On the Trinity, Book 2

When people seek to know God and direct their minds toward understanding the Trinity as far as human weakness allows, they inevitably learn by experience how tiring and difficult the task is. They learn this whether through the mind’s own vision as it tries to gaze at unapproachable light, or through the many different ways of speaking used in the sacred writings (where, it seems to me, Adam is simply worn down so that Christ’s grace may shine in its glory). When such people have cleared up every uncertainty and reached something certain, I say, they should be the most ready of all to make allowances for those who go wrong while investigating so deep a mystery. Yet two things are especially hard to tolerate in people who are mistaken: jumping to conclusions before the truth is clear, and defending those hasty false conclusions after the truth has become clear. These two faults obstruct the discovery of truth and the interpretation of the divine and sacred books. If God, as I pray and hope, shields me from them with His goodwill and protects me by His merciful grace, I will eagerly investigate God’s substance, whether through His Scripture or through creation. Both are presented for our contemplation so that we may seek and love Him who inspired the one and created the other. I will not be afraid to give my opinion, because I will want honest people to examine it more than I fear malicious people’s criticism. Love, which is supremely good and unassuming, gratefully welcomes the dove’s gentle eye; but the dog’s tooth must either be avoided through the most careful humility or blunted by the firmest truth; I would much rather be criticized by anyone at all than praised by someone who is mistaken or flattering. A lover of truth need not fear anyone’s criticism. The critic must be either an enemy or a friend. If an enemy insults us, we must put up with him; if a friend is mistaken, he must be taught; if he teaches, he must be heard. If someone who is mistaken praises you, he confirms your error; if someone flatters you, he leads you into error. “Let the righteous,” therefore, “strike me; it will be a kindness. Let him correct me; but the oil of the sinner must not anoint my head.”

Concerning our Lord Jesus Christ, we firmly accept what we may call the rule of Scripture, which is taught throughout the Scriptures and has been demonstrated by learned Catholic interpreters of those Scriptures. This rule is that the Son of God is understood to be equal to the Father in the form of God, which He possesses, and less than the Father in the form of a servant, which He took on. In this form He was found to be not only less than the Father, but also less than the Holy Spirit; He was even less than Himself, not less than what He used to be, but less than what He still is; because by taking the form of a servant He did not lose the form of God, as we learned from the scriptural passages discussed in the previous book. Yet some statements in the sacred text leave it unclear which rule we should apply: the rule by which we understand the Son to be less, because He has taken on a created nature, or the rule by which we understand the Son to be equal to the Father rather than less than Him, while still being from Him, God of God, Light of light. For we call the Son God of God; but we call the Father simply God, not God from God. This makes it clear that the Son has another from whom He comes and whose Son He is; the Father does not have a Son from whom He comes, but only a Son whose father He is. Every son comes from his father and is his father’s son; no father comes from his son, though he is his son’s father. Some scriptural statements about the Father and the Son express the unity and equality of their substance; for example, “I and the Father are one;” and, “Who, being in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something stolen;” and any other passages of this kind. Other statements show the Son to be less because of the form of a servant, that is, because He took on a created, changeable human substance; for example, the statement, “For my Father is greater than I;” and, “The Father judges no man, but has committed all judgment to the Son.” A little later it goes on to say, “And has given Him authority to pass judgment also, because He is the Son of man.” Still other statements present Him neither as less nor as equal but simply as being from the Father; for example, “For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has given the Son life in Himself;” and the other statement: “The Son can do nothing by Himself, but only what He sees the Father doing.” If we take this statement to mean that the Son is less in the created form He took on, then the Father must have walked on the water, or opened the eyes of someone else born blind with mud and saliva, and done the other things which the Son did among people when He appeared in the flesh, before the Son did them. Only then could He have done these things, since He said that the Son could do nothing by Himself except what He had seen the Father doing. Yet who would think this, even if they were mad? These passages must therefore be expressed this way because the Son’s life is unchanging, just as the Father’s is, and yet He is from the Father; the Father’s action and the Son’s action cannot be divided, yet the Son receives the ability to act in this way from the One from whom He Himself comes, that is, from the Father. The Son sees the Father in such a way that His very seeing of Him is His being the Son. For Him, being from the Father, that is, being born of the Father, is the same as seeing the Father; and seeing Him working is the same as working with Him. His action is not from Himself, because His existence is not from Himself. Therefore, “Whatever He sees the Father doing, the Son also does in the same way,” because He is from the Father. He does not do different things in a similar way, as a painter paints other pictures, in the way he sees someone else paint other pictures; nor does He do the same things in a different way, as the body writes the same letters that the mind has thought of; instead, He says, “Whatever the Father does, the Son also does these same things in the same way.” He says both “these same things” and “in the same way;” so the Father’s action and the Son’s action are inseparable and equal, but this action comes to the Son from the Father. Therefore the Son cannot do anything by Himself except what He sees the Father doing. Under this rule, Scripture does not present one as less than another but only shows who comes from whom. Some people have interpreted it as saying that the Son is less. Some of our own people who are less educated and poorly instructed in these matters try to interpret these passages in terms of the form of a servant, misunderstand them, and become troubled. To prevent this, we must observe the rule that the Son is not less, and that these passages simply indicate that He is from the Father; they declare His birth, not His inequality.

As I began by saying, some statements in the sacred books leave it unclear which rule we should apply: the rule that the Son is less because He has taken on a created nature, or the rule that although He is equal, He is from the Father. In my view, if the uncertainty is such that we can neither explain nor determine which rule is intended, we may safely understand these passages according to either rule; for example, “My teaching is not mine, but His who sent me.” This can be understood in terms of the form of a servant, as we already discussed in the previous book, or in terms of the form of God, in which He is equal to the Father while still being from the Father. In the form of God, the Son and His life are not two different things, because that life itself is the Son. Likewise, the Son and His teaching are not two different things, because that teaching itself is the Son. Therefore, just as the statement, “He has given life to the Son,” can only be understood as saying: He has begotten the Son, who is life. So when it is said, He has given teaching to the Son, it can rightly be understood as saying: He has begotten the Son, who is teaching. So, when it is said, “My teaching is not mine, but His who sent me,” we should understand it as saying: I am not from myself, but from Him who sent me.

