to the same effect. Nor, if this kind of inquiry be
addressed to us with respect to the Holy Spirit, ought we to affirm
in reply that He is anything else than God; being earnestly on our
guard, [however], against an acceptance of this merely in the sense
in which it is applied to men, when it is said, “Ye are
gods.”1592
For of all
those who have been made and fashioned of the Father, through the
Son, by the gift of the Holy Spirit, none are gods according to
nature. For it is this same Trinity that is signified when an
apostle says, “For of Him, and in Him, and through Him, are all
things.”1593
Consequently, although, when we are interrogated on the subject of
each [of these Persons] severally, we reply that that particular
one regarding whom the question is asked, whether it be the Father,
or the Son, or the Holy Spirit, is God, no one, notwithstanding
this, should suppose that three Gods are worshipped by
us.
17. Neither is it strange that these things are said in
reference to an ineffable Nature, when even in those objects which
we discern with the bodily eyes, and judge of by the bodily sense,
something similar holds good. For take the instance of an
interrogation on the subject of a fountain, and consider how we are
unable then to affirm that the said fountain is itself the river;
and how, when we are asked about the river, we are as little able
to call it the fountain; and, again, how we are equally unable to
designate the draught, which comes of the fountain or the river,
either river or fountain. Nevertheless, in the case of this trinity
we use the name water [for the whole]; and when the question
is put regarding each of these separately, we reply in each several
instance that the thing is water. For if I inquire whether
it is water in the fountain, the reply is given that it is water;
and if we ask whether it is water in the river, no different
response is returned; and in the case of the said draught, no other
answer can possibly be made: and yet, for all this, we do not speak
of these things as three waters, but as one water. At the same
time, of course, care must be taken that no one should conceive of
the ineffable substance of that Majesty merely as he might think of
this visible and material1594
| 1594 Corporeum = corporeal. | fountain, or river, or draught.
For in the case of these latter that water which is at present in
the fountain goes forth into the river, and does not abide in
itself; and when it passes from the river or from the fountain into
the draught, it does not continue permanently there where it is
taken from. Therefore it is possible here that the same water may
be in view at one time under the appellation of the fountain and at
another under that of the river, and at a third under that of the
draught. But in the case of that Trinity, we have affirmed it to be
impossible that the Father should be sometime the Son, and sometime
the Holy Spirit: just as, in a tree, the root is nothing else than
the root, and the trunk (robur) is nothing else than the
trunk, and we cannot call the branches anything else than branches;
for, what is called the root cannot be called trunk and branches;
and the wood which belongs to the root cannot by any sort of
transference be now in the root, and again in the trunk, and yet
again in the branches, but only in the root; since this rule of
designation stands fast, so that the root is wood, and the trunk is
wood, and the branches are wood, while nevertheless it is not three
woods that are thus spoken of, but only one. Or, if these objects
have some sort of dissimilarity, so that on account of their
difference in strength they may be spoken of, without any
absurdity, as three woods; at least all parties admit the force of
the former example,—namely, that if three cups be filled out of
one fountain, they may certainly be called three cups, but cannot
be spoken of as three waters, but only as one all together. Yet, at
the same time, when asked concerning the several cups, one by one,
we may answer that in each of them by itself there is water;
although in this case no such transference takes place as we were
speaking of as occurring from the fountain into the river. But
these examples in things material (corporalia exempla) have
been adduced not in virtue of their likeness to that divine Nature,
but in reference to the oneness which subsists even in things
visible, so that it may be understood to be quite a possibility for
three objects of some sort, not only severally, but also all
