title: De spiritu blasphemiae

source_edition: Migne, Patrologia Latina, vol. 196, coll. 1185D–1192C

source_text:
## De spiritu blasphemiae

[1185D]Quae in Evangelio leguntur de spiritu blasphemiae, obscura, ut dicis, et perplexa sunt valde. Expetis autem et exspectas audire ex me quid sentiam inde. Sed periculosa praesumptio de suo ingenio praesumere, quod praeclarissima ingenia non intactum, [1186D] sed indefinitum reliquerunt. Solius Domini est certe quando, et cui voluerit, ejusmodi revelare. Ut autem verum fatear, videtur mihi durum valde petitioni tuae omnino deesse. Super hoc igitur involucro si videtur aliquid, quaerendo, non diffiniendo loquamur. [1187A] Sunt qui se fatentur nescire quid sit spiritus blasphemiae. Audacter tamen affirmant quod hoc genus culpae omnino sit inexpiabile, adeo ut quisquis in hoc semel lapsus fuerit, de caetero omnino salvari non possit. Sunt autem et alii summae auctoritatis viri, qui nullum peccatum credunt inexpiabile, nisi quod impoenitentia facit irremediabile. Hinc est illa aestimatio putantium quod per impoenitentiam fit, peccatur in Spiritum sanctum, quia in eo specialiter agitur contra ipsum per quem omnis est remissio peccatorum. Sunt qui putant quod hoc sit peccatum in Spiritum sanctum, de Dei misericordia desperare propter immanitatem scelerum. Sed qui ejusmodi est, si iterum ad veritatem redeat et veraciter poeniteat, quis ei veniam patere contradicat? [1187B] Attende ergo quod hominibus desperatis sola impoenitentia claudit viam salutis. Habere autem animum obstinatum, sunt qui putant peccatum in Spiritum sanctum esse. Secundum eos autem idem est obstinatio quod summa animi obduratio, qui adeo obduratus sit ut de caetero poenitere non possit. Sed quid in se eis aufert locum indulgentiae, nisi pertinacia impoenitentiae? Quod ergo diximus de desperatis, dicamus et de obstinatis, quod impoenitentia claudit eis viam salutis. Sed et alii qui peccatum in Spiritum dicunt irremediabile malum, hac ratione id fieri affirmant, quia sic statim obdurantur, ut deinceps poenitere non valeant. Sed juxta hoc eo ipso omni remedio carent quod poenitere non valent. Attende ergo quod in hoc unum concurrit [1187C] horum omnium sententia, quod sola impoenitentia facit peccata insolubilia.

Notandum autem quod dicunt impoenitentes in Spiritum sanctum peccare, non tamen dicunt omnes impoenitentes spiritum blasphemiae habere. Juxta id autem quod in Scripturis sanctis specialiter attribuitur potentia Patri, sapientia Filio, bonitas vero Spiritui sancto: juxta hoc, inquam, dicunt quod peccare per infirmitatem sit peccare in Patrem; peccare vero per ignorantiam, sit peccare in Filium; per solam autem peccare malitiam, sit peccare in Spiritum sanctum. Et qui per infirmitatem vel ignorantiam peccant sicut aliquid excusationis habent in culpa, sic aliquid [1187D] remissionis accipiunt in poena. Sed qui per solam malitiam peccantes in Spiritum sanctum delinquunt, nil ejusmodi remissionis accipiunt, et non remittitur eis in hoc saeculo, nec in futuro. Si enim poenitent, debetur eis plena satisfactio; si non poenitent, plena damnatio. Sed quamvis per malitiam peccantes dicantur in Spiritum sanctum peccare, non tamen dici possunt hujusmodi omnes sicut nec omnes impoenitentes spiritum blasphemiae habere. Ex verbis sane Dominicis perpendere possumus quod hoc genus culpae sit prae omnibus detestabile. Quaeramus itaque diligentius quid sit illud peccati genus quod est prae omnibus detestabilius. Quaedam hominum peccata specialiter pertinent ad corruptelam propriam, sicut ebrietas et stupra; quaedam specialiter ad [1188A] proximi injuriam, sicut homicidia et furta; quaedam specialiter ad contumeliam divinam, quemadmodum blasphemia. Sed quis nesciat quod contumelia Creatoris sit detestabilior caeteris?

Sed si quis blasphemet tormentis compulsus, vel per ignorantiam deceptus, quis neget tolerabilius quam si blasphemet malitia sola ductus? Malignitate ergo blasphemia prae caeteris est pessima. Est autem in hoc genere sceleratissimum, et in quo malitia crescit ad summum, quando quis in Dei vituperiis delectatur, et in eis gloriatur. Quid est blasphemia, nisi vituperatio divina? Ad hoc autem quisque aspirat quod valitudo affectat, multumque desiderat. Quid ergo aliud videtur spiritus blasphemiae quam affectatio et desiderium vituperationis divinae? Miratur [1188B] quis et forte non credit quod adhuc malitiae articulum humana corruptibilitas ascendere, imo descendere possit. Sed quem hujusmodi cogitatio pulsat, audiat quid de hujusmodi hominibus Dominus dicat: *Nunc autem oderunt me et Patrem meum [n: (Joan. XV)]*. Pro certo quod quisque odit, hoc improbat, hoc vituperat, hoc et ab aliis odio haberi et vituperari desiderat. Hinc est quod qui ejusmodi erant, de Christo dicebant quod immundum spiritum habebat [n: (Matth. III)]. Pro certo non ista dicebant quia verum esse credebant. Nam assidue videbant fieri ab eo quae nemo facere posset, nisi Deus esset cum illo. Ideo tamen dicebant, quia in eum quem odio habebant aliorum odia et vituperia concitare volebant. Attende ergo quam sint contrarii [1188C] spiritus isti, spiritus blasphemiae et spiritus Dei. Spiritus blasphemiae aspirat ad odium Dei; Spiritus sanctus inspirat amorem Dei. Nam *charitas Dei diffusa est in cordibus nostris per Spiritum sanctum qui datus est nobis [n: (Rom. V)]*. Vides ergo quomodo spiritus blasphemiae Spiritui sancto adversatur, et semper in contrarium nititur. De hoc spiritu dicit Dominus quod *non remittetur hominibus [n: (Matth. XII)]*. Ad idem respicit quod alias dicit: *Qui blasphemaverit in Spiritum sanctum, non habet remissionem in aeternum, sed reus erit aeterni delicti [n: (Marc. III)]*. Ex his Domini verbis, ut credo, assertionis suae argumentum trahunt, qui spiritum blasphemiae malum irremediabile omnino dicunt. Credo Augustinum ista [1188D] legisse, tamen multo aliter quam istos sensisse. Quod Dominus per Prophetam ait: *Convertam in profundum maris [n: (Psal. LXVII)]*. Augustinus, intelligit de hominibus desperatissimis. Alias autem dicit quod obstinatos Dominus doctores facit in eo quod *mittit crystallum sicut buccellam [n: (Psal. CXLVII)]*. In libro Retractationum seipsum accusat vel potius excusat, quod de peccato in Spiritum sanctum quodam loco minus caute scripserat, quod tamen putando potius quam affirmando dixerat. Ibi aperte dicit quod de quocunque pessimo in hac vita constituto non est desperandum, quin potius pro ipso orandum, quoniam non impudenter pro eo oratur de quo non desperatur. Quid enim est dicere esse genus peccati de quo homo [non] possit veniam consequi? [1189A] quid, inquam, aliud est hoc dicere quam ejusmodi hominem docere ut desperet, et cum Cain dicat: *Major est iniquitas mea quam ut veniam merear? [n: (Gen. III)]*. Quis audeat ut dicat modum humanae malitiae, modum excedere misericordiae divinae? Dicit Psalmista de Domino: *Quod copiosa apud eum redemptio [n: (Psal. CXXIX)]*. Sed quomodo, quaeso, copiosa erit, si est peccati genus quod nunquam in aliquo dissolvit? Ecce finis miseriae nostrae juxta quosdam invenitur, de quo nullus ad Dominum convertitur, contra illam sententiam qua dicitur: *Reminiscentur et convertentur ad Dominum omnes fines terrae [n: (Psal. XXI)]*. Nonne satius esset humiliter fateri Dominica illa verba se parum intelligere quam sua expositione aliquos ad desperationem trahere? Nonne satius est in magni [1189B] illius (magistrum Hugonem loquor) nostri temporis theologi sententiam pergere, quam aliquibus pontem misericordiae praecidere, et in desperationis profundum dejicere? Superius eam breviter praelibavimus, nunc juxta ejus tenorem in explanandarum considerationem pergamus.