Even concerning the Holy Spirit, of whom it is not said, “He emptied Himself, and took the form of a servant;” the Lord Himself says, “However, when He, the Spirit of Truth, comes, He will guide you into all truth. For He will not speak from Himself, but will speak whatever He hears; and He will show you things to come. He will glorify me; for He will receive what is mine, and will show it to you.” If He had not immediately gone on to say, “All things that the Father has are mine; that is why I said that He will take what is mine, and will show it to you;” people might perhaps have believed that the Holy Spirit was born from Christ as Christ is born from the Father. He had said of Himself, “My teaching is not mine, but His who sent me;” but of the Holy Spirit, “For He will not speak from Himself, but will speak whatever He hears;” and, “For He will receive what is mine, and will show it to you.” Yet He has explained why He said, “He will receive what is mine” (for He says, “All things that the Father has are mine; that is why I said that He will take what is mine”); we must therefore understand that the Holy Spirit, like the Son, receives what belongs to the Father. How can this be except in accordance with the passage we quoted above, “When the Comforter comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about me”? He is therefore said not to speak from Himself because He proceeds from the Father. Just as the Son is not less because He said, “The Son can do nothing by Himself, but only what He sees the Father doing” (for He has not said this according to the form of a servant, but according to the form of God, as we have already shown, and these words present Him as being from the Father, not as less than the Father), so the Holy Spirit is not less because it is said of Him, “For He will not speak from Himself, but will speak whatever He hears;” these words describe Him as proceeding from the Father. The Son is from the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. Why, then, are they not both called sons and both said to be begotten? The former is called the only-begotten Son, while the latter, the Holy Spirit, is called neither son nor begotten. If begotten, He would certainly be a son. We will discuss this elsewhere, if God permits and to the extent that He permits.

Here too, those who think this supports their claim that the Father is greater than the Son should wake up, if they can. Their reason is that the Son said, “Father, glorify me.” The Holy Spirit also glorifies Him. Is the Spirit also greater than He is? Moreover, if the Holy Spirit glorifies the Son because He will receive what belongs to the Son, and will receive what belongs to the Son because all things that the Father has also belong to the Son, then clearly when the Holy Spirit glorifies the Son, the Father glorifies the Son. From this we can see that all things that the Father has belong not only to the Son but also to the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit is able to glorify the Son, whom the Father glorifies. If the one who glorifies is greater than the one being glorified, they should admit that those who glorify each other are equal. It is also written that the Son glorifies the Father; for He says, “I have glorified You on the earth.” They should really take care that the Holy Spirit is not thought greater than both, because He glorifies the Son whom the Father glorifies, although it is not written that either the Father or the Son glorifies Him.

When people have been proved wrong up to this point, they turn to saying that the sender is greater than the one 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 in 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 to you.” I first ask, then, in this inquiry, from where and to where the Son was sent. “I,” He says, “came from the Father, and have come into the world.” Therefore, being sent is coming from the Father and entering the world. What, then, does the same evangelist say about Him? “He was in the world, and the world was made by Him, and the world did not know Him;” and then he adds, “He came to His own.” He was certainly sent to the place He came to; but if He was sent into the world, because He came from the Father, then He both came into the world and was in the world. He was therefore sent where He already was. Consider also what the prophet records God saying: “Do I not fill heaven and earth?” If this is said of the Son (for some maintain that the Son Himself spoke either through the prophets or in the prophets), where was He sent except to the place where He already was? For He who says, “I fill heaven and earth,” was everywhere. If it is said of the Father, where could He be without His own word and without His own wisdom, which “extends powerfully from one end to the other and gently orders all things?” But He cannot be anywhere without His own Spirit. Therefore, if God is everywhere, His Spirit also is everywhere. The Holy Spirit was therefore also sent where He already was. The man who can find nowhere to escape God’s presence also says, “If I go up into heaven, You are there; if I go down into hell, You are there too.” To show that God is everywhere, he named His Spirit in the previous verse; for He says, Where can I go from Your Spirit? Where can I flee from Your presence? Since both the Son and the Holy Spirit are sent where they already were, we must ask how to understand the sending of either the Son or the Holy Spirit; only of the Father do we never read that He is sent. The apostle writes this about the Son: “But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those under the law.” “He sent,” he says, “His Son, born of a woman.” What Catholic does not know that the word “woman” here does not signify the loss of virginity, but, following Hebrew usage, the distinction of sex? When he says, “God sent His Son, born of a woman,” he clearly shows that the Son was “sent” precisely by being “born of a woman.” As born of God, He was already in the world; as 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 caused Him to be born of a woman, is certainly understood not to have done this without His own Spirit, but also because the Gospel states it explicitly in the answer to the Virgin Mary, when she asked the angel, “How will this happen?” “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you.” And Matthew says, “She was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit.” Also, in the prophet Isaiah, Christ Himself is understood to speak about His own future coming: “And now the Lord God and His Spirit have sent me.” Perhaps someone will try to make us say that the Son is sent also by Himself, because Mary’s conception and giving birth are the action of the Trinity, whose creative action makes everything that is created. He will then ask how the Father sent Him if He sent Himself. My first response is to ask him to tell me, if he can, how the Father has sanctified Him if He has sanctified Himself. The Lord Himself says both: “Do you say of Him,” He says, “whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world, You blaspheme, because I said, I am the Son of God;” while in another place He says, “And for their sake I sanctify myself.” I also ask how the Father handed Him over if He handed Himself over. For the Apostle Paul says both: “Who,” he says, “did not spare His own Son but handed Him over for us all;” while elsewhere he says of the Savior Himself, “Who loved me, and gave Himself up for me.” He will reply, I suppose, if he understands these things correctly, Because the will of the Father and the Son is one, and their action cannot be divided. He should likewise understand that the incarnation and birth from the Virgin, in which the Son is understood to have been sent, were accomplished by the single, inseparable action of the Father and the Son; the Holy Spirit is certainly not excluded, for it is explicitly said, “She was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit.” Perhaps our meaning will become clearer if we ask how God sent His Son. He commanded Him to come, and He came in obedience to the command. Or did He ask, or merely suggest? Whichever it was, it was certainly done through a word, and the Word of God is the Son of God Himself. Therefore, 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. Who would accept the irreverent opinion that the Father spoke a word in time to send the eternal Son in this way to appear in the flesh when the time was fulfilled? Surely the time for that wisdom to appear in the flesh was already present in that very Word of God who was in the beginning with God and was God, that is, in God’s own timeless wisdom. Therefore, since before time had any beginning the Word was in the beginning, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God, the time when the Word was to become flesh and live among us was timelessly present in the Word Himself. And when this fullness of time had come, “God sent His Son, born of a woman,” that is, born in time, so that the Word made flesh could appear to people; yet the time when this was to happen was timelessly present in that Word Himself; for the sequence of times exists timelessly in God’s eternal wisdom. Since both the Father and the Son brought about the Son’s appearance in the flesh, it is fitting to say that He who appeared in that flesh was sent, and that He who did not appear in it, sent Him; because events that occur outwardly in front of our physical eyes come from the inward arrangement (apparatu) of spiritual nature, and can therefore fittingly be described as sent. The human form He took belongs to the person of the Son, not also to the Father; therefore 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. If His becoming visible meant that He ceased to be invisible with the Father, that is, if the substance of the invisible Word were transformed into a visible created being, then the Son would be understood only as sent by the Father, without also sending with the Father. Yet He took the form of a servant while retaining the unchanging form of God. Clearly, then, the visible appearance of the Son was brought about by the Father and the Son while they remained invisible; the invisible Father, together with the invisible Son, sent that same Son to be visible. Why, therefore, does He say, “I did not come on my own?” We can now say that He says this in the form of a servant, in the same way as it is said, “I judge no man.” He is therefore said to be sent because He appeared outwardly in a created body, although inwardly, in His spiritual nature, He is always hidden from mortal eyes. It is now easy to understand why the Holy Spirit too is said to be sent. At the appointed time, a created outward appearance was brought about to show the Holy Spirit visibly, whether when He descended upon the Lord Himself in bodily form like a dove, or when, ten days after His ascension, on the day of Pentecost a sound came suddenly from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and divided tongues resembling fire appeared over them, and it sat upon each of them. This action, visibly displayed to mortal eyes, is called the sending of the Holy Spirit; not because His actual substance appeared, in which He himself also is invisible and unchangeable, like the Father and the Son, but so that people’s hearts, moved by outwardly visible things, might turn from His appearance as coming in time toward His hidden eternity, in which He is always present.

