S. AURELII AUGUSTINI HIPPONENSIS EPISCOPI DE TRINITATE Libri quindecim .

 CAPUT PRIMUM.

 CAPUT II.

 CAPUT III.

 CAPUT IV.

 CAPUT V.

 CAPUT VI.

 CAPUT VII.

 CAPUT VIII.

 CAPUT IX.

 CAPUT X.

 CAPUT XI.

 CAPUT XII.

 CAPUT XIII.

 LIBER SECUNDUS. Rursum defendit Augustinus aequalitatem Trinitatis, et de Filii missione ac Spiritus sancti agens, variisque Dei apparitionibus, demon

 PROOEMIUM.

 CAPUT PRIMUM.

 CAPUT II.

 CAPUT III.

 CAPUT IV.

 CAPUT V.

 CAPUT VI.

 CAPUT VII.

 CAPUT VIII.

 CAPUT IX.

 CAPUT X.

 CAPUT XI.

 CAPUT XII.

 CAPUT XIII.

 CAPUT XIV.

 CAPUT XV.

 CAPUT XVI.

 CAPUT XVII.

 CAPUT XVIII.

 LIBER TERTIUS. In quo quaeritur, an in illis de quibus superiore libro dictum est, Dei apparitionibus, per corporeas species factis, tantummodo creatu

 PROOEMIUM.

 CAPUT PRIMUM.

 CAPUT II.

 CAPUT III.

 CAPUT IV.

 CAPUT V.

 CAPUT VI.

 CAPUT VII

 CAPUT VIII.

 CAPUT IX.

 CAPUT X.

 CAPUT XI.

 LIBER QUARTUS. Explicat ad quid missus sit Filius Dei: Christo videlicet pro peccatoribus moriente persuadendum nobis fuisse imprimis et quantum nos d

 PROOEMIUM.

 CAPUT PRIMUM.

 CAPUT II.

 CAPUT III.

 CAPUT IV.

 CAPUT V.

 CAPUT VI.

 CAPUT VII.

 CAPUT VIII.

 CAPUT IX.

 CAPUT X.

 CAPUT XI.

 CAPUT XII.

 CAPUT XIII.

 CAPUT XIV.

 CAPUT XV.

 CAPUT XVI.

 CAPUT XVII.

 CAPUT XVIII.

 CAPUT XIX.

 CAPUT XX.

 CAPUT XXI.

 LIBER QUINTUS. Venit ad haereticorum argumenta illa quae non ex divinis Libris, sed ex rationibus suis proferunt: et eos refellit, quibus ideo videtur

 CAPUT PRIMUM.

 CAPUT II.

 CAPUT III.

 CAPUT IV.

 CAPUT V.

 CAPUT VI.

 CAPUT VII.

 CAPUT VIII.

 CAPUT IX.

 CAPUT X.

 CAPUT XI.

 CAPUT XII.

 CAPUT XIII.

 CAPUT XIV.

 CAPUT XV.

 CAPUT XVI.

 LIBER SEXTUS. In quo proposita quaestione, quomodo dictus sit Christus ore apostolico, Dei virtus et Dei sapientia,

 CAPUT PRIMUM.

 CAPUT II.

 CAPUT III.

 CAPUT IV.

 CAPUT V.

 CAPUT VI.

 CAPUT VII.

 CAPUT VIII.

 CAPUT IX.

 CAPUT X.

 LIBER SEPTIMUS. In quo superioris libri quaestio, quae dilata fuerat, explicatur quod videlicet Deus Pater qui genuit Filium virtutem et sapientiam,

 CAPUT PRIMUM.

 CAPUT II.

 CAPUT III.

 CAPUT IV.

 CAPUT V.

 CAPUT VI.

 LIBER OCTAVUS. In quo ratione reddita monstrat, non solum Patrem Filio non esse majorem, sed nec ambos simul aliquid majus esse quam Spiritum sanctum,

 PROOEMIUM.

 CAPUT PRIMUM.

 CAPUT II.

 CAPUT III.

 CAPUT IV.

 CAPUT V.

 CAPUT VI.

 CAPUT VII.

 CAPUT VIII.

 CAPUT IX.

 CAPUT X.