## De spiritu blasphemiae (cont.)

Secundum evangelistam Matthaeum audis dicentem Dominum: *Omne peccatum et blasphemia remittetur hominibus, spiritus autem blasphemiae non remittetur; et quicunque dixerit verbum contra Filium hominis remittetur ei; qui autem dixerit contra Spiritum sanctum, non remittetur ei, neque in hoc saeculo, neque in futuro [n: (Matth. XXI)]*. Prius generalem sententiam ponit, postea excipienda excipit. Ponit remissibilia, [1189C] excipit irremissibilia. Spiritus, inquit, blasphemiae non remittitur eo quod hoc malum in se nil habeat excusationis, nihil meretur accipere excusatoriae remissionis. Quod de hoc malo dixit, hoc idem adjungit de quolibet verbo in Spiritum sanctum prolato: Quicunque, inquit, dixerit verbum contra Spiritum sanctum, non remittetur ei, neque in hoc saeculo, nec in futuro. Quid hic dicturi sunt qui omnem vel semel in Spiritum blasphemantem aeternae damnationi addicunt! Nunquid dicturi sunt, quod omnis, qui qualecunque verbum contra Spiritum sanctum dixerit in aeternum peribit? Quod si abhorrent hoc dicere, exponant nobis quomodo oporteat intelligere quod dicitur de verbo contra Spiritum sanctum prolato, quia non remittetur in [1189D] hoc saeculo, vel in futuro. Nam, si dicturi sunt hoc malum esse expiabile, juxta aliquid tamen irremissibile, videant ne idem dici possit de spiritu blasphemiae. Aliud est enim peccatum esse inexpiabile, atque aliud juxta hoc quod hic accipitur esse irremissibile. Peccatum diaboli inexpiabile est, quod nullo remedio expurgari potest; illud autem hominis peccatum non incongrue irremissibile dici poterit, cui nulla poenae relaxatio sit, quae in peccatis actualiter similibus fieri contingit. Ecce unam eamdemque blasphemiam unus facit ex coactione, alius ex aliqua deceptione, tertius ex sola malignitate. Ecce in tribus culpa, quantum ad actionem, per omnia similis. In duobus tamen accipit aliquid remissionis, quoniam habet aliquid excusationis. In tertio [1190A] nullam accipit ejusmodi remissionem, quoniam nullam habebit excusationem. Primus, ex his peccat in Patrem, secundus in Filium, tertius (illi cui non remittitur) peccat in Spiritum sanctum, hoc est quod Dominus dicit secundum evangelistam Marcum: *Qui blasphemaverit,* inquit, *in Spiritum sanctum non habet remissionem in aeternum [n: (Marc. III)]*. Quod dicitur remissio dari vel non dari secundum mutuum respectum accipientium, vel non accipientium, pro eodem opere debet intelligi. Nam de districtiss ma pro eadem blasphemia aliquid remittitur blasphemantibus in Patrem et Filium, nihil vero blasphemantibus in Spiritum sanctum. Bene ergo dicitur de eo qui blasphemaverit in Spiritum sanctum quod non habet remissionem in aeternum. Quoniam si poenitet, nihil [1190B] ei de plenitudine districtissimae expiationis; si non poenitet, nihil ei remittitur de plenitudine districtissimae damnationis. Quod merito hoc fiat consequenter adjungitur, cum dicat: Sed est reus aeterni delicti. Quod dicit idem valet ac si apertius diceret: Idcirco remissionem non habet, sed nec habere debet, quia non est reus ejusmodi delicti cui debeat aliquid remitti. Sed est reus delicti omnium pessimi, quoniam reus aeterni delicti, et talis cui non debeat aliqua determinate remissionis relaxatio fieri sicut superius docuimus, hoc est in Spiritum sanctum blasphemare, ex sola malignitate verbum blasphemiae proferre. Sed talis blasphemia nunquam potest fieri delictum sine detestabili et exsecrabili odio Dei, procul dubio Dei odium delictum est aeternum. [1190C] Aeternum delictum dici quod nunquam excidit, quod in perpetuum esse contingit. Pro certo sicut nunquam excidit amor Dei, sic nunquam excidit odium Dei: *Charitas,* inquit Apostolus, *nunquam excidit [n: (I Cor. XXIII)]*. Quod ab Apostolo de Dei amore dictum est, de Dei etiam odio dici potest. Et, sicut Dei amor recte dici potest meritum aeternum, sic et odium Dei merito dicitur delictum aeternum. Quod dicitur de charitate quia nunquam excidit, non est intelligendum quod semel habita amitti non possit sed quod, contra fidei et spei proprietatem in aeternum esse non desistit. Sic sunt quaedam mala quae locum habent solummodo in hac vita, sicut adulteria et furta, quaedam vero et in hac vita simul [1190D] et futura. Nam qui cum Dei odio ex hac vita discedit, sub eodem morbo in aeternum tabescit, et qui in aeternum odit, in aeternum delinquit, et sine cessatione delinquendo meretur quod sine cessatione patiatur. Qui igitur reus est divini odii, reus est aeterni delicti. Sed, sicut superius est demonstratum, blasphemia quae est in Spiritum sanctum nunquam est praeter Dei odium. Merito ergo dicitur de blasphemo hujusmodi quod sit reus aeterni delicti. Quidam autem ad id quod Dominus dicit, addunt de suo quod Dominus non dicit. Dominus dicit quod sit reus aeterni delicti; isti dicunt quod sit aeternaliter reus aeterni delicti. Qui enim dicit ejusmodi hominem nulla ratione posse veniam promereri, nonne dicit eum aeternaliter reum esse aeterni delicti? [1191A] Sed forte hoc isti ex eo colligunt quod ex Dominica voce audiunt. Qui blasphemaverit in Spiritum sanctum non habet remissionem in aeternum. Sed nunquid non idem dictum est ab eodem Domino de verbo contra Spiritum sanctum dicto? Qui dixerit, inquit, verbum contra Spiritum sanctum non remittetur ei, neque in hoc saeculo, neque in futuro. Quot, quaeso, homines poterunt inveniri qui audeant ut dicant nunquam verbum aliquod contra Spiritum sanctum dixisse. Nunquid caeteri omnes desperandi sunt qui hoc dicere non praesumunt? Nunquid de semetipsis desperare debent qui hoc dicere non audent? Sed si per hujusmodi doctrinam bos vel asinus in puteum desperationis cadat, timeo ne animalium Dominus animalium hominum pretium de manu [1191B] doctoris, imo dejectoris requirat.