For this reason it is nowhere written that the Father is greater than the Holy Spirit, or that the Holy Spirit is less than God the Father, because the created form in which the Holy Spirit was to appear was not taken on in the way the Son of man was taken on, as the form in which the person of the Word of God Himself was to be presented; He was not simply to possess the word of God, as other holy and wise men have possessed it, but “above His fellows;” this certainly does not mean that He possessed the word more than they did and therefore had greater wisdom than the rest, but that He was the Word Himself. The word in the flesh and the Word made flesh are different things; that is, the word in a human being differs from the Word who is a human being. “Flesh” refers to a human being in the statement, “The Word was made flesh;” and again, “And all flesh shall see the salvation of God.” This does not refer to flesh without a soul or mind; but “all flesh,” is equivalent to saying “every person.” The created form in which the Holy Spirit was to appear was not taken on in the way that flesh and human form were taken from the Virgin Mary. The Spirit did not make the dove, wind, or fire blessed and unite them forever to Himself and His person in unity and “form.” Nor is the Holy Spirit’s nature subject to change, as though these things were not made from creation, but He Himself were transformed first into one and then into another, as water is changed into ice. These things appeared at the times when they were meant to appear, as creation served the Creator and was transformed at the command of Him who remains unchanging in Himself, to signify and reveal Him in the way it was fitting for mortal people to perceive Him. The dove is called the Spirit. In speaking of that fire, “There appeared to them,” he says, divided tongues resembling fire, and it sat on each of them; and they began to speak in other languages, as the Spirit enabled them to speak. This shows that the Spirit was revealed through the fire as through 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. John the Baptist says, “Here is the Lamb of God,” and John the Evangelist also sees the slaughtered Lamb in the Apocalypse. For that prophetic vision was not presented to physical eyes through physical forms, but to the spirit through spiritual images of physical things. Anyone who saw that dove and that fire saw them with their eyes. Perhaps, however, it is debatable whether the fire was seen by the eyes or in the spirit, because of the way the sentence is worded. For the text does not say, They saw divided tongues like fire, but, “There appeared to them.” We do not normally mean the same thing when we say, It appeared to me; as when we say, I saw. In spiritual visions of physical images both expressions are usual: It appeared to me; and, I saw: but when things are shown to the eyes through actual physical forms, the usual expression is not, It appeared to me; but, I saw. We may therefore ask how that fire was seen: inwardly in the spirit as though outwardly, or actually outwardly in front of the physical eyes. Yet concerning the dove, which is said to have descended in bodily form, no one ever doubted that it was seen by the eyes. Nor can we call the Spirit a dove or fire as we call the Son a Rock (for it is written, “And that Rock was Christ” ). That rock already existed as a created thing, and because of its action it was called by the name of Christ, whom it signified. The same applies to the stone placed under Jacob’s head and later anointed, which he used to signify the Lord; or to Isaac, who was Christ, when he carried the wood for the sacrifice of himself. A particular symbolic action was added to things that already existed; unlike the dove and fire, they did not suddenly come into existence just to serve as signs in this way. The dove and the fire, indeed, seem to me more like that flame which appeared to Moses in the bush, or that pillar which the people followed in the wilderness, or the thunder and lightning when the Law was given on the mountain. The physical form of these things came into existence specifically to signify something and then pass away.

The Holy Spirit, then, is also said to be sent, because of these physical forms, which came into existence in time to signify and reveal Him to human senses in the way He needed to be revealed; yet He is not said to be less than the Father, as the Son is said to be because He was in the form of a servant; because that form of a servant was united with the Son’s person, whereas those physical forms appeared temporarily to show what needed to be shown and then ceased to exist. Why, then, is the Father not also said to be sent through those physical forms: the fire of the bush, and the pillar of cloud or of fire, and the lightning on the mountain, and any other things of this kind that appeared then, when (as we have learned from scriptural testimony) He spoke face to face with the ancestors, if He Himself was manifested through those created forms displayed physically to human sight? But if the Son was manifested by them, why is He said to be sent so long after, when He was born of a woman, as the apostle says, “But when the fullness of time had come, God sent His Son, born of a woman,” since He had also been sent earlier, when He appeared to the ancestors through those changeable created forms? Or if He cannot rightly be said to be sent, except when the Word became flesh, why is the Holy Spirit said to be sent, who never underwent such an incarnation? If the visible things presented in the Law and the prophets revealed neither the Father nor the Son but the Holy Spirit, why is He said to be sent now, when He had also been sent in these ways before? Faced with this puzzling question, and with the Lord’s help, we must first ask who appeared to the ancestors through those created forms: was it the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit; or sometimes the Father, sometimes the Son, and sometimes the Holy Spirit; or whether it was without any distinction of persons, as when the one and only God is spoken of, that is, the Trinity itself? Next, whichever alternative is found or thought to be true, we must ask whether a created form was fashioned solely for this purpose, to show God to human sight as He judged suitable at that time; or whether angels who already existed were sent to speak in God’s person, taking a physical form from physical creation as each needed for their service; or whether, through the power the Creator has given them, they transformed their own bodies, which do not rule them but are ruled by them, into whatever appearances they wanted that suited their various actions. Finally, we will determine what we intended to ask: whether the Son and the Holy Spirit had also been sent before; and, if they were, what difference there is between that sending, and the one which we read of in the Gospel; or whether neither was actually sent until either the Son was born of the Virgin Mary, or the Holy Spirit appeared in a visible form, whether in the dove or in tongues of fire.