 LIBER NONUS. Trinitatem in homine, qui imago Dei est, quamdam inesse mentem scilicet, et notitiam qua se novit, et amorem quo se notitiamque suam dil

 CAPUT PRIMUM.

 CAPUT II.

 CAPUT III.

 CAPUT IV.

 CAPUT V.

 CAPUT VI.

 CAPUT VII.

 CAPUT VIII.

 CAPUT IX.

 CAPUT X.

 CAPUT XI.

 CAPUT XII.

 LIBER DECIMUS, In quo trinitatem aliam in hominis mente inesse ostenditur, eamque longe evidentiorem apparere in memoria, intelligentia et voluntate.

 CAPUT PRIMUM.

 CAPUT II.

 CAPUT III.

 CAPUT IV.

 CAPUT V.

 CAPUT VI.

 CAPUT VII.

 CAPUT VIII.

 CAPUT IX.

 CAPUT X.

 CAPUT XI.

 CAPUT XII.

 LIBER UNDECIMUS. Trinitatis imago quaedam monstratur etiam in exteriore homine: primo quidem in his quae cernuntur extrinsecus ex corpore scilicet qu

 CAPUT PRIMUM.

 CAPUT II.

 CAPUT III.

 CAPUT IV.

 CAPUT V.

 CAPUT VI.

 CAPUT VII.

 CAPUT VIII.

 CAPUT IX.

 CAPUT X.

 CAPUT XI.

 LIBER DUODECIMUS. In quo praemissa distinctione sapientiae a scientia, in ea quae proprie scientia nuncupatur, quaeve inferior est, prius quaedam sui

 CAPUT PRIMUM.

 CAPUT II.

 CAPUT III.

 CAPUT IV.

 CAPUT V.

 CAPUT VI.

 CAPUT VII.

 CAPUT VIII.

 CAPUT IX.

 CAPUT X.

 CAPUT XI.

 CAPUT XII.

 CAPUT XIII.

 CAPUT XIV.

 CAPUT XV.

 LIBER TERTIUS DECIMUS. Prosequitur de scientia, in qua videlicet, etiam ut a sapientia distinguitur, trinitatem quamdam inquirere libro superiore coep

 CAPUT PRIMUM.

 CAPUT II.

 CAPUT III.

 CAPUT IV.

 CAPUT V.

 CAPUT VI.

 CAPUT VII.

 CAPUT VIII.

 CAPUT IX.

 CAPUT X.

 CAPUT XI.

 CAPUT XII.

 CAPUT XIII.

 CAPUT XIV.

 CAPUT XV.

 CAPUT XVI.

 CAPUT XVII.

 CAPUT XVIII.

 CAPUT XIX.

 CAPUT XX.

 LIBER QUARTUS DECIMUS. De sapientia hominis vera dicit, ostendens imaginem Dei, quod est homo secundum mentem, non proprie in transeuntibus, veluti in

 CAPUT PRIMUM.

 CAPUT II.

 CAPUT III.

 CAPUT IV.

 CAPUT V.

 CAPUT VI.

 CAPUT VII.

 CAPUT VIII.

 CAPUT IX.

 CAPUT X.

 CAPUT XI.

 CAPUT XII.

 CAPUT XIII.

 CAPUT XIV.

 CAPUT XV.

 CAPUT XVI.

 CAPUT XVII.

 CAPUT XVIII.

 CAPUT XIX.

 LIBER QUINTUS DECIMUS. Principio, quid in singulis quatuordecim superioribus libris dictum sit, exponit breviter ac summatim, eoque demum pervenisse d

 CAPUT PRIMUM.

 CAPUT II.

 CAPUT III.

 CAPUT IV.

 CAPUT V.

 CAPUT VI.

 CAPUT VII.

 CAPUT VIII.

 CAPUT IX.

 CAPUT X.

 CAPUT XI.

 CAPUT XII.

 CAPUT XIII.

 CAPUT XIV.

 CAPUT XV.

 CAPUT XVI.

 CAPUT XVII.

 CAPUT XVIII.

 CAPUT XIX.

 CAPUT XX.

 CAPUT XXI.

 CAPUT XXII.

 CAPUT XXIII.