Sunt autem quidam temporaliter rei temporalis et transitorii delicti, et sunt quidam aeternaliter rei temporalis et transitorii delicti. Item sunt alii aeterni delicti aeternaliter rei. Cur non sint et alii aeterni delicti temporaliter rei? Adulterium in tempore actualiter fit et transit, et adulterantem reum constituit, sed temporaliter reum si veraciter poenituerit, aeternaliter autem si poenitere noluerit. Qui cum Dei odio de hac vita transit, aeterni delicti aeternaliter reus erit. Sic et delictum quod, juxta quod diximus, potest dici aeternum, veraciter poenitentem nonnisi ad tempus constituit reum. Siquidem possunt esse aeternaliter rei temporalis delicti juxta divinam justitiam, cur non aliqui credantur [1191C] esse ad tempus rei aeterni delicti juxta divinam misericordiam? Miserationes ejus super omnia opera ejus. Ejus siquidem miserationibus nihil est mirabilius, et eo ipso super omnia opera ejus. Consideremus adhuc quid Marcus de suo adjungat ad ea quae Dominus dixerat: *Quoniam dicebant,* inquit, *Spiritum immundum habet [n: (Marc. III)]*. In his verbis videtur evangelista rationem reddere; unde contingit Dominum de pessimo genere blasphemandi ista disserere. [1192A] Ostendit ergo evangelista quod idcirco Dominus eos doceret de blasphemia quae remissionem non habet, quoniam dicebant quod spiritum immundum haberet. Absque omni ambiguo ista Christi contumelia erat detestabilis blasphemia. Sed istud, quaeso, blasphemiae verbum fuit contra ipsum hominis Filium, an contra Spiritum sanctum? Sed si dicitur contra Filium hominis esse, erit verbum remissibile; si contra Spiritum sanctum, erit irremissibile. Sed si dicitur remissibile verbum, nihil ad eam blasphemiam quae non habet remissionem in aeternum, et juxta hoc quod evangelista subjungit, nihil respondet ad Dominica verba quae praemisit. Compellit itaque cohaerentia dictorum credere Christi calumniatores blasphemasse in Spiritum sanctum. Quid [1192B] ergo dicemus? Nunquid in illum peccabant quem non vituperabant, et in illum non blasphemabant quem verbis suis profanabant? Quis ad ista idoneus? Auctoritate itaque simul et ex ratione possumus aperte colligere Christi profanatores non per ignorantiam, sed per solam malitiam tam nequiter blasphemasse. Intelligebant absque omni ambiguo neminem posse talia signa facere nisi Deus esset cum illo. Quoniam ergo per solam malitiam blasphemabant, in eum cui bonitas specialiter attribui solet, peccabant, et eo ipso quantum ad id genus peccati acerbissimae poenae alleviatione et remissione indigni erant. Nam, si per ignorantiam peccassent et in ipsum qui Dei sapientia est deliquissent, in puniendo [1192C] peccato remissius ageretur cum ipsis, et in eo reciperent aliquid remissionis. Ex his Domini verbis manifeste colligitur quod quaedam quae omnibus personis communia sunt, quibusdam personis non sine magno mysterio appropriantur. Multa sunt adhuc circa haec Dominica verba diligenti investigatione digna. Verum hoc melius atque consultius profundioribus ingeniis relinquimus. Super eo quod a me quaesisti dixi quod potui. Si insipiens factus sum, tu me coegisti.

english:
## On the Spirit of Blasphemy

[1185D]What is read in the Gospel concerning the spirit of blasphemy is obscure, as you say, and exceedingly perplexing. Yet you seek and await to hear from me what I think about it. But it is a perilous presumption to presume upon one's own talent in a matter that the most illustrious talents have left, [1186D] not untouched, but undefined. It belongs assuredly to the Lord alone to reveal things of this kind when, and to whom, he will. But to confess the truth, it seems to me very hard to fail your request altogether. Concerning this wrapping, then, if anything appears, let us speak by inquiring, not by defining. [1187A]There are those who confess that they do not know what the spirit of blasphemy is. Yet they boldly affirm that this kind of fault is altogether inexpiable, so much so that whoever has once fallen into it can thereafter in no way be saved. But there are also others, men of the highest authority, who believe no sin to be inexpiable save that which impenitence makes irremediable. Hence comes that estimation of those who think that, through impenitence, sin is committed against the Holy Spirit, because therein there is action specifically against him through whom is all remission of sins. There are those who think that this is the sin against the Holy Spirit: to despair of God's mercy on account of the enormity of one's crimes. But whoever is such — if he return again to the truth and truly repent — who would gainsay that pardon lies open to him? [1187B]Attend, therefore, that for men in despair impenitence alone shuts the way of salvation. And there are those who think that to have an obstinate mind is the sin against the Holy Spirit. According to them, obstinacy is the same as the utmost hardening of mind — one so hardened that he can thereafter not repent. But what takes from them the place of pardon in itself, except the pertinacity of impenitence? What, then, we have said of the despairing, let us say also of the obstinate: that impenitence shuts to them the way of salvation. But others too, who call the sin against the Spirit an irremediable evil, affirm that it comes about for this reason: that they are straightway so hardened that thereafter they cannot repent. But according to this they lack all remedy for the very reason that they cannot repent. Attend, therefore, that in this one point [1187C]the opinion of all these concurs: that impenitence alone makes sins insoluble.

It is to be noted, however, that though they say the impenitent sin against the Holy Spirit, yet they do not say that all the impenitent have the spirit of blasphemy. But according to that which in the holy Scriptures is specifically attributed — power to the Father, wisdom to the Son, but goodness to the Holy Spirit — according to this, I say, they say that to sin through weakness is to sin against the Father; but to sin through ignorance is to sin against the Son; while to sin through malice alone is to sin against the Holy Spirit. And those who sin through weakness or ignorance, as they have something of excuse in the fault, so they receive something [1187D]of remission in the penalty. But those who, sinning through malice alone, offend against the Holy Spirit, receive nothing of such remission, and it is not remitted to them in this world, nor in the world to come. For if they repent, full satisfaction is owed them; if they repent not, full damnation. But although those who sin through malice are said to sin against the Holy Spirit, yet not all such can be said — any more than all the impenitent — to have the spirit of blasphemy. From the Lord's words indeed we can weigh that this kind of fault is, above all others, detestable. Let us therefore inquire more diligently what that kind of sin is which is above all others the more detestable. Certain sins of men pertain specifically to one's own corruption, such as drunkenness and debaucheries; certain ones specifically to [1188A]injury of one's neighbor, such as murders and thefts; certain ones specifically to insult against God, such as blasphemy. But who does not know that insult against the Creator is more detestable than the rest?

But if someone blaspheme compelled by torments, or deceived through ignorance, who would deny that it is more tolerable than if he blaspheme led by malice alone? By malignity, then, blasphemy is worst of all. But there is in this kind a most wicked thing, in which malice grows to its height: when one delights in reproaches of God, and glories in them. What is blasphemy but the reviling of God? Now to this each one aspires which his vigor strives after, and greatly desires. What else, then, does the spirit of blasphemy seem to be than the affectation and desire of reviling God? [1188B]Someone wonders, and perhaps does not believe, that human corruptibility can yet ascend — nay, descend — to such a point of malice. But let him whom a thought of this kind assails hear what the Lord says of men of this kind: *But now they have hated both me and my Father [n: (Joan. XV)]*. Assuredly, what each one hates, this he disapproves, this he reviles, this he desires to be held in hatred and reviled by others also. Hence it is that those who were of this kind said of Christ that he had an unclean spirit [n: (Matth. III)]. Assuredly they did not say these things because they believed them to be true. For they continually saw done by him things that no one could do unless God were with him. Yet they said it for this reason: because against him whom they held in hatred they wished to stir up the hatreds and revilings of others. Attend, therefore, how contrary [1188C]these spirits are, the spirit of blasphemy and the Spirit of God. The spirit of blasphemy aspires to the hatred of God; the Holy Spirit inspires the love of God. For *the charity of God is poured forth in our hearts by the Holy Spirit who has been given to us [n: (Rom. V)]*. You see, then, how the spirit of blasphemy is opposed to the Holy Spirit, and ever strives to the contrary. Of this spirit the Lord says that *it shall not be forgiven to men [n: (Matth. XII)]*. To the same effect looks that which he says elsewhere: *He who shall have blasphemed against the Holy Spirit has no forgiveness for ever, but shall be guilty of an everlasting sin [n: (Marc. III)]*. From these words of the Lord, as I believe, they draw the argument of their assertion who say the spirit of blasphemy to be altogether an irremediable evil. I believe that Augustine [1188D]read these things, yet understood them far otherwise than these do. As to what the Lord says through the Prophet: *I will turn them into the depth of the sea [n: (Psal. LXVII)]*, Augustine understands it of men in utter despair. But elsewhere he says that the Lord makes the obstinate into teachers in that he *sends his crystal like morsels [n: (Psal. CXLVII)]*. In the book of the Retractations he accuses, or rather excuses, himself, that in a certain place he had written less cautiously concerning the sin against the Holy Spirit — which nevertheless he had said by way of supposing rather than of affirming. There he openly says that of no one, however wicked, established in this life, is one to despair; nay rather, one is to pray for him, since not shamelessly is one prayed for of whom one does not despair. For what is it to say that there is a kind of sin for which a man may [not] obtain pardon? [1189A]what, I say, else is this to say than to teach a man of this kind to despair, and with Cain to say: *My iniquity is greater than that I should deserve pardon? [n: (Gen. III)]*. Who would dare to say that the measure of human malice exceeds the measure of divine mercy? The Psalmist says of the Lord: *That with him is plentiful redemption [n: (Psal. CXXIX)]*. But how, I ask, will it be plentiful, if there is a kind of sin that he never looses in anyone? Behold, according to certain men, the end of our misery is found from which no one is turned to the Lord — against that sentence in which it is said: *All the ends of the earth shall remember and be turned to the Lord [n: (Psal. XXI)]*. Would it not be better humbly to confess that one understands those words of the Lord but little, than by one's own exposition to drag some to despair? Is it not better to proceed to the [1189B]opinion of that great theologian of our time — I mean master Hugh — than to cut off from some the bridge of mercy, and cast them into the depth of despair? Above we have briefly touched upon it; now, according to its tenor, let us proceed to the consideration of the things to be explained.