Let us therefore pass over those whose excessively fleshly thinking has led them to suppose that the nature of God’s Word and Wisdom, which, “remaining in herself, makes all things new,” whom we call the only Son of God, is not only changeable but also visible. With more boldness than reverence, they approach the investigation of divine things with very dull hearts. The soul is a spiritual substance and was itself created; it could only have been created by Him through whom everything was made, and without whom nothing is made. Although changeable, the soul is invisible; they have believed the same of the Word Himself and God’s own Wisdom, through whom the soul was created. Yet this Wisdom is not only invisible, like the soul, but also unchanging, which the soul is not. It is precisely this freedom from change that the statement refers to: “Remaining in herself she makes all things new.” Yet these people try to prop up their collapsing error with passages from divine Scripture. They quote the Apostle Paul and take what is said of the one and only God, understood as the Trinity itself, as said only of the Father, not of the Son or the Holy Spirit: “Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honor and glory forever and ever;” and that other passage, “The blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; who alone has immortality, living in light that no one can approach; whom no one has seen or can see.” How these passages are to be understood, I think we have already discussed enough.

Those who insist that these passages refer only to the Father, and not to the Son or the Holy Spirit, say that the Son is visible not only because He took flesh from the Virgin, but also in Himself before that. For He Himself, they say, appeared to the eyes of the ancestors. And if you say to them, Whatever makes the Son visible in Himself also makes Him mortal in Himself; so you clearly want this statement too to refer only to the Father: “Who alone has immortality;” for if the Son is mortal because He took on our flesh, then admit that He is also visible because of this flesh: they reply that they do not call the Son mortal because of this flesh; instead, just as He was visible before, He was also mortal before. If they say the Son is mortal because He took on our flesh, then it is not the Father alone without the Son who has immortality; because His Word also has immortality, by which all things were made. Taking mortal flesh did not cause Him to lose His immortality; even the human soul cannot die with the body, when the Lord Himself says, “Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul.” Or did the Holy Spirit also take flesh? They will certainly have difficulty explaining concerning Him, if the Son is mortal because He took our flesh, how they understand that the Father alone has immortality without the Son and the Holy Spirit, since the Holy Spirit did not take our flesh; and if He does not have immortality, then the Son is not mortal because He took our flesh; but if the Holy Spirit has immortality, then it is not said only of the Father, “Who alone has immortality.” They therefore think they can prove that the Son was mortal in Himself even before the incarnation, because changeability itself can appropriately be called mortality, which is also the sense in which the soul is said to die; not because it is transformed into a body, or into some substance other than itself, but because anything that now exists differently than before, even within its own same substance, is shown to be mortal insofar as it has ceased to be what it was. They say, therefore, that because before the Son of God was born of the Virgin Mary, He Himself appeared to our ancestors, not just in one form but in many, first one and then 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 because He is changeable. They say the same of the Holy Spirit, who appeared at one time as a dove, and another time as fire. Therefore, they say, the following texts do not belong to the Trinity, but specifically and exclusively to the Father: “Now to the King eternal, immortal, and invisible, the only wise God;” and, “Who alone has immortality, living in light that no one can approach; whom no one has seen or can see.” Let us therefore pass over these arguers, who do not understand even the soul’s substance, which is invisible, and are therefore very far from understanding that the substance of the one and only God, that is, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, always remains not only invisible but also unchanging, and that this is why it possesses true and real immortality. We deny that God, whether the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit, ever appeared to bodily eyes, except through physical creation subjected to His power. We are ready to be corrected if someone corrects us in a brotherly and honest spirit, and even if an enemy criticizes us, provided he speaks the truth. In Catholic peace and through peaceful study, let us ask whether God appeared without distinction of persons to our ancestors before Christ came in the flesh, or whether it was any one person of the Trinity, or whether the persons appeared separately, taking turns, so to speak.