 CAPUT XXIV.

 CAPUT XXV.

 CAPUT XXVI.

 CAPUT XXVII.

 CAPUT XXVIII.

Chapter 6.—That the Son is Very God, of the Same Substance with the Father. Not Only the Father, But the Trinity, is Affirmed to Be Immortal. All Things are Not from the Father Alone, But Also from the Son. That the Holy Spirit is Very God, Equal with the Father and the Son.

9. They who have said that our Lord Jesus Christ is not God, or not very God, or not with the Father the One and only God, or not truly immortal because changeable, are proved wrong by the most plain and unanimous voice of divine testimonies; as, for instance, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” For it is plain that we are to take the Word of God to be the only Son of God, of whom it is afterwards said, “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us,” on account of that birth of His incarnation, which was wrought in time of the Virgin. But herein is declared, not only that He is God, but also that He is of the same substance with the Father; because, after saying, “And the Word was God,” it is said also, “The same was in the beginning with God: all things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made.”27    John i. 1, 14, 2, 3 Not simply “all things;” but only all things that were made, that is; the whole creature. From which it appears clearly, that He Himself was not made, by whom all things were made. And if He was not made, then He is not a creature; but if He is not a creature, then He is of the same substance with the Father. For all substance that is not God is creature; and all that is not creature is God.28    [Augustin here postulates the theistic doctrines of two substances—infinite and finite; in contradiction to the postulate of pantheism, that there is only one substance—the infinite.—W.G.T.S.] And if the Son is not of the same substance with the Father, then He is a substance that was made: and if He is a substance that was made, then all things were not made by Him; but “all things were made by Him,” therefore He is of one and the same substance with the Father. And so He is not only God, but also very God. And the same John most expressly affirms this in his epistle: “For we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know the true God, and that we may be in His true Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.”29    1 John v. 20

10. Hence also it follows by consequence, that the Apostle Paul did not say, “Who alone has immortality,” of the Father merely; but of the One and only God, which is the Trinity itself. For that which is itself eternal life is not mortal according to any changeableness; and hence the Son of God, because “He is Eternal Life,” is also Himself understood with the Father, where it is said, “Who only hath immortality.” For we, too, are made partakers of this eternal life, and become, in our own measure, immortal. But the eternal life itself, of which we are made partakers, is one thing; we ourselves, who, by partaking of it, shall live eternally, are another. For if He had said, “Whom in His own time the Father will show, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; who only hath immortality;” not even so would it be necessarily understood that the Son is excluded. For neither has the Son separated the Father from Himself, because He Himself, speaking elsewhere with the voice of wisdom (for He Himself is the Wisdom of God),30    1 Cor. i. 24 says, “I alone compassed the circuit of heaven.”31    Ecclus. xxiv. 5 And therefore so much the more is it not necessary that the words, “Who hath immortality,” should be understood of the Father alone, omitting the Son; when they are said thus: “That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ: whom in His own time He will show, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honor and power everlasting. Amen.”32    1 Tim. vi. 14–16 In which words neither is the Father specially named, nor the Son, nor the Holy Spirit; but the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; that is, the One and only and true God, the Trinity itself.

11. But perhaps what follows may interfere with this meaning; because it is said, “Whom no man hath seen, nor can see:” although this may also be taken as belonging to Christ according to His divinity, which the Jews did not see, who yet saw and crucified Him in the flesh; whereas His divinity can in no wise be seen by human sight, but is seen with that sight with which they who see are no longer men, but beyond men. Rightly, therefore, is God Himself, the Trinity, understood to be the “blessed and only Potentate,” who “shows the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in His own time.” For the words, “Who only hath immortality,” are said in the same way as it is said, “Who only doeth wondrous things.”33    Ps. lxxii. 18 And I should be glad to know of whom they take these words to be said. If only of the Father, how then is that true which the Son Himself says, “For what things soever the Father doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise?” Is there any, among wonderful works, more wonderful than to raise up and quicken the dead? Yet the same Son saith, “As the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth whom He will.”34    John v. 19, 21 How, then, does the Father alone “do wondrous things,” when these words allow us to understand neither the Father only, nor the Son only, but assuredly the one only true God, that is, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit?35    [Nothing is more important, in order to a correct interpretation of the New Testament, than a correct explanation of the term God. Sometimes it denotes the Trinity, and sometimes a person of the Trinity. The context always shows which it is. The examples given here by Augustin are only a few out of many.—W.G.T.S.]