## On the Spirit of Blasphemy (cont.)

According to the evangelist Matthew you hear the Lord saying: *Every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven to men, but the blasphemy of the Spirit shall not be forgiven; and whoever shall have said a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him; but he who shall have said it against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come [n: (Matth. XXI)]*. First he sets down the general sentence, then he excepts the things to be excepted. He sets down the things remissible, [1189C]he excepts the things irremissible. The blasphemy, he says, of the Spirit is not forgiven, because this evil, having in itself nothing of excuse, deserves to receive nothing of excusatory remission. What he said of this evil, the same he adds concerning any word uttered against the Holy Spirit: Whoever, he says, shall have said a word against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come. What here are they to say who consign every man that blasphemes even once against the Spirit to eternal damnation! Are they to say that everyone who shall have said any word whatever against the Holy Spirit shall perish for ever? But if they shrink from saying this, let them expound to us how one ought to understand what is said of a word uttered against the Holy Spirit, that it shall not be forgiven in [1189D]this world, or in the world to come. For if they are to say that this evil is expiable, yet in some respect irremissible, let them see whether the same may be said of the spirit of blasphemy. For it is one thing for a sin to be inexpiable, and another, in the sense here taken, to be irremissible. The sin of the devil is inexpiable, which can be purged by no remedy; but that sin of man may not incongruously be called irremissible for which there is no relaxation of the penalty such as comes to pass in sins that are actually similar. Behold, one and the same blasphemy one man commits from compulsion, another from some deception, a third from malignity alone. Behold, in the three the fault, as to the action, is in every way alike. In two of them, nevertheless, it receives something of remission, because it has something of excuse. In the third [1190A]it receives no such remission, because it will have no excuse. The first of these sins against the Father, the second against the Son, the third (he to whom it is not forgiven) sins against the Holy Spirit; this is what the Lord says according to the evangelist Mark: *He who shall have blasphemed,* he says, *against the Holy Spirit has no forgiveness for ever [n: (Marc. III)]*. That remission is said to be given or not given according to the mutual regard of those receiving or not receiving it, ought to be understood of the same deed. For, concerning the most strict expiation, something is remitted for the same blasphemy to those who blaspheme against the Father and the Son, but nothing to those who blaspheme against the Holy Spirit. Well, then, is it said of him who shall have blasphemed against the Holy Spirit that he has no forgiveness for ever. For if he repent, nothing [1190B]is remitted to him of the fullness of the most strict expiation; if he repent not, nothing is remitted to him of the fullness of the most strict damnation. That this rightly comes to pass is consequently added, when he says: But he shall be guilty of an everlasting sin. What he says is as much as if he had said more openly: Therefore he has no forgiveness, nor even ought to have it, because he is not guilty of the kind of offense to which something ought to be remitted. But he is guilty of the worst offense of all, since he is guilty of an everlasting sin, and such that no determinate relaxation of remission ought to be made for him, as we have taught above — that is, to blaspheme against the Holy Spirit, to utter a word of blasphemy from malignity alone. But such blasphemy can never be an offense without a detestable and execrable hatred of God; and beyond doubt the hatred of God is an everlasting offense. [1190C]An everlasting offense is called that which never falls away, which is bound to be for ever. Assuredly, as the love of God never falls away, so the hatred of God never falls away: *Charity,* says the Apostle, *never falls away [n: (I Cor. XXIII)]*. What was said by the Apostle of the love of God can be said also of the hatred of God. And, as the love of God can rightly be called an everlasting merit, so the hatred of God is rightly called an everlasting offense. What is said of charity, that it never falls away, is not to be understood as though, once had, it cannot be lost, but that, contrary to the property of faith and hope, it does not cease to be for ever. So there are certain evils that have place only in this life, such as adulteries and thefts, and certain ones both in this life at once [1190D]and in the world to come. For he who departs from this life with hatred of God wastes away under the same disease for ever, and he who hates for ever offends for ever, and by offending without ceasing deserves to suffer without ceasing. He, therefore, who is guilty of hatred of God is guilty of an everlasting offense. But, as was shown above, the blasphemy which is against the Holy Spirit is never apart from hatred of God. Rightly, then, is it said of a blasphemer of this kind that he is guilty of an everlasting offense. But certain men add to what the Lord says something of their own which the Lord does not say. The Lord says that he is guilty of an everlasting offense; these men say that he is eternally guilty of an everlasting offense. For he who says that a man of this kind can by no reason merit pardon, does he not say that he is eternally guilty of an everlasting offense? [1191A]But perhaps these men gather this from that which they hear from the Lord's voice: He who shall have blasphemed against the Holy Spirit has no forgiveness for ever. But is not the same thing said by the same Lord of a word spoken against the Holy Spirit? He who shall have said, he says, a word against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come. How many men, I ask, will be found who would dare to say that they have never said any word against the Holy Spirit? Are all the rest to be despaired of who do not presume to say this? Ought they to despair of themselves who dare not say this? But if by teaching of this kind an ox or an ass fall into the pit of despair, I fear lest the Lord of animals require the price of the animal-men from the hand of the [1191B]teacher — nay, of the caster-down.

But there are certain men temporally guilty of a temporal and transitory offense, and there are certain men eternally guilty of a temporal and transitory offense. Likewise there are others eternally guilty of an everlasting offense. Why should there not also be others temporally guilty of an everlasting offense? Adultery is actually committed in time and passes away, and constitutes the adulterer guilty, but temporally guilty if he shall have truly repented, but eternally so if he refuse to repent. He who passes from this life with hatred of God will be eternally guilty of an everlasting offense. So too the offense which, in the sense we have said, can be called everlasting, constitutes the one who truly repents guilty only for a time. Since indeed there can be men eternally guilty of a temporal offense according to divine justice, why should not some be believed [1191C]to be guilty for a time of an everlasting offense according to divine mercy? His tender mercies are over all his works. For nothing is more wonderful than his tender mercies, and for that very reason they are over all his works. Let us consider still further what Mark adds of his own to those things which the Lord had said: *Because they said,* he says, *He has an unclean spirit [n: (Marc. III)]*. In these words the evangelist seems to render the reason whence it came about that the Lord discoursed these things concerning the worst kind of blaspheming. [1192A]The evangelist shows, then, that the Lord taught them concerning the blasphemy which has no remission for this reason: because they said that he had an unclean spirit. Without any ambiguity that insult to Christ was a detestable blasphemy. But that word of blasphemy, I ask, was it against the very Son of man, or against the Holy Spirit? But if it is said to be against the Son of man, it will be a remissible word; if against the Holy Spirit, it will be irremissible. But if it is called a remissible word, it has nothing to do with that blasphemy which has no forgiveness for ever, and, according to what the evangelist subjoins, it answers nothing to the Lord's words which he set before. The coherence of the sayings therefore compels us to believe that the calumniators of Christ blasphemed against the Holy Spirit. What [1192B]then shall we say? Did they sin against him whom they did not revile, and not blaspheme against him whom they profaned by their words? Who is fit for these things? By authority, therefore, and at the same time from reason, we can plainly gather that the profaners of Christ blasphemed so wickedly not through ignorance, but through malice alone. They understood, without any ambiguity, that no one could work such signs unless God were with him. Since, therefore, they blasphemed through malice alone, they sinned against him to whom goodness is wont specifically to be attributed, and for that very reason, as to that kind of sin, they were unworthy of the alleviation and remission of the most bitter penalty. For, had they sinned through ignorance and offended against him who is the wisdom of God, in punishing the [1192C]sin it would have been dealt with them more leniently, and in it they would have received something of remission. From these words of the Lord it is manifestly gathered that certain things which are common to all the persons are appropriated to certain persons not without great mystery. Many things concerning these words of the Lord are still worthy of diligent investigation. But this we leave, better and more advisedly, to profounder talents. Concerning that which you asked of me I have said what I could. If I have become foolish, you have compelled me.