First, Genesis records that God spoke with the man He had formed from dust. If we set aside the figurative meaning and accept the narrative literally, it would seem that God spoke with the man while appearing as a man. The book does not state this explicitly, but the overall sense of the narrative suggests it, especially where it says that Adam heard the voice of the Lord God, walking in the garden in the cool of the evening, and hid himself among the trees of the garden; when God said, “Adam, where are you?” Adam replied, “I heard Your voice, and I was afraid because I was naked, and I hid myself from Your face.” I do not see how God’s walking and conversation here can be understood literally unless He appeared as a man. We cannot say that only a divine voice was produced, when God is said to have walked, or that the One walking in a place was invisible; Adam also says that he hid himself from the face of God. Who then was He? Was it the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit? Or did God the Trinity Himself, without any distinction of persons, speak to the man in human form? The scriptural context itself seems nowhere to indicate a change from one person to another; the One speaking to the first man still seems to be the One who said, “Let there be light,” and, “Let there be an expanse,” and so on through each of those days. We usually understand this to be God the Father, making through a word whatever He wanted to make. For He made all things by His word, which Word we know, according to the correct rule of faith, to be His only Son. If, therefore, God the Father spoke 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 among the trees of the garden, why should we not also understand that it was He who appeared to Abraham and to Moses, and to whomever He wished, however He wished, through changeable and visible creation subject to Him, while He remains in Himself and in His own substance, in which He is unchangeable and invisible? Perhaps, however, Scripture moved from one person to another without indicating the change, and after relating that the Father said “Let there be light,” and the other things it records Him doing through the Word, it went on to present the Son speaking to the first man; it did not explain this openly, but hinted at it for those able to understand. Anyone able to look into this mystery with the mind’s eye, and see clearly either that the Father also is able, or that only the Son and Holy Spirit are able, to appear to human eyes through a visible created form, should go on to examine these things if he can, or even express and discuss them in words. In my judgment, however, the matter cannot be settled from this scriptural passage about God speaking with the man, because it is not even clear whether Adam usually saw God with his physical eyes; it is especially difficult to determine what kind of eyes were opened when they tasted the forbidden fruit; for before they had tasted, these eyes were closed. Yet I would not hastily assert, even if the scriptural passage implies that Paradise was a physical place, that God could not have walked there except in a bodily form. We could say that only words were produced for the man to hear, without seeing any form. Nor does the statement, “Adam hid himself from the face of God,” necessarily imply that he usually saw His face. What if Adam himself could not see Him, but feared being seen by the One whose voice he had heard, and whose presence he had sensed walking there? For Cain, too, said to God, “From Your face I will hide myself;” yet this does not compel us to admit that he regularly saw God’s face with his physical eyes in a visible form, although he had heard the voice of God questioning him and speaking about his sin. What kind of speech God then addressed to people’s physical ears, especially in speaking to the first man, is difficult to determine, and this discussion does not attempt to explain it. If only words and sounds were produced to make God’s presence perceptible to those first human beings, I do not know why I should not understand them as presenting the person of God the Father, since His person is also revealed in the voice when Jesus appeared in glory on the mountain in front of the three disciples; in the voice when the dove descended upon Him at His baptism; and in the voice that answered when He called to the Father about His own glorification: “I have both glorified, and will glorify again.” This does not mean that the voice could be produced without the action of the Son and the Holy Spirit (since the Trinity works indivisibly), but that the voice was produced to reveal only the Father’s person; just as the Trinity produced the human form from the Virgin Mary, yet it is the person of the Son alone; the invisible Trinity produced the visible person of the Son alone. Nothing prevents us from understanding the words addressed to Adam as spoken by the Trinity, and also as revealing the person of that Trinity. We must understand only the Father as speaking in the statement, “This is my beloved Son.” We can neither believe nor understand Jesus to be the Son of the Holy Spirit, or even His own Son. Where the voice said, “I have both glorified, and will glorify again,” we acknowledge only the person of the Father; it answers the Lord’s words, “Father, glorify your Son,” which He could address only to God the Father, and not also to the Holy Spirit, because He was not the Spirit’s Son. Yet here, in the statement, “And the Lord God said to Adam,” there is no reason not to understand the Trinity itself. Similarly, in the passage, “Now the Lord had said to Abraham, Leave your country, your relatives, and your father’s house,” it is not clear whether a voice alone came to the ears of Abraham, or whether he also saw something. A little later, it says somewhat more clearly, “And the Lord appeared to Abraham, and said, I will give this land to your descendants.” Yet that passage does not explicitly state in what form God appeared to him, or whether the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit appeared to him. 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.” The Son seems to be called Lord as though the name belongs specifically to Him; for example, the apostle says, “Although there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth, (as there are many gods and many lords), for us there is only one God, the Father, from whom all things come and for whom we exist; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom all things exist and through whom we exist.” Yet God the Father is also called Lord in many passages; for instance, “The Lord has said to me, You are my Son; today I have begotten You;” and again, “The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand;” the Holy Spirit is also called Lord, as when the apostle says, “Now the Lord is that Spirit;” and then, so that no one thinks the Son is meant, and is called Spirit because His substance is nonphysical, the apostle goes on to say, “And where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom;” and no one ever doubted that the Spirit of the Lord is the Holy Spirit. Therefore this passage too does not make clear whether it was a particular person of the Trinity that appeared to Abraham, or God Himself the Trinity, of whom, as one God, it is said, “You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only shall you serve.” Under the oak at Mamre, he saw three men, whom he invited, welcomed hospitably, and served as they ate. Yet Scripture at the beginning of that narrative does not say, three men appeared to him, but, “The Lord appeared to him.” And then, explaining in order how the Lord appeared to him, it has added the account of the three men, whom Abraham invites to accept his hospitality using the plural, and then addresses in the singular as one; as one, He promises him a son by Sarah, and He is the One Scripture calls Lord, as in the beginning of the same narrative, “The Lord,” it says, “appeared to Abraham.” He invites them then, and washes their feet, and sees them out when they leave, as though they were men; yet he speaks as though with the Lord God, whether when a son is promised to him, or when he is shown the destruction about to fall on Sodom.

This scriptural passage requires more than a brief or superficial consideration. For if one man had appeared, what would those people immediately claim, who say the Son was visible in His own substance before He was born of the Virgin, except that it was the Son Himself? Since it is said, they say, of the Father, “To the only invisible God.” And yet, I could still ask how “He was found in appearance as a man,” before He had taken our flesh, since His feet were washed and He ate earthly food? How could that be, when He was still “in the form of God, and did not consider equality with God something stolen?” Had He already “emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant and being made in human likeness, and found in appearance as a man?” We know when He did this through His birth from 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 none of them is said to be greater than the rest either in form, or age, or power, why should we not understand the visible created forms as visibly indicating the equality of the Trinity, and one and the same substance in three persons? Someone might think that one of the three is presented in this way as greater, and that this one must be understood as the Lord, the Son of God, while the other two were His angels, since although three appeared, Abraham there speaks to one as the Lord. Yet Holy Scripture anticipates and contradicts such later thoughts and opinions when a little while after it says that two angels came to Lot, and that righteous man, who deserved to escape Sodom’s burning, also addresses one as the Lord. Scripture goes on to say, “And the Lord went His way, as soon as He finished speaking with Abraham; and Abraham returned to his place.”

“Two angels came to Sodom in the evening.” Here we must examine more closely what I have begun to explain. Certainly Abraham was speaking with three, and addressed them in the singular as the Lord. Perhaps someone will say he recognized one of the three to be the Lord, but the other two His angels. What, then, does Scripture mean when it goes on to say, “And the Lord went His way, as soon as He had finished speaking with Abraham; and Abraham returned to his place: and two angels came to Sodom in the evening?” Are we to suppose that the one who, among the three, was recognized as the Lord, had departed, 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 in the evening; and Lot was sitting at Sodom’s gate: and when Lot saw them, he got up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground; and he said, My lords, please come into your servant's house.” Here it is clear, both that there were two angels, and that they were invited using the plural to accept hospitality, and that they were respectfully called lords, perhaps because they were thought to be men. Someone may object that unless Lot knew they were God’s angels, Lot would not have bowed himself with his face to the ground. Why, then, are they offered hospitality and food, as though they needed human assistance? Whatever may be hidden here, let us continue our inquiry. Two appear; both are called angels; the invitation is plural, and he addresses them in the plural as two, until the departure from Sodom. And then Scripture goes on to say, “When they had brought them outside, they said, Escape for your life; do not look behind you or stop anywhere in the plain; escape to the mountain, and there you shall be saved, so that you are not destroyed. And Lot said to them, No, my lord; your servant has found favor in your sight,” etc. What is meant by his saying to them, “No, my lord,” if He who was the Lord had already departed, and had sent the angels? Why is it said, “No, my lord,” and not, “No, my lords?” Or if he wished to speak to one of them, why does Scripture say, “But Lot said to them, No, my lord; your servant has found favor in your sight,” etc.? Should we here too understand two persons in the plural, but when the two are addressed as one, the one Lord God of one substance? Which two persons should we understand here: the Father and the Son, the Father and the Holy Spirit, or the Son and the Holy Spirit? The last option may be more suitable; for they said of themselves that they were sent, which is what we say of the Son and the Holy Spirit. For we find nowhere in the Scriptures that the Father was sent.