12. Also, when the same apostle says, “But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by Him,”36    1 Cor. viii. 6 who can doubt that he speaks of all things which are created; as does John, when he says, “All things were made by Him”? I ask, therefore, of whom he speaks in another place: “For of Him, and through Him, and in Him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.”37    Rom. xi. 36 For if of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, so as to assign each clause severally to each person: of Him, that is to say, of the Father; through Him, that is to say, through the Son; in Him, that is to say, in the Holy Spirit,—it is manifest that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit is one God, inasmuch as the words continue in the singular number, “To whom38    Ipsi. be glory for ever.” For at the beginning of the passage he does not say, “O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge” of the Father, or of the Son, or of the Holy Spirit, but “of the wisdom and knowledge of God!” “How unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been His counsellor? Or who hath first given to Him and it shall be recompensed unto him again? For of Him, and through Him, and in Him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.”39    Rom. xi. 33–36 But if they will have this to be understood only of the Father, then in what way are all things by the Father, as is said here; and all things by the Son, as where it is said to the Corinthians, “And one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things,”40    1 Cor. viii. 6 and as in the Gospel of John, “All things were made by Him?” For if some things were made by the Father, and some by the Son, then all things were not made by the Father, nor all things by the Son; but if all things were made by the Father, and all things by the Son, then the same things were made by the Father and by the Son. The Son, therefore, is equal with the Father, and the working of the Father and the Son is indivisible. Because if the Father made even the Son, whom certainly the Son Himself did not make, then all things were not made by the Son; but all things were made by the Son: therefore He Himself was not made, that with the Father He might make all things that were made. And the apostle has not refrained from using the very word itself, but has said most expressly, “Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God;”41    Phil. ii. 6 using here the name of God specially of the Father;42    [It is not generally safe to differ from Augustin in trinitarian exegesis. But in Phil. ii. 6 “God” must surely denote the Divine Essence, not the first Person of the Essence. St. Paul describes “Christ Jesus” as “subsisting” (ὑπάρχων) originally, that is prior to incarnation, “in a form of God”(ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ), and because he so subsisted, as being “equal with God.” The word μορφῇ is anarthrous in the text: a form, not the form, as the A.V and R.V. render. St. Paul refers to one of three “forms” of God—namely, that particular form of Sonship, which is peculiar to the second person of the Godhead. Had the apostle employed the article with μορφῆ, the implication would be that there is only one “form of God”—that is, only one person in the Divine Essence.   If then θεοῦ, in this place, denotes the Father, as Augustin says, St. Paul would teach that the Logos subsisted “in a form of the Father,” which would imply that the Father had more than one “form,” or else (if μορφῆ be rendered with the article) that the Logos subsisted in the “form” of the Father, neither of which is true. But if “God,” in this place, denotes the Divine Essence, then St. Paul teaches that the unincarnate Logos subsisted in a particular “form” of the Essence—the Father and Spirit subsisting in other “forms” of it.   The student will observe that Augustin is careful to teach that the Logos, when he took on him “a form of a servant,” did not lay aside “a form of God.” He understands the kenosis (ἐκένωσε) to be, the humbling of the divinity by its union with the humanity, not the exinanition of it in the extremest sense of entirely divesting himself of the divinity, nor the less extreme sense of a total non-use of it during the humiliation.—W.G.T.S.] as elsewhere, “But the head of Christ is God.”43    1 Cor. xi. 3