site: migne

title: De superexcellenti baptismo Christi

author: Richard of Saint Victor

languages: en la

source_edition: Migne, Patrologia Latina, vol. 196, coll. 1011D–1018C

source_text:
## De superexcellenti baptismo Christi

[1011D]Sanguine cognato, sanctitate domino, dilecto suo N., suus qualiscunque R., idem in uno unanimiter velle. Promissionis meae poenitentia ductus, pene malui falso promisisse quam vana scribere, eo quod super his quae a me vobis explanari postulastis, nil omnino sentire quod dictu quidem, necdum scriptu dignum judicarem, maxime tamen idcirco quod in his quae tenuiter sentio verborum inopia laboro. Sed quoniam parvulus Jesus in pannis latere non erubuit [n: (Luc. II)], tenuitatis meae pauperem sensum sub [1012D] verborum pannis transmittere minime puduit. Toties Maria parvulum suum pannis involvit, quoties mens casta veritatem quem vel tenuiter sentit verbis simplicibus exponit. Et forte, ni fallor, vaniloquium quam falsiloquium satius erit incurrere. Attendite itaque, obsecro, quis, cui loquatur, magis quam quid quo dicatur. Orationem itaque pro oratione non tam disertam quam devotam, non illam verborum varietate distinctam, sed lacrymarum imbre refertam deposco. Si quae tamen in his quae [1013A] a me exigitis melius ipsi sentitis, id a vobis jure retributionis exquiro. Sed nunc ad prophetae verba novitate plena, admiratione digna quae vobis reserati desideratis stylum converto. Illumina faciem tuam, etc. [n: (Psal. CXVIII)]. Deus autem incrementum dat intus illuminando et sanctificando. Ecce quam magnus Joannes, quam magnus Paulus. Non tamen magna sed humilia de se sentiebant, quia illuminati erant ut se agnoscerent. Nos nihil sumus, et tamen magna de nobis aestimamus, quia caeci habentes albuginem in oculis: *Qui misit me baptizare in aqua ille mihi dixit: Super quem videris,* etc. [n: (Joan. I)] Spiritus sancti descensionem sicut et ipsius Filii missionem quidam simpliciores, minus sane intelligunt. Cum enim audient ab ipsa Veritate: *Ego [1013B] exivi a Patre, et veni in mundum [n: (Joan. XVI)]*, sic intelligunt quasi prius fuerit in Patre, et non in mundo. Et cum a Patre exivit Patrem deservit, et a Patre recessit. Et cum in mundum venit, illuc venit ubi prius non fuit. Haec intelligentia prava, et ab omni corde fideli eliminanda. Hi enim Dei immensitatem non animadvertunt. Deus enim cum sit immensus, est in omnino loco, omnem locum replens. Ideoque non potest transire de loco ad locum, quasi unum locum deserens, et alium occupans. Nec solum est in omni loco quia est immensus, sed etiam ubique est totus, quia simplex. Haec est enim natura simplicitatis quod ubicunque est, ibi tota est. Cum ergo Deus sit immensus et simplex, consequens est quod ubique sit totus. Nec, cum dicitur [1013C] esse ubique totus, praedicatur habere partes, imo in hoc ipso habere negatur partes; quia, si partes haberet, totus ubique non esset. Nec, cum dicitur totus ubique, intelligendum est quasi omni creaturae secundum plenitudinem se infundat. Sed ubique est totus in seipso, id est ubicunque est se totum habet. Hoc de Patre, hoc de Filio, hoc de Spiritu sancto est intelligendum. Quid est ergo Filii missio nisi formae servilis susceptio? Et quid Spiritus sancti descensio, nisi quaedam symbolica ipsius praesentatio et mystica significatio? Non enim sic in columba descendens in se est motus qui semper in se immotus manet. Nec aliquo modo coepit esse in Domino quo prius non fuit in eo. Nobis non [1013D] habentibus datur, et habentibus ut amplius habeatur. Domino quasi non habenti non est datus, nec habenti ut amplius eum haberet, cui in sua conceptione datus est secundum plenitudinem. Sicut enim Pater cum Filio erat majestate et in homine assumpto gratiae infusione, sic et Spiritus sanctus. Solus autem Filius in eo erat personali unione. Unde ipse solus non Pater, non Spiritus sanctus dicitur Emmanuel, id est nobiscum Deus. Spiritus sancti igitur descensio non est nisi mystica quaedam ipsius significatio. In hoc enim quod visibiliter tali specie super Dominum baptizatum se manifestavit, insinuavit quid in nobis invisibiliter fiat cum in Christo renascimur, sicut Filius non propter se quasi indigens aliquo remedio, sed ut nobis humilitatis [1014A] praeberet exemplum salutis conferret remedium, baptizatus est. Et ipse Pater sic intonuit: *Hic est Filius meus dilectus,* etc. [n: (Matth. III)], sic demonstrans nos ejus filios effici per virtutem tanti sacramenti.

Considerate quanta sit hujus sacramenti dignitas, quod ipse Filius sic commendavit illud suscipiendo, et Spiritus sanctus se praesentando, et Pater sic intonando per efficaciam ejus efficimur membra Christi, templum Spiritus sancti, et filii Dei. Insuper coeli, prius per culpam clausi, nobis aperiuntur; non sine magno mysterio Spiritus sanctus descendit, non in corvo, vel milvo, vel in alia specie, nisi in sola specie columbae. De columba scriptum est in Canticis canticorum: *Una columba [1014B] mea, una matri suae [n: (Cant. VI)]*. Per columbam intelligitur Ecclesia. Ecclesia est corpus Christi; Spiritus sanctus est spiritus Christi. Convenienter ergo Spiritus sanctus in columba apparuit, et non in alia specie, quia spiritus Christi non est nisi in corpore Christi. Et solum corpus Christi vivit et spiritu Christi, sicut corpus meum solum vivit ex spiritu meo, et corpus tuum vivit ex spiritu tuo. In corpore Christi nil mortuum, extra nihil vivum invenitur. Ad cujus corporis unitatem nos invitat Apostolus, dicens: *Solliciti estote servare veritatem spiritus in vinculo pacis [n: (Ephes. IV)]*. Unitatem vocat spiritus, illam unitatem quam facit spiritus in corpore Christi, quod est Ecclesia, cujus unitatis vinculum est pax ad quam unitatem nos [1014C] invitat, dicens: *Unum corpus, et unus spiritus [n: (ibid.)]*, quasi dicat: Ideo unitatem spiritus servare debemus quia sumus unum corpus, et unus spiritus. Unum corpus cum proximo, et unus spiritus cum Deo; unum corpus adinvicem subministrando, unus spiritus idem volendo. Unum corpus sumus multorum membrorum adunatione et unus spiritus habitat in nobis. Ideo et debemus servare unitatem spiritus, quia nobis est unus Dominus, et una fides, et unum baptisma. Non oportet nos dissentire pro diversitate dominorum, quia nobis est unus Dominus Pater, et Filius, et Spiritus sanctus. Qui enim diversos dominos habent, quandoque discordant pro eorum discordia. [1014D] Sunt etiam qui habent eumdem Dominum, sed non diu manet unus, sed fere singulis momentis mutatur, modo laetus, modo tristis, modo justus, modo injustus. Noster autem Dominus sicut unus est, sic et unus et idem semper perseverat. Et una fides, idem jubemur omnes credere, sicut et idem dicere. Non decet nos fideles in fidei confessione dissentire. Sit ergo pura et sincera fidei integritas in corde, sit pura et sincera fidei confessio in ore, quia corde creditur ad justitiam, ore autem fit confessio ad salutem. Si non possumus omnia credenda ad plenum intelligere, saltem illum usum et formam loquendi teneamus quas sancti Patres in Scripturis nobis tradiderunt, maxime cum sermo fit de Verbi incarnatione, vel de ipsius aeterna generatione. Veluti [1015A] pueri prius erudiuntur ut sciant verba sana formare, deinde docendi sunt ut ea quae dicunt intelligant. Ecce quotidie audio in Ecclesia quod Christus est perfectus homo ex anima rationali et humana carne subsistens.