together, to obtain one single name; and that in this way no one
may wonder and think it absurd that we should call the Father God,
the Son God, the Holy Spirit God, and that nevertheless we should
say that there are not three Gods in that Trinity, but one God and
one substance.1595
| 1595 Many
mss., however, insert colamus after Deum in
the closing sentence, sed unum Deum unamque substantiam. The
sense then will be = and that nevertheless we should worship in
that Trinity not three Gods, but one God and one
substance. |
18. And, indeed, on this subject of
the Father and the Son, learned and spiritual1596
| 1596 Spiritales, for which religiosi = religious, is also
sometimes given. | men have conducted discussions in
many books, in which, so far as men could do with men, they have
endeavored to introduce an intelligible account as to how the
Father was not one personally with the Son, and yet the two were
one substantially;1597
| 1597 Non unus esset Pater et
Filius, sed unum essent = how the
Father and the Son were not one in person, but were one in
essence. | and as to what the Father was
individually (proprie), and what the Son: to wit, that the
former was the Begetter, the latter the Begotten; the former not of
the Son, the latter of the Father: the former the Beginning of the
latter, whence also He is called the Head of Christ,1598
although
Christ likewise is the Beginning,1599
| 1599 In reference probably to
John viii. 25, where the
Vulgate gives principium qui et loquor vobis as the literal
equivalent for the Greek
Ϣὴν ἀρχὴν ὅ, τι
καὶ λαλῶ
ὑηῖν | but not of the Father; the latter,
moreover, the Image1600
of the former, although in no
respect dissimilar, and although absolutely and without difference
equal (omnino et indifferenter æqualis). These questions
are handled with greater breadth by those who, in less narrow
limits than ours are at present, seek to set forth the
profession of the Christian faith in its totality. Accordingly, in
so far as He is the Son, of the Father received He it that He
is, while that other [the Father] received not this of the Son;
and in so far as He, in unutterable mercy, in a temporal
dispensation took upon Himself the [nature of] man
(hominem),—to wit, the changeable creature that was
thereby to be changed into something better,—many statements
concerning Him are discovered in the Scriptures, which are so
expressed as to have given occasion to error in the impious
intellects of heretics, with whom the desire to teach takes
precedence of that to understand, so that they have supposed Him to
be neither equal with the Father nor of the same substance. Such
statements [are meant] as the following: “For the Father is
greater than I;”1601
and, “The head of the woman is
the man, the Head of the man is Christ, and the Head of Christ is
God;”1602
and,
“Then shall He Himself be subject unto Him that put all things
under Him;”1603
and, “I
go to my Father and your Father, my God and your God,”1604
together
with some others of like tenor. Now all these have had a place
given them, [certainly] not with the object of signifying an
inequality of nature and substance; for to take them so would be to
falsify a different class of statements, such as, “I and my
Father are one” (unum);1605
and, “He that hath seen me hath
seen my Father also;”1606
and, “The Word was God,”1607
for He was
not made, inasmuch as “all things were made by Him;”1608
and, “He
thought it not robbery to be equal with God:”1609
together with all the other
passages of a similar order. But these statements have had a place
given them, partly with a view to that administration of His
assumption of human nature (administrationem suscepti
hominis), in accordance with which it is said that “He
emptied Himself:” not that that Wisdom was changed, since it is
absolutely unchangeable; but that it was His will to make Himself
known in such humble fashion to men. Partly then, I repeat, it is
with a view to this administration that those things have been thus
written which the heretics make the ground of their false
allegations; and partly it was with a view to the consideration
that the Son owes to the Father that which He is,1610
| 1610 Or it may be = that the Son owes
it to the Father that He is. | —thereby
also certainly owing this in particular to the Father, to wit, that
He is equal to the same Father, or that He is His Peer (eidem
Patri æqualis aut par est), whereas the Father owes whatsoever
He is to no one.