13. Similar evidence has been collected also concerning the Holy Spirit, of which those who have discussed the subject before ourselves have most fully availed themselves, that He too is God, and not a creature. But if not a creature, then not only God (for men likewise are called gods44    Ps. lxxxii. 6), but also very God; and therefore absolutely equal with the Father and the Son, and in the unity of the Trinity consubstantial and co-eternal. But that the Holy Spirit is not a creature is made quite plain by that passage above all others, where we are commanded not to serve the creature, but the Creator;45    Rom. i. 25 not in the sense in which we are commanded to “serve” one another by love,46    Gal. v. 13 which is in Greek δουλεύειν, but in that in which God alone is served, which is in Greek λατρεύειν. From whence they are called idolaters who tender that service to images which is due to God. For it is this service concerning which it is said, “Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve.”47    Deut. vi. 13 For this is found also more distinctly in the Greek Scriptures, which have λατρεύσεις. Now if we are forbidden to serve the creature with such a service, seeing that it is written, “Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve” (and hence, too, the apostle repudiates those who worship and serve the creature more than the Creator), then assuredly the Holy Spirit is not a creature, to whom such a service is paid by all the saints; as says the apostle, “For we are the circumcision, which serve the Spirit of God,”48    Phil. iii. 3 (Vulgate, etc.). which is in the Greek λατρεύοντες. For even most Latin copies also have it thus, “We who serve the Spirit of God;” but all Greek ones, or almost all, have it so. Although in some Latin copies we find, not “We worship the Spirit of God,” but, “We worship God in the Spirit.” But let those who err in this case, and refuse to give up to the more weighty authority, tell us whether they find this text also varied in the mss.: “Know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost, which is in you, which ye have of God?” Yet what can be more senseless or more profane, than that any one should dare to say that the members of Christ are the temple of one who, in their opinion, is a creature inferior to Christ? For the apostle says in another place, “Your bodies are members of Christ.” But if the members of Christ are also the temple of the Holy Spirit, then the Holy Spirit is not a creature; because we must needs owe to Him, of whom our body is the temple, that service wherewith God only is to be served, which in Greek is called λατρεία. And accordingly the apostle says, “Therefore glorify God in your body.”49    1 Cor. vi. 19, 15, 20

CAPUT VI.

9. Filium esse verum Deum ejusdem cum Patre substantiae. Non solus Pater, sed Trinitas dicta immortalis. Non ex solo Patre omnia, sed etiam ex Filio. Spiritum sanctum esse verum Deum Patri et Filio aequalem. Qui dixerunt Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum non esse Deum, aut non esse verum Deum, aut non cum Patre unum et solum Deum, aut non vere immortalem, quia mutabilem, manifestissima divinorum testimoniorum et consona voce convicti sunt; unde sunt illa: In principio erat Verbum, et Verbum erat apud Deum, et Deus erat Verbum. Manifestum est enim quod Verbum Dei, Filium Dei unicum accipimus, de quo post dicit, Et Verbum caro factum est, et habitavit in nobis, propter nativitatem incarnationis ejus, quae facta est in tempore ex Virgine. In eo autem declarat, non tantum Deum esse, sed etiam ejusdem cum Patre substantiae, quia cum dixisset, Et Deus erat Verbum: Hoc erat, inquit, in principio apud Deum; omnia per ipsum facta sunt, et sine ipso factum est nihil (Joan. I, 1, 14, 2, 3). Neque enim dicit, omnia; nisi quae facta sunt, id est omnem creaturam. Unde liquido apparet ipsum factum non esse per quem facta sunt omnia. Et si factus non est, creatura non est: si autem creatura non est, ejusdem cum Patre substantiae est. Omnis enim substantia quae Deus non est, creatura est; et quae creatura non est, Deus est. Et si non est Filius ejusdem substantiae cujus Pater; ergo facta substantia est: si facta substantia est, non omnia per ipsum facta sunt: at omnia per ipsum facta sunt; unius igitur ejusdemque cum Patre substantiae est. Et ideo non tantum Deus, sed et verus Deus. Quod idem Joannes apertissime in Epistola sua dicit: Scimus quod Filius Dei venerit, et dederit nobis intellectum ut cognoscamus verum Deum, et simus in vero Filio ejus Jesu Christo. Hic est verus Deus, et vita aeterna (I Joan. V, 20).