## De superexcellenti baptismo Christi (cont.)

Et item quod ipse est ex substantia Patris ante saecula genitus. Contra hanc formam loquendi multi loquuntur, dicentes, quia Christus non est aliquid inquantum est homo, nec ex substantia Patris genitus, cum sancti in pluribus locis dicant quod divina essentia genuit divinam essentiam, et natura naturam, et substantia substantiam, sicut Deus Deum, et persona personam. Non est mirum si linguas habent leprosas quorum manus sunt leprosae. Quaedam enim lepra volatilis est, quae transit de membro [1015B] ad membrum. Quid ergo mirum, si prave intelligunt qui male vivunt. Caeci et duces caecorum solidissimis sanctorum Patrum auctoritatibus humanae rationis argumenta, imo fragmenta praeferunt, quae omnia ad petram fidei ut baculus arundineus franguntur. Vera est sententia Veritatis quam protulit de fidei soliditate, quia *Portae inferi non praevalebunt adversus eam [n: (Matth. XVI)]*. *Et oves meae vocem meam audiunt, et alienum non sequuntur [n: (Joan. X)]*. Et illud Apostoli: *Fundamentum fidei firmum stat, habens signaculum hoc: Novit Dominus qui sunt ejus [n: (II Tim. II)]*. Vos autem, fratres, oves Domini; filii columbae, filii matris Ecclesiae, membra Christi, quos ipsa unctio docet de omnibus, manete in unitate, quia nobis est [1015C] unus Dominus, una fides, unum baptisma, unus Deus, et pater omnium. Unum baptisma, id est ejusdem virtutis et efficaciae a quocunque detur, quia intus est qui interius operatur indifferenter, per differentes ministros. Multi gloriantur se habere Spiritum sanctum, cum tamen eum non habeant. Natura columbae nos docet agnoscere eos in quibus est Spiritus sanctus. Est enim columba, simplex, sine omni felle, non vivit rapina, gemit ex amore. In his ergo qui sunt simplices, sine totius malitiae felle, gementes ex amore, et dilatione futurae vitae habitat Spiritus sanctus. Et in his qui sunt concordes, et veram pacem et dilectionem inter se custodientes quam significant oscula columbarum. Hanc simplicitatis innocentiam Scriptura nobis commendat [1015D] per agnum, etiam et puerum. Unde ipse Dominus propter omnimodam innocentiam dictus est Agnus Dei [n: (Joan. I)]. Et de ejus consimilibus dicit ad Petrum: *Pasce agnos meos [n: (Joan. XXI)]*. Et dictum est pastor ovium, et fideles oves pascuae ejus [n: (Joan. X)]. Et legis praeceptum est ut quotidie sacerdotes duos agnos offerrent, unum mane, et alterum in vespere [n: (Exod. XXIX)]. In mane incipiunt homines operari. Ideo pro mane intelligitur principium actionis, sicut per vesperam datur intelligi finis. Quid est ergo duos agnos offerre nisi opera innocentiae incipere et ad finem perducere? hoc est sacrificium juge, quia semper Deus requirit a nobis innocentiae virtutem quae per puerum etiam significatur. Ut ibi: *Ecce ego et pueri mei [n: (Isai. VIII)]*; et [1016A] in Evangelio: *Sinite parvulos venire ad me, talium est enim regnum coelorum [n: (Marc. X)]*; et alibi: *Nisi conversi fueritis, et efficiamini sicut parvulus iste, non intrabitis regnum coelorum [n: (Matth. XVIII)]*. Si ergo volumus esse de grege Domini simus agni. Si volumus intrare regnum coelorum simus parvuli, sed malitia, non sapientia. Si volumus ut Spiritus sanctus in nos descendat, et in nobis maneat, simus simplices sicut columbae. Insuper prudentes sicut serpentes, haec est praecipua serpentis prudentia ut caput suum observet. Et nos ergo omni custodia custodiamus caput nostrum in quo vita est nostra, videlicet Christi qui est Dei sapientia. In hoc capite oculos nostros semper fixos habeamus juxta illud: *Oculi sapientis in capite suo [n: (Eccle. II)]*. Si quis oculos [1016B] suos ab hoc capite evulserit, necesse est ut caecus fiat. Sed dicet aliquis hoc caput jam in coelo est, non indiget ut illud custodiam, hic audiat quid dicat Apostolus Christum habitare per fidem in cordibus nostris [n: (Ephes. III)]: fides enim Christi in corde tuo, Christus est in corde tuo, hoc igitur caput illaesum et integrum custodiamus, quia in hoc capite est vita nostra, quoniam justus ex fide vivit; hoc caput, inquit, custodiamus sicut ille qui ait, fidem servavi quasi serpens prudens. Ne autem simplicitas nostra sit frigida, oportet nos esse ferventes spiritu. Unde Spiritus sanctus super apostolos apparuit in igne. Quoniam vero hic fervor spiritus non solum dicitur esse in corde, sed etiam in [1016C] ore ut peccantes arguamus, et frigidos inflammemus, ideo in linguis igneis se ostendit Spiritus almus. Sunt quidam qui alienum ignem portant in ore, qui sicut serpens mordent in occulto. Iste ignis non est coelestis, sed gehennalis; nec lucidus, sed caliginosus, quia qui male agit odit lucem. Ille qui misit me baptizare, etc. Joannes baptizabat in aqua solum sicut homo. Jesus in aqua et Spiritu sancto, sicut homo et Deus, baptizare in Spiritu est ab omni sorde peccati mundare, insuper gratias infundere. Prius enim Dominus Jesus baptizans in Spiritu effundit amaritudinem, post infundit dulcedinem, prius vasa cordium mundat, post mundata replet. Unde Apostolus: *Christus dilexit Ecclesiam, et tradidit semetipsum pro ea ut eam sanctificaret, [1016D] mundans eam lavacro aquae in verbo vitae, ut exhiberet eam gloriosam, non habentem maculam aut rugam [n: (Ephes. V)]*.

Considerate ordinem et vim verborum. Dilexit, et tradidit. Magnae dilectionis magnum indicium. Quid ei contulit illa traditio? Audite. Ut prius eam mundaret ab omni contagione peccati, deinde eam sanctificaret donorum collatione, et tandem in futuro exhiberet eam sibi gloriosam, id est in animo et corpore rutilantem, et gemina stola decoratam non habentem maculam in carne, nec rugam in mente. Et hoc totum non ex operibus justitiae quae fecimus nos, sed secundum magnam misericordiam suam fecit per lavacrum regenerationis et renovationis Spiritus sancti quem effudit in nos abunde, id [1017A] est per lavacrum baptismatis per quod regeneramur in filios adoptionis qui prius eramus filii perditionis. Et per Spiritum sanctum in hoc sacramento nobis datum, deposita vetustate, quotidie renovamur in cognitione et amore Dei. Quem Spiritum effudit in nos abunde, id est ad omnium peccatorum remissionem et copiam virtutum. Per remissionem peccatorum eripimur de potestate tenebrarum, per copiam virtutum transferimur in regnum filii Dei, per remissionem peccatorum incipimus non esse quod fuimus, per copiam virtutum incipimus esse quod non fuimus. Intuemini una mecum supereminentem scientiae charitatem Christi, ex qua non solum homo fieri, sed etiam homo factus pro nobis mori voluit. Prius se dedit nobis, deinde se dedit [1017B] pro nobis. Nobis per incarnationem, pro nobis per passionem. Spiritum suum in corda nostra misit, Patris visionem promisit, potestatem qua filii Dei efficiamur contulit. Et talem dignitatem tribuit ut ipsum habeamus caput, et simus ejus membra, et haeredes vitae aeternae. Cum ergo sit omnipotens quid amplius nobis dare potuit? Non enim angelicae naturae collata est haec dignitas, ut a Verbo Dei in unitatem personae assumeretur. Tantae igitur gratiae referamus gratias quas possumus quia condignas non valemus. Non simus ingrati. Nemo sanguinem Christi, sanguinem Novi Testamenti, sanguinem quo sanctificatus est pollutum dicat. Nemo Spiritui sancto contumeliam faciat. Dico vobis quia multo [1017C] deteriora meretur tormenta qui Filium Dei jam glorificatum, jam super omnem supercoelestium essentiarum dignitatem sublimatum, et in sede paternae majestatis locatum contempserit, quam Judaei qui eum adhuc mortalem crucifixerunt per ignorantiam meruerunt. Nos jam cognovimus veritatem, et ideo inexcusabiles erimus si tantam contempserimus salutem. Utraque via nobis annuntiata est, et illa quae ducit ad sinistram, et illa quae ducit ad dextram. Via lata et spatiosa quae ducit ad perditionem, [1018A] et via arcta quae ducit ad vitam. Via salutis arcta quidem est in principio, id est incipientibus quasi in janua, quia inchoatur a timore gehennae et vitiorum mortificatione quae non fit sine amaritudine, priusquam vero quis januam transierit jam in atriis Domini constituto occurret latitudo charitatis et suavitas internae dulcedinis, per quas ea quae prius videbantur amara fient jucunda. Tunc primum proferet gemitum columbae. Quis est gemitus columbae? *Heu me, quia incolatus meus prolongatus est [n: (Psal. CXIX)]*? et: *Quando veniam, quando apparebo ante faciem Domini [n: (Psal. XL)]*? et: *Cupio dissolvi et esse cum Christo [n: (Philip. I)]*; et: *Veni, Domine Jesu, veni ostende faciem tuam [n: (Psal. LXXIX)]*. *Renuit consolari anima mea, memor fui Dei et delectatus [1018B] sum [n: (Psal. LXXVI)]*. Omnis enim anima Deo devota, et vulnerata charitate, et amore languida nihil invenit sub sole in quo consoletur. Sola memoria Dei eam delectat, cujus omne desiderium est ut sit ante Dominum. Corvus vero longe alium habet gemitum. Tunc enim gemit corvus cum ei desunt cadavera in quorum fetore immergat rostrum, tunc gemit corvus cum dicitur ei ut egrediatur de corpore. Tunc clamat, et dicit: Non hodie, sed cras; non hodie, sed cras. Columba non dicit cras, sed hodie, cum monetur exire de carcere. Videat ergo unusquisque quid diligat, et sic unde sit, et qualis sit, corvus an columba intelligat. Fratres, omne studium nostrum et tota animi intentio sit carnis [1018C] morbidum affectum mortificare, et a concupiscentiis mundi animum avellere, et in amore aeternae vitae corda nostra accendere, quod fit assiduitate orandi, legendi et meditandi. Ad illam vitam in qua nemo moritur, nemo nascitur, nemo esurit, nemo sitit, nemo formidat inimicum, nemo prodit amicum, in qua est aeterna satietas, summa beatitudo. Ad quam nos perducere dignetur qui est super omnia Deus benedictus in saecula. Amen.