19. With respect to the Holy Spirit, however, there has not been as yet,
on the part of learned and distinguished investigators of the
Scriptures, a discussion of the subject full enough or careful
enough to make it possible for us to obtain an intelligent
conception of what also constitutes His special individuality
(proprium): in virtue of which special individuality it
comes to be the case that we cannot call Him either the Son or the
Father, but only the Holy Spirit; excepting that they predicate Him
to be the Gift of God, so that we may believe God not to give a
gift inferior to Himself. At the same time they hold by this
position, namely, to predicate the Holy Spirit neither as begotten,
like the Son, of the Father; for Christ is the only one [so
begotten]: nor as [begotten] of the Son, like a Grandson of the
Supreme Father: while they do not affirm Him to owe that which He
is to no one, but [admit Him to owe it] to the Father, of whom are
all things; lest we should establish two Beginnings without
beginning (ne duo constituamus principia isne principio),
which would be an assertion at once most false and most absurd, and
one proper not to the catholic faith, but to the error of certain
heretics.1611
| 1611 In reference, again, to Manichean
errorists. | Some,
however, have gone so far as to believe that the communion of the
Father and the Son, and (so to speak) their Godhead
(deitatem), which the Greeks designate θεότης, is the
Holy Spirit; so that, inasmuch as the Father is God and the Son
God, the Godhead itself, in which they are united with each
other,—to wit, the former by begetting the Son, and the latter by
cleaving to the Father,1612
| 1612 Patri cohœrendo
= by close connection with the Father. | —should [thereby] be constituted
equal with Him by whom He is begotten. This Godhead, then, which
they wish to be understood likewise as the love and charity
subsisting between these two [Persons], the one toward the other,
they affirm to have received the name of the Holy Spirit. And this
opinion of theirs they support by many proofs drawn from the
Scriptures; among which we might instance either the passage which
says, “For the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the
Holy Ghost, who has been given unto us,”1613
or many other proofs texts of a
similar tenor: while they ground their position also upon the
express fact that it is through the Holy Spirit that we are
reconciled unto God; whence also, when He is called the Gift of
God, they will have it that sufficient indication is offered of the
love of God and the Holy Spirit being identical. For we are not
reconciled unto Him except through that love in virtue of which we
are also called sons:1614
as we are no more “under fear,
like servants,”1615
because “love, when it is made
perfect, casteth out fear;”1616
and [as] “we have received the
spirit of liberty, wherein we cry, Abba, Father.”1617
And
inasmuch as, being reconciled and called back into friendship
through love, we shall be able to become acquainted with all the
secret things of God, for this reason it is said of the Holy Spirit
that “He shall lead you into all truth.”1618
For the same reason also, that
confidence in preaching the truth, with which the apostles were
filled at His advent,1619
is rightly ascribed to love;
because diffidence also is assigned to fear, which the perfecting
of love excludes. Thus, likewise, the same is called the Gift of
God,1620
because no
one enjoys that which he knows, unless he also love it. To enjoy
the Wisdom of God, however, implies nothing else than to cleave to
the same in love (ei dilectione cohærere). Neither does any
one abide in that which he apprehends, but by love; and accordingly
the Holy Spirit is called the Spirit of sanctity (Spiritus
Sanctus), inasmuch as all things that are sanctioned
(sanciuntur)1621
| 1621 Instead of sanciuntur,
which is the reading of the mss., some
editions give sanctificantur = all things that are
sanctified are sanctioned, etc. | are sanctioned with a view to
their permanence, and there is no doubt that the term sanctity
(sanctitatem) is derived from sanction (a sanciendo).
Above all, however, that testimony is employed by the upholders of
this opinion, where it is thus written, “That which is born of
the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is
spirit;”1622
“for God
is a Spirit.”1623
For here
He speaks of our regeneration,1624
| 1624 Reading, with the mss. and the Benedictine editors, Hic enim
regenerationem nostram dicit. Some editions give Hoc for
Hic, and dicunt for dicit = for they say that
this expresses our regeneration. | which is not, according to Adam,
of the flesh, but, according to Christ, of the Holy Spirit.