0826 10. Hinc etiam consequenter intelligitur non tantummodo de Patre dixisse apostolum Paulum, Qui solus habet immortalitatem; sed de uno et solo Deo quod est ipsa Trinitas. Neque enim ipsa vita aeterna mortalis est secundum aliquam mutabilitatem: ac per hoc Filius Dei, quia vita aeterna est, cum Patre etiam ipse intelligitur, ubi dictum est, Qui solus habet immortalitatem. Ejus enim vitae aeternae et nos participes facti, pro modulo nostro immortales efficimur. Sed aliud est ipsa cujus participes efficimur, vita aeterna; aliud nos qui ejus participatione vivemus in aeternum. Si enim dixisset, Quem temporibus propriis ostendet Pater beatus et solus potens, Rex regum et Dominus dominantium, qui solus habet immortalitatem, nec sic inde separatum Filium oporteret intelligi. Neque enim, quia ipse Filius alibi loquens voce Sapientiae (ipse est enim Dei Sapientia [I Cor. I, 24]) ait, Gyrum coeli circuivi sola (Eccli. XXIV, 8), separavit a se Patrem: quanto magis ergo non est necesse ut tantummodo de Patre praeter Filium intelligatur, quod dictum est, Qui solus habet immortalitatem, cum ita dictum sit: Ut serves, inquit, mandatum sine macula, irreprehensibile, usque in adventum Domini nostri Jesu Christi: quem temporibus propriis ostendet beatus et solus potens, Rex regum et Dominus dominantium; qui solus habet immortalitatem, et lucem habitat inaccessibilem; quem nemo hominum vidit, nec videre potest; cui est honor et gloria in saecula saeculorum. Amen (I Tim. VI, 14-16). In quibus verbis, nec Pater proprie nominatus est, nec Filius, nec Spiritus sanctus; sed beatus et solus potens, Rex regum et Dominus dominantium, quod est unus et solus et verus Deus ipsa Trinitas.

11. Nisi forte quae sequuntur, perturbabunt hunc intellectum, quia dixit, Quem nemo hominum vidit, nec videre potest: cum hoc etiam ad Christum pertinere secundum ejus divinitatem accipiatur, quam non viderunt Judaei, qui tamen carnem viderunt et crucifixerunt. Videri autem divinitas humano visu nullo modo potest: sed eo visu videtur, quo jam qui vident, non homines sed ultra homines sunt. Recte ergo ipse Deus Trinitatis intelligitur beatus et solus potens, ostendens adventum Domini nostri Jesu Christi temporibus propriis. Sic enim dictum est, Solus habet immortalitatem; quomodo dictum est, Qui facit mirabilia solus (Psal. LXXI, 18). Quod velim scire de quo dictum accipiant: si de Patre tantum, quomodo ergo verum est, quod ipse Filius dicit, Quaecumque enim Pater facit, haec eadem et Filius facit similiter? An quidquam est inter mirabilia mirabilius quam resuscitare et vivificare mortuos? Dicit autem idem Filius, Sicut Pater suscitat mortuos et vivificat, sic et Filius quos vult vivificat (Joan. V, 19, 21). Quomodo ergo solus Pater facit mirabilia, cum haec verba nec Patrem tantum, nec Filium tantum permittant intelligi, sed utique Deum unum verum solum, id est, Patrem et Filium et Spiritum sanctum?