english:
## On the Surpassingly Excellent Baptism of Christ

[1011D]To one kindred in blood, a lord in sanctity, to his beloved N., his own R., such as he is: to will one and the same thing, with one accord, in the One. Led by repentance for my promise, I almost preferred to have promised falsely than to write empty things, for this reason: that concerning those matters which you asked to be explained to you by me, I judged that I perceived nothing at all worthy even to be spoken, still less to be written; but chiefly for this reason, that in those things which I feebly perceive I labor under a poverty of words. But since the little child Jesus did not blush to lie hidden in swaddling-clothes [n: (Luc. II)], I was not at all ashamed to convey the poor sense of my slenderness under [1012D] the swaddling-clothes of words. As often as Mary wraps her little one in swaddling-clothes, so often does a chaste mind expound in simple words the truth which it perceives, even if feebly. And perhaps, if I mistake not, it will be more satisfactory to run into empty speech than into false speech. Attend, therefore, I beseech you, rather to who speaks, and to whom, than to what is said, or by what means. And so I ask for a prayer in return for a prayer, not so eloquent as devout, not distinguished by variety of words, but filled with a shower of tears. If, however, in those things which [1013A] you require of me you yourself perceive anything better, this I demand of you by the right of recompense. But now I turn my pen to the words of the prophet, full of novelty, worthy of wonder, which you desire to be unlocked for you. Enlighten your face, etc. [n: (Psal. CXVIII)]. But God gives the increase by enlightening and sanctifying within. Behold how great was John, how great was Paul. Yet they perceived not great but humble things of themselves, because they were enlightened so as to know themselves. We are nothing, and yet we esteem great things of ourselves, because we are blind, having a white film upon our eyes: *He who sent me to baptize in water, he said to me: Upon whom you shall see,* etc. [n: (Joan. I)] The descent of the Holy Spirit, as also the mission of the Son himself, certain simpler folk understand, soundly enough, but too little. For when they hear from Truth itself: *I [1013B] went forth from the Father, and came into the world [n: (Joan. XVI)]*, they so understand it as though he were first in the Father, and not in the world. And that when he went forth from the Father he forsook the Father, and withdrew from the Father. And that when he came into the world, he came thither where before he was not. This understanding is depraved, and to be banished from every faithful heart. For these do not consider the immensity of God. For God, since he is immense, is in every place, filling every place. And therefore he cannot pass from place to place, as though forsaking one place and occupying another. Nor is he only in every place because he is immense, but he is also everywhere whole, because he is simple. For this is the nature of simplicity: that wherever it is, there it is whole. Since, then, God is immense and simple, it follows that he is everywhere whole. Nor, when he is said [1013C] to be everywhere whole, is he predicated to have parts; nay, in this very thing he is denied to have parts; because, if he had parts, he would not be everywhere whole. Nor, when he is said to be whole everywhere, is it to be understood as though he infuses himself into every creature according to fullness. But he is everywhere whole in himself, that is, wherever he is, he has himself whole. This is to be understood of the Father, this of the Son, this of the Holy Spirit. What, then, is the mission of the Son but the assumption of the servile form? And what the descent of the Holy Spirit, but a certain symbolic presentation and mystical signification of him? For he, descending in the dove, is not thus in himself moved, who ever remains in himself unmoved. Nor did he in any way begin to be in the Lord in a manner in which before he was not in him. To us not [1013D] having it is given, and to those having it, that it may be had more fully. To the Lord, as not having it, it was not given, nor to him as having it, that he might have it more fully — to whom in his own conception it was given according to fullness. For as the Father was with the Son by majesty and, in the man assumed, by the infusion of grace, so also the Holy Spirit. But the Son alone was in him by personal union. Whence he alone — not the Father, not the Holy Spirit — is called Emmanuel, that is, God with us. The descent of the Holy Spirit, then, is nothing but a certain mystical signification of him. For in this, that he manifested himself visibly in such a form over the Lord when baptized, he intimated what is invisibly done in us when we are reborn in Christ; just as the Son was baptized, not for his own sake as though needing any remedy, but that he might furnish us [1014A] an example of humility and confer a remedy of salvation. And the Father himself so thundered: *This is my beloved Son,* etc. [n: (Matth. III)], so demonstrating that we are made his sons through the power of so great a sacrament.

Consider how great is the dignity of this sacrament, that the Son himself so commended it by receiving it, and the Holy Spirit by presenting himself, and the Father by so thundering; through its efficacy we are made members of Christ, temple of the Holy Spirit, and sons of God. Moreover the heavens, before closed through fault, are opened to us; not without great mystery did the Holy Spirit descend, not in a raven, or a kite, or in another form, but in the form of a dove alone. Of the dove it is written in the Song of Songs: *One is my dove, [1014B] one to her mother [n: (Cant. VI)]*. By the dove is understood the Church. The Church is the body of Christ; the Holy Spirit is the spirit of Christ. Fittingly, then, did the Holy Spirit appear in a dove, and not in another form, because the spirit of Christ is only in the body of Christ. And only the body of Christ lives also by the spirit of Christ, just as my body alone lives by my spirit, and your body lives by your spirit. In the body of Christ nothing dead, outside it nothing living, is found. To the unity of which body the Apostle invites us, saying: *Be careful to keep the truth of the spirit in the bond of peace [n: (Ephes. IV)]*. He calls the unity "of the spirit," that unity which the spirit makes in the body of Christ, which is the Church, of which unity the bond is peace; to which unity he [1014C] invites us, saying: *One body, and one spirit [n: (ibid.)]*, as though he should say: Therefore we ought to keep the unity of the spirit because we are one body, and one spirit. One body with our neighbor, and one spirit with God; one body by ministering to one another, one spirit by willing the same thing. We are one body by the uniting of many members, and one spirit dwells in us. Therefore we also ought to keep the unity of the spirit, because to us there is one Lord, and one faith, and one baptism. It behooves us not to dissent through diversity of lords, because to us there is one Lord — the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. For those who have diverse lords sometimes are at discord because of their discord. [1014D] There are also those who have the same lord, but he does not remain one for long, but is changed almost at every moment, now glad, now sad, now just, now unjust. But our Lord, as he is one, so also remains one and the same for ever. And one faith: we are all bidden to believe the same, as also to say the same. It does not become us, the faithful, to dissent in the confession of faith. Let there be, then, a pure and sincere integrity of faith in the heart, let there be a pure and sincere confession of faith in the mouth, because with the heart one believes unto righteousness, but with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. If we cannot fully understand all the things to be believed, let us at least hold that usage and form of speaking which the holy Fathers handed down to us in the Scriptures, especially when speech is made of the incarnation of the Word, or of his eternal generation. Just as [1015A] children are first trained to know how to form sound words, and then are to be taught to understand the things that they say. Behold, daily I hear in the Church that Christ is a perfect man, subsisting of a rational soul and human flesh.