When Moses was sent to lead the Israelites out of Egypt, it is written that the Lord appeared to him in this way: “Now Moses was tending the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian: and he led the flock to the far side of the wilderness, and came to the mountain of God, to Horeb. And the Angel of the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire, from within a bush; he looked and saw the bush burning with fire, and the bush was not burned up. And Moses said, I will turn aside now to look at this remarkable sight and see why the bush is not burned up. And when the Lord saw that he turned aside to see, God called to him from within the bush, and said, I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” 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 Savior Himself, of whom the apostle says, “The ancestors belong to them, and according to the flesh Christ, who is over all, came from them, God blessed forever.” He, therefore, “who is over all, God blessed forever,” can reasonably be understood here as Himself also being 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 He appeared in a flame of fire out of the bush? Was it because it was one of many angels, who represented his Lord under a plan [or arrangement]? Or did He take on something created to produce a visible appearance for the purpose at hand, from which audible words could be spoken, to reveal the Lord’s presence in a fitting way to human physical senses through creation subject to Him? For if he was one of the angels, who could easily determine whether he was charged with announcing the person of the Son, or that of the Holy Spirit, or that of God the Father, or of the whole Trinity itself, who is the one and only God, so that he could 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 anyone 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 ancestors. Furthermore, the Father is God, as everyone, even heretics, admits. The Son is also God, as, whether they like it or not, they are compelled to acknowledge, since the apostle says, “Who is over all, God blessed forever.” The Holy Spirit is also God, since the same apostle says, “Therefore glorify God in your body;” after saying earlier, “Do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have from God?” These three are one God, as sound Catholic faith believes. Yet it is not clear enough which person of the Trinity the angel represented, if he was one of the other angels, or whether he represented a particular person rather than the Trinity itself. If, however, a created form was taken on for the purpose at hand, to appear to human eyes and speak to human ears, and to be called the Angel of the Lord, and the Lord, and God; then God here cannot be understood to be the Father, but either the Son or the Holy Spirit. I cannot recall that the Holy Spirit is anywhere else called an angel, though this can be understood from His action; for it is said of Him, “And He will show you things to come;” and “angel” in Greek is certainly equivalent to “messenger” in Latin: but the prophet states explicitly concerning the Lord Jesus Christ that He is called “the Angel of Great Counsel,” while both the Holy Spirit and the Son of God are God and Lord of the angels.

Also, concerning the Israelites’ departure 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 did not remove the pillar of cloud by day or the pillar of fire by night from in front of the people.” Who would doubt here too that God appeared to the eyes of mortals through physical creation subject to Him, and not by His own substance? Yet it is not equally clear whether it was the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit, or the Trinity itself, the one God. In my judgment, the following passage does not distinguish this either: “The glory of the Lord appeared in the cloud, and the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, I have heard the Israelites’ complaints,” etc.

Now consider the clouds, voices, lightning, trumpet, and smoke on Mount Sinai, described in the passage, “And Mount Sinai was entirely covered in smoke, because the Lord descended upon it in fire, and its smoke rose like smoke from a furnace; and all the people in the camp trembled; and as the trumpet sounded for a long time and grew louder and louder, Moses spoke, and God answered him by a voice.” A little later, when the Law had been given in the ten commandments, the text continues, “And all the people saw the thunder, lightning, the sound of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking.” A little later, “And [when the people saw it,] they moved away and stood at a distance, and Moses drew near to the thick darkness where God was, and the Lord said to Moses,” etc. What can I say about this except that no one can be so mad as to believe that the smoke, fire, cloud, darkness, or anything else of this kind is the substance of God’s Word and Wisdom, who is Christ, or of the Holy Spirit? For not even the Arians ever dared to say that they were the substance of God the Father. All these things were brought about through creation serving the Creator, and were presented under a suitable arrangement (dispensatio) to human senses; unless, perhaps, because it is said, “And Moses drew near to the cloud where God was,” fleshly thinking must suppose that the cloud was indeed seen by the people, but that within the cloud Moses with his physical eyes saw the Son of God, whom foolish heretics insist can be seen in His own substance. Moses could have seen Him with physical eyes only if both the wisdom of God which is Christ, and even the wisdom of any person, however wise, can be seen with physical eyes. Or should the statement about 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 pavement of sapphire, and as it were the sky itself in its clarity,” lead us to believe that the word and wisdom of God in His own substance occupied the space of an earthly location, although He “extends powerfully from end to end and gently orders all things;” and that the Word of God, by whom all things were made, is changeable in such a way that He sometimes contracts and sometimes expands? (May the Lord cleanse the hearts of His faithful ones from such thoughts!) Yet all these visible and perceptible things are, as we have often said, displayed through creation subject to Him to signify God, who is invisible and known by the mind, not only the Father, but also the Son and the Holy Spirit, “from whom, through whom, and in whom all things exist;” although “the invisible things of God, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, including His eternal power and divinity.” For our present inquiry, I do not see how the events on Mount Sinai make clear, through all those terrifying displays to mortal senses, whether God the Trinity spoke, or the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit individually. If we may cautiously venture a tentative suggestion about this passage without making a rash assertion, and if it can refer to one person of the Trinity, why not understand it as referring to the Holy Spirit, since the Law itself also, which was given there, is said to have been written on stone tablets with the finger of God, an expression that we know signifies the Holy Spirit in the Gospel? Fifty days are counted from the slaughter of the lamb and the celebration of Passover to the day these events began on Mount Sinai; just as after our Lord’s suffering, fifty days are counted from His resurrection, and then came the Holy Spirit whom the Son of God had promised. At that very coming, which we read of in the Acts of the Apostles, divided tongues resembling fire appeared, and it rested on each of them: which agrees with Exodus, where it is written, “And Mount Sinai was entirely covered in smoke, because the Lord descended upon it in fire;” and a little later, “And the sight of the glory of the Lord,” he says, “was like consuming fire on the mountaintop in the eyes of the Israelites.” Or if these things were brought about because neither the Father nor the Son could be presented there in that way without the Holy Spirit, through whom the Law itself had to be written, then we certainly know that God appeared there, not by His own substance, which remains invisible and unchangeable, but through the created appearance mentioned above; yet we cannot see that a particular person of the Trinity appeared, identified by a distinctive characteristic, as far as I can understand.