0827 12. Item cum dicit idem apostolus, Nobis unus Deus Pater, ex quo omnia, et nos in ipso; et unus Dominus Jesus Christus, per quem omnia, et nos per ipsum (I Cor. VIII, 6); quis dubitet eum omnia quae creata sunt dicere, sicut Joannes, Omnia per ipsum facta sunt? Quaero itaque de quo dicat alio loco, Quoniam ex ipso, et per ipsum, et in ipso sunt omnia: ipsi gloria in saecula saeculorum. Amen. Si enim de Patre et Filio et Spiritu sancto, ut singulis personis singula tribuantur; Ex ipso, ex Patre; per ipsum, per Filium; in ipso, in Spiritu sancto: manifestum quod Pater et Filius et Spiritus sanctus unus Deus est, quando singulariter intulit, Ipsi gloria in saecula saeculorum. Unde enim coepit hunc sensum, non ait, O altitudo diviliarum sapientiae et scientiae Patris, aut Filii, aut Spiritus sancti; sed, sapientiae et scientiae Dei! Quam inscrutabilia sunt judicia ejus, et investigabiles viae ejus! Quis enim cognovit mentem Domini? Aut quis consiliarius ejus fuit? Aut quis prior dedit illi, et retribuetur ei? Quoniam ex ipso, et per ipsum, et in ipso sunt omnia: ipsi gloria in saecula saeculorum. Amen (Rom. XI, 33-36). Si autem hoc de Patre tantummodo intelligi volunt, quomodo ergo omnia per Patrem sunt, sicut hic dicitur; et omnia per Filium, sicut ad Corinthios ubi ait, Et unus Dominus Jesus Christus, per quem omnia; et sicut in Evangelio Joannis, Omnia par ipsum facta sunt? Si enim alia per Patrem, alia per Filium, jam non omnia per Patrem, nec omnia per Filium. Si autem omnia per Patrem, et omnia per Filium; eadem per Patrem, quae per Filium. Aequalis est ergo Patri Filius, et inseparabilis operatio est Patris et Filii. Quia si vel Filium fecit Pater quem non fecit ipse Filius, non omnia per Filium facta sunt: at omnia per Filium facta sunt; ipse igitur factus non est, ut cum Patre faceret omnia quae facta sunt. Quanquam nec ab ipso verbo tacuerit Apostolus, et apertissime omnino dixerit, Qui cum in Dei forma esset, non rapinam arbitratus est esse aequalis Deo (Philipp. II, 6): hic Deum proprie Patrem appellans, sicut alibi, Caput autem Christi, Deus (I Cor. XI, 3).

13. Similiter et de Spiritu sancto collecta sunt testimonia, quibus ante nos qui haec disputaverunt, abundantius usi sunt, quia et ipse Deus, et non creatura. Quod si non creatura, non tantum (Deus nam et homines dicti sunt dii [Psal. LXXXI, 6]), sed etiam verus Deus. Ergo Patri et Filio prorsus aequalis, et in Trinitatis unitate consubstantialis et coaeternus. Maxime vero illo loco satis claret, quod Spiritus sanctus non sit creatura, ubi jubemur non servire creaturae, sed Creatori (Rom. I, 25): non eo modo quo jubemur per charitatem servire invicem (Galat. V, 13), quod est graece δουλεύειν; sed eo modo quo tantum Deo servitur, quod est graece λατρεύειν. Unde idololatrae dicuntur qui simulacris eam servitutem exhibent quae debetur Deo. Secundum hanc enim servitutem dictum est, Dominum Deum tuum adorabis, et illi soli servies (Deut. VI, 13). Nam et hoc distinctius in graeca Scriptura invenitur; λατρεύσεις enim habet. Porro si tali servitute creaturae servire prohibemur, quandoquidem 0828 dictum est, Dominum Deum tuum adorabis, et illi soli servies; unde et Apostolus detestatur eos qui coluerunt, et servierunt creaturae, potius quam Creatori: non est utique creatura Spiritus sanctus, cui ab omnibus sanctis talis servitus exhibetur dicente Apostolo, Nos enim sumus circumcisio, Spiritui Dei servientes (Philipp. III, 3), quod est in graeco, λατρεύοντες. Plures enim codices etiam latini sic habent, qui Spiritui Dei servimus: graeci autem omnes, aut pene omnes. In nonnullis autem exemplaribus latinis invenimus non, Spiritui Dei servimus; sed, spiritu Deo servimus . Sed qui in hoc errant, et auctoritati graviori cedere detrectant, numquid et illud varium in codicibus reperiunt: Nescitis quia corpora vestra templum in vobis est Spiritus sancti, quem habetis a Deo? Quid autem insanius magisque sacrilegum est, quam ut quisquam dicere audeat membra Christi templum esse creaturae minoris secundum ipsos, quam Christus est? Alio enim loco dicit: Corpora vestra membra sunt Christi. Si autem quae membra sunt Christi, templum est Spiritus sancti, non est creatura Spiritus sanctus: quia cui corpus nostrum templum exhibemus, necesse est ut huic eam servitutem debeamus, qua nonnisi Deo serviendum est, quae graece appellatur λατρεία. Unde consequenter dicit: Glorificate ergo Deum in corpore vestro (I Cor. VI, 19, 15, 20).