Wherefore, if in this passage mention is made of the Holy Spirit,
when it is said, “For God is a Spirit,” they maintain that we
must take note that it is not said, “for the Spirit is God,”1625
| 1625 Quoniam Spiritus Deus
est. But various editions and mss. give Dei for Deus = for the
Spirit is of God. | but,
“for God is a Spirit;” so that the very Godhead of the Father
and the Son is in this passage called God, and that is the Holy
Spirit. To this is added another testimony which the Apostle John
offers, when he says, “For God is love.”1626
For here, in like manner, what he
says is not, “Love is God,”1627
| 1627 Here again, instead of
dilectio Deus est, we also find dilectio Dei est = love
is of God. | but, “God is love;” so that
the very Godhead is taken to be love. And with respect to the
circumstance that, in that enumeration of mutually connected
objects which is given when it is said, “All things are yours,
and ye are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s,”1628
as also, “The head of the woman
is the man, the Head of the man is Christ, and the Head of Christ
is God,”1629
there is
no mention of the Holy Spirit; this they affirm to be but an
application of the principle that, in general, the connection
itself is not wont to be enumerated among the things which are
connected with each other. Whence, also, those who read with closer
attention appear to recognize the express Trinity likewise in that
passage in which it is said, “For of Him, and through Him, and in
Him, are all things.”1630
“Of Him,” as if it meant, of
that One who owes it to no one that He is: “through
Him,” as if the idea were, through a Mediator; “in Him,” as
if it were, in that One who holds together, that is, unites by
connecting.
20. Those parties oppose this
opinion who think that the said communion, which we call either
Godhead, or Love, or Charity, is not a substance. Moreover, they
require the Holy Spirit to be set forth to them according to
substance; neither do they take it to have been otherwise
impossible for the expression “God is Love” to have been used,
unless love were a substance. In this, indeed, they are influenced
by the wont of things of a bodily nature. For if two bodies are
connected with each other in such wise as to be placed in
juxtaposition one with the other, the connection itself is not a
body: inasmuch as when these bodies which had been connected are
separated, no such connection certainly is found [any more]; while,
at the same time, it is not understood to have departed, as it
were, and migrated, as is the case with those bodies themselves.
But men like these should make their heart pure, so far as they
can, in order that they may have power to see that in the substance
of God there is not anything of such a nature as would imply that
therein substance is one thing, and that which is accident to
substance (aliud quod accidat subsantiœ) another thing, and
not substance; whereas whatsoever can be taken to be therein is
substance. These things, however, can easily be spoken and
believed; but seen, so as to reveal how they are in themselves,
they absolutely cannot be, except by the pure heart. For which
reason, whether the opinion in question be true, or something
else be the case, the faith ought to be maintained unshaken, so
that we should call the Father God, the Son God, the Holy Spirit
God, and yet not affirm three Gods, but hold the said Trinity to be
one God; and again, not affirm these [Persons] to be different in
nature, but hold them to be of the same substance; and further
uphold it, not as if the Father were sometime the Son, and sometime
the Holy Spirit, but in such wise that the Father is always the
Father, and the Son always the Son, and the Holy Spirit always the
Holy Spirit. Neither should we make any affirmation on the subject
of things unseen rashly, as if we had knowledge, but [only
modestly] as believing. For these things cannot be seen except by
the heart made pure; and [even] he who in this life sees them “in
part,” as it has been said, and “in an enigma,”1631
cannot
secure it that the person to whom he speaks shall also see them, if
he is hampered by impurities of heart. “Blessed,” however,
“are they of a pure heart, for they shall see God.”1632
This is
the faith on the subject of God our Maker and Renewer.
21. But inasmuch as love is
enjoined upon us, not only toward God, when it was said, “Thou
shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy
soul, and with all thy mind;”1633
but also toward our neighbor, for
“thou shalt love,” saith He, “thy neighbor as thyself;”1634
and
inasmuch, moreover, as the faith in question is less fruitful, if
it does not comprehend a congregation and society of men, wherein
brotherly charity may operate;—E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|