Another difficulty troubles most people: the passage says, “And the Lord spoke to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend;” yet a little later, the same Moses says, “Now, please, if I have found favor in Your sight, show me now Yourself plainly, that I may see You, that I may find favor in Your sight, and that I may recognize this nation as Your people;” and a little later Moses again said to the Lord, “Show me Your glory.” What does this mean? In all the events mentioned above, God was thought to have appeared in His own substance; these miserable people therefore believed that the Son of God was visible in Himself, rather than through creation. Moses seemed to enter the cloud for precisely this purpose: the people’s eyes would see a dark cloud, while Moses within it would hear God’s words as though he were looking at His face; and, as it is said, “And the Lord spoke to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend;” yet that same Moses says, “If I have found favor in Your sight, show me Yourself plainly?” He certainly knew that what he saw was physical, and he sought the true spiritual vision of God. The speech produced in words was therefore adapted to resemble a friend speaking to a friend. Yet who sees God the Father with physical eyes? 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, who sees Him with physical eyes? And the spirit of wisdom, again, who sees with physical eyes? What does “Show me now Yourself plainly, that I may see You,” mean except, Show me Your substance? But if Moses had not said this, we would have had to put up as best we could with those foolish people who think that the substance of God was made visible to his eyes through the words and events mentioned above. Yet this passage makes it entirely clear that this was not granted to him, even though he wanted it. Who, then, will dare say that through the similar visible forms that appeared to him, a mortal man saw not creation serving God, but God Himself? Consider also what the Lord later said to Moses: “You cannot see my face, for no one can see my face and live. And the Lord said, There is a place beside me, and you shall stand on a rock: and while my glory passes by, I will put you into a cave in the rock, and will cover you with my hand while I pass by: and I will take away my hand, and you shall see my back; but my face shall not be seen.”

It is commonly and appropriately understood that this foreshadows the person of our Lord Jesus Christ: His “back” is understood as His flesh, in which He was born of the Virgin, and died, and rose again; whether it is called His back because mortality comes later, or because He chose to take flesh almost at the end of the world, that is, at a late period; His “face,” however, is the form of God, in which He “did not consider equality with God something stolen,” which no one certainly can see and live; this may be because after this life, in which we are absent from the Lord, and where the perishable body weighs down the soul, we shall see “face to face,” as the apostle says (for it is said in the Psalms, of this life, “Truly every living person is entirely fleeting;” and again, “No living person will be justified in Your sight;” and in this life also, according to John, “What we will be has not yet been revealed, but we know,” he says, “that when He appears, we will be like Him, for we will see Him as He is,” which he certainly intended to be understood as after this life, when we have paid the debt of death and received the promised resurrection); or it may be because even now, to whatever extent we spiritually understand the wisdom of God, by which all things were made, to that same extent we die to fleshly desires, so that, considering this world dead to us, we ourselves also die to this world, and say what the apostle says, “The world is crucified to me, and I to the world.” He also speaks of this death when he says, “Therefore, if you have died with Christ, why do you submit to regulations as though you still lived in the world?” There is therefore good reason why no one can see the “face,” that is, the very revelation of God’s wisdom, and live. Everyone longs to contemplate this very appearance if they strive to love God with all their heart, all their soul, and all their mind; whoever also loves his neighbor as himself helps that neighbor toward contemplating it as far as he can; the whole law and the prophets depend on these two commandments. And this is signified also in Moses himself. Filled with a special love for God, he said, “If I have found favor in your sight, show me now Yourself plainly, that I may find favor in Your sight;” and immediately added, because he also loved his neighbor, “And that I may know that this nation is Your people.” Every rational soul is therefore swept along by desire for this “appearance,” and desires it more intensely the purer it is; and it is purer the more it rises to spiritual things; and it rises the more to spiritual things the more it dies to fleshly things. But while we are absent from the Lord, and walk by faith, not by sight, we should see Christ’s “back,” that is His flesh, through that very faith, that is, standing on the solid foundation of faith, which the rock signifies, and viewing it from a safe watchtower, namely in the Catholic Church, of which it is said, “And upon this rock I will build my Church.” We love Christ’s face, which we eagerly desire to see, all the more surely as we recognize in His back how greatly Christ first loved us. Concerning the flesh itself, the faith in His resurrection saves and justifies us. For, “If you believe,” he says, “in your heart, that God has raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved;” and again, “Who was delivered,” he says, “for our offenses, and was raised again for our justification.” So that the reward of our faith is the resurrection of the body of our Lord. For even His enemies believe that that flesh died on the cross of His suffering, but they do not believe that it rose again. We believe this firmly and gaze on it as though from a solid rock; we therefore await with confident hope our adoption, that is, the redemption of our body; because we hope for that in the members of Christ, that is, in ourselves, which by a sound faith we acknowledge as already complete in Him, our Head. That is why He would only allow His back to be seen as He passed by, so that His resurrection might be believed. The Hebrew word Pascha is translated Passover. That is why John the Evangelist also says, “Before the feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that His hour had come, to pass from this world to the Father.” Those who believe this, but do so outside the Catholic Church, in some schism or heresy, do not see the Lord’s back from “the place that is by Him.” What does the Lord mean when He says, “There is a place beside me, and you shall stand upon a rock?” What earthly place is “by” the Lord, unless what touches Him spiritually is “by Him”? For what place is not “by” the Lord, who “extends powerfully from one end to the other and gently orders 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 you build to me, and where is the place of my rest? For has not my hand made all those things?” Clearly, the Catholic Church itself is understood as “the place by Him,” in which one stands upon a rock, where someone sees the “Pascha Domini” in a way that brings salvation, that is, the “Passing by” of the Lord, and His back, that is, His body, if he believes in His resurrection. “And you shall stand,” He says, “upon a rock while my glory passes by.” Indeed, immediately after the Lord’s majesty 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 he had denied three times out of fear before he stood firm; he had already been placed, through predestination, on the rock’s watchtower, but with the hand of the Lord still held over him so that he could not see. For he was to see His back, and the Lord had not yet “passed by,” namely, from death to life; He had not yet been glorified by the resurrection. Consider also what follows in Exodus: “I will cover you with my hand while I pass by, and I will take away my hand and you shall see my back;” many Israelites, whom Moses then represented, believed in the Lord after His resurrection, as if His hand had been removed from their eyes, and they now saw His back. That is why the evangelist also mentions Isaiah’s prophecy: “Make this people’s heart unresponsive, make their ears dull, and shut their eyes.” Lastly, in the Psalm, we can reasonably understand these words as spoken in their person, “For day and night Your hand was heavy upon me.” “By day,” perhaps, when He performed clear miracles, yet was not acknowledged by them; but “by night,” when He died in suffering, when they thought still more certainly that, like any other person, He had been cut off and His life ended. Yet after He had passed by and His back could be seen, the Apostle Peter preached to them that Christ had to suffer and rise again. Their hearts were pierced with the sorrow of repentance, so that those baptized might experience what is said at the beginning of that Psalm: “Blessed are they whose transgressions are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.” Therefore, after the words, “Your hand is heavy upon me,” as though the Lord had passed by and now removed His hand so that His back could be seen, we hear someone grieving, confessing, and receiving forgiveness of sins by faith in the resurrection of the Lord: “I turned,” he says, “in distress while the thorn was broken. I recognized my sin and did not hide my wrongdoing. I said, I will declare my wrongdoing to the Lord against myself, and You forgave the sin of my heart.” We should not be so enveloped in fleshly darkness that we think God’s face is invisible but His back visible, since both appeared visibly in the form of a servant; we should never think anything like this concerning the form of God; we should never think that the Word of God and the Wisdom of God has a face on one side, and a back on the other, as a human body has, or changes at all in place or time through any appearance or movement. Therefore, if in those words which were spoken in Exodus, and in all those physical appearances, the Lord Jesus Christ was manifested; or if in some cases Christ was manifested, as our examination of this passage leads us to believe, in others the Holy Spirit, as our earlier discussion indicates; it does not follow in any case that God the Father never appeared in any such form to the ancestors. For many such appearances happened in those times, without either the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit being explicitly named and identified in them; though some very plausible interpretations provide indications, so that it would be too hasty to say that God the Father never appeared through any visible forms to the ancestors or prophets. This opinion arose among those unable to understand passages like the following in relation to the Trinity’s unity: “Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God;” and, “Whom no one has seen or can see.” Sound faith understands these passages as referring to that substance itself, which is supreme, supremely divine, and unchanging, in which the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are the one and only God. Those visions were brought about through changeable creation, made subject to the unchangeable God, and did not reveal God precisely as He is, but indicated Him in ways suited to the reasons and times of the various circumstances.

I do not know how these people understand that the Ancient of Days appeared to Daniel, from whom the Son of man, which He chose to become for our sake, is understood to have received the kingdom; namely, from Him who says to Him in the Psalms, “You are my Son; today I have begotten You; ask me, and I will give You the nations as Your inheritance;” and who has “put all things under His feet.” If, however, both the Father giving the kingdom, and the Son receiving it, appeared to Daniel in bodily form, how can those men say that the Father never appeared to the prophets, and, therefore, that He alone should be understood as invisible, whom no one has seen or can see? Daniel tells us this: “I watched,” he says, “until thrones were placed and the Ancient of Days sat down, whose clothing was white as snow, and the hair of His head like pure wool: His throne was like the fiery flame, and His wheels like burning fire; a stream of fire flowed out from His presence: a thousand thousands served Him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before Him: the court sat, and the books were opened,” etc. And a little later, “I saw,” he says, “in the night visions, and one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of Days, and they brought Him into His presence. He was given dominion, glory, and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him: His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and His kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.” Here is the Father giving, and the Son receiving, an eternal kingdom; and both appear visibly to the prophet. It is therefore reasonable to believe that God the Father too used to appear to mortals in this way. Perhaps someone will say that the Father is invisible because He appeared in a dreamer’s vision; while the Son and the Holy Spirit are visible because Moses saw all these things while awake; as though Moses saw the Word and the Wisdom of God with physical eyes, or that even the human spirit that gives life to the flesh can be seen, or even that physical thing called wind; how much less can that Spirit of God be seen, who surpasses all human and angelic minds through the inexpressible excellence of the divine substance? Could anyone plunge into such error as to dare say that the Son and the Holy Spirit are visible also to people who are awake, but that the Father is not visible except to those who dream? How, then, do they understand only the Father in the passage, “Whom no one has seen or can see”? Are people no longer human when they sleep? Or cannot He, who can form a bodily likeness to signify Himself through the visions of dreamers, also form that same physical creation to signify Himself to the eyes of those who are awake? Yet His own substance, by which He is what He is, cannot be shown by any bodily likeness to one who sleeps, or by any bodily appearance to one who is awake; this is true not only of the Father, but also of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. As for those led by the visions of people who are awake to believe that not the Father, but only the Son, or the Holy Spirit, appeared to people’s physical sight, let us set aside the vast range of sacred writings and their many interpretations, which should prevent any reasonable person from claiming that the person of the Father was nowhere shown to the eyes of waking men through any physical appearance. Setting this aside, as I said, what do they say of our father Abraham, who was certainly awake and serving his guests, when, after Scripture had first stated, “The Lord appeared to Abraham,” not one or two but three men appeared to him? None of them is said to have stood out above the others, shone with greater glory than the others, or acted with greater authority. In the first part of our threefold inquiry, we decided to ask whether the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit; or sometimes the Father, sometimes the Son, and 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 ancestors through those created forms. We have now examined the scriptural passages we could, as far as seemed sufficient. A modest and cautious examination of divine mysteries leads, as far as I can judge, only to the conclusion that we must not hastily assert which person of the Trinity appeared to a particular ancestor or prophet in some body or likeness of body, unless the context gives the narrative some plausible indications. The nature, substance, or essence itself, or whatever else that reality which is God may be called, whatever it is, cannot be seen physically; but we must believe that through creation subject to Him, not only the Son, or the Holy Spirit, but also the Father, may have indicated Himself to mortal senses through a physical form or likeness. Since this is the case, and to keep this second book from becoming excessively long, let us consider what remains in the books that follow.