## On the Surpassingly Excellent Baptism of Christ (cont.)

And likewise that he himself is, of the substance of the Father, begotten before the ages. Against this form of speaking many speak, saying that Christ is not anything in so far as he is man, nor begotten of the substance of the Father, whereas the saints in many places say that the divine essence begot the divine essence, and nature nature, and substance substance, as God God, and person person. It is no wonder if those whose hands are leprous have leprous tongues; for a certain leprosy is flying, which passes from member [1015B] to member. What wonder, then, if those who live wickedly understand perversely? Blind, and leaders of the blind, they prefer to the most solid authorities of the holy Fathers the arguments — nay, the fragments — of human reason, all of which are broken against the rock of faith like a reed staff. True is the sentence of Truth which he uttered concerning the solidity of faith, that *The gates of hell shall not prevail against it [n: (Matth. XVI)]*. *And my sheep hear my voice, and do not follow a stranger [n: (Joan. X)]*. And that of the Apostle: *The firm foundation of faith stands, having this seal: The Lord knows who are his [n: (II Tim. II)]*. But you, brethren, the sheep of the Lord; sons of the dove, sons of mother Church, members of Christ, whom the anointing itself teaches concerning all things, remain in unity, because to us there is [1015C] one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God, and Father of all. One baptism, that is, of the same power and efficacy by whomsoever it be given, because he is within who works inwardly without difference, through different ministers. Many glory that they have the Holy Spirit, when nevertheless they do not have him. The nature of the dove teaches us to recognize those in whom the Holy Spirit is. For the dove is simple, without any gall, does not live by rapine, and moans out of love. In those, then, who are simple, without the gall of all malice, moaning out of love and out of the deferral of the future life, the Holy Spirit dwells. And in those who are of one accord, and keep true peace and love among themselves, which the kisses of doves signify. This innocence of simplicity Scripture commends to us [1015D] by the lamb, and also by the child. Whence the Lord himself, on account of his innocence in every way, was called the Lamb of God [n: (Joan. I)]. And of those like him he says to Peter: *Feed my lambs [n: (Joan. XXI)]*. And he was called shepherd of the sheep, and the faithful the sheep of his pasture [n: (Joan. X)]. And it is a precept of the law that daily the priests should offer two lambs, one in the morning, and the other in the evening [n: (Exod. XXIX)]. In the morning men begin to work. Therefore by the morning is understood the beginning of action, just as by the evening is given to be understood the end. What, then, is it to offer two lambs but to begin works of innocence and to bring them to their end? This is the perpetual sacrifice, because God ever requires of us the virtue of innocence, which is signified also by the child. As there: *Behold, I and my children [n: (Isai. VIII)]*; and [1016A] in the Gospel: *Suffer the little ones to come to me, for of such is the kingdom of heaven [n: (Marc. X)]*; and elsewhere: *Unless you be converted, and become as this little child, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven [n: (Matth. XVIII)]*. If, then, we wish to be of the flock of the Lord, let us be lambs. If we wish to enter the kingdom of heaven, let us be little ones — but in malice, not in wisdom. If we wish the Holy Spirit to descend upon us, and to remain in us, let us be simple as doves. Moreover prudent as serpents: this is the chief prudence of the serpent, that it guards its head. And we too, then, with all keeping let us keep our head, in which is our life, namely, of Christ, who is the wisdom of God. In this head let us always have our eyes fixed, according to that: *The eyes of the wise man are in his head [n: (Eccle. II)]*. If anyone tears his eyes [1016B] away from this head, he must needs become blind. But someone will say: this head is now in heaven, it does not need that I keep it. Let him here hear what the Apostle says: that Christ dwells through faith in our hearts [n: (Ephes. III)]: for the faith of Christ is in your heart, Christ is in your heart; therefore let us keep this head unharmed and whole, because in this head is our life, since the just man lives by faith; let us keep this head, he says, like him who said, "I have kept the faith," as a prudent serpent. But lest our simplicity be cold, it behooves us to be fervent in spirit. Whence the Holy Spirit appeared over the apostles in fire. But because this fervor of spirit is said to be not only in the heart, but also in [1016C] the mouth — that we may reprove sinners, and inflame the lukewarm — therefore the gracious Spirit showed himself in fiery tongues. There are certain men who carry an alien fire in the mouth, who like a serpent bite in secret. This fire is not heavenly, but of Gehenna; not bright, but murky, because he who does evil hates the light. He who sent me to baptize, etc. John baptized in water only, as a man. Jesus in water and the Holy Spirit, as man and God: to baptize in the Spirit is to cleanse from all filth of sin, and moreover to infuse graces. For the Lord Jesus, baptizing in the Spirit, first pours out bitterness, afterward infuses sweetness; first cleanses the vessels of hearts, afterward fills them cleansed. Whence the Apostle: *Christ loved the Church, and delivered himself up for her that he might sanctify her, [1016D] cleansing her by the laver of water in the word of life, that he might present her glorious, having neither spot nor wrinkle [n: (Ephes. V)]*.

Consider the order and the force of the words. He loved, and he delivered up. A great token of great love. What did that delivering-up confer upon her? Hear. That first he might cleanse her from all contagion of sin, then sanctify her by the bestowal of gifts, and at last, in the world to come, present her to himself glorious — that is, shining in soul and body, and adorned with a twofold robe, having neither spot in the flesh nor wrinkle in the mind. And all this he did not from the works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his great mercy, through the laver of regeneration and renovation of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out upon us abundantly, that [1017A] is, through the laver of baptism, by which we are regenerated into sons of adoption, we who before were sons of perdition. And through the Holy Spirit given to us in this sacrament, our oldness laid aside, we are daily renewed in the knowledge and love of God. Which Spirit he poured out upon us abundantly, that is, unto the remission of all sins and an abundance of virtues. Through the remission of sins we are snatched from the power of darkness; through the abundance of virtues we are translated into the kingdom of the Son of God; through the remission of sins we begin not to be what we were; through the abundance of virtues we begin to be what we were not. Behold with me the charity of Christ that surpasses knowledge, out of which he willed not only to become man, but also, made man, to die for us. First he gave himself to us, then he gave himself [1017B] for us. To us through the incarnation, for us through the passion. He sent his Spirit into our hearts, he promised the vision of the Father, he conferred the power whereby we are made sons of God. And he bestowed such dignity that we have him as head, and are his members, and heirs of eternal life. Since, then, he is omnipotent, what more could he give us? For not to the angelic nature was this dignity conferred, that it should be assumed by the Word of God into unity of person. For so great a grace, then, let us render such thanks as we can, since we are not able to render worthy ones. Let us not be ungrateful. Let no one call the blood of Christ, the blood of the New Testament, the blood by which he was sanctified, a polluted thing. Let no one do insult to the Holy Spirit. I say to you that he deserves much [1017C] worse torments who has despised the Son of God — now glorified, now exalted above every dignity of the supercelestial essences, and placed on the seat of the Father's majesty — than the Jews deserved who crucified him, still mortal, through ignorance. We have now known the truth, and therefore we shall be inexcusable if we despise so great a salvation. Both ways have been announced to us, both that which leads to the left, and that which leads to the right. The broad and spacious way which leads to perdition, [1018A] and the narrow way which leads to life. The way of salvation is indeed narrow at the beginning, that is, for beginners, as at a doorway, because it is begun from the fear of Gehenna and the mortification of vices, which does not come about without bitterness; but before one has passed the doorway, to him now established in the courts of the Lord there will meet the breadth of charity and the sweetness of inner delight, through which the things that before seemed bitter will become pleasant. Then first will he utter the moan of the dove. What is the moan of the dove? *Woe is me, that my sojourning is prolonged [n: (Psal. CXIX)]*? and: *When shall I come, when shall I appear before the face of the Lord [n: (Psal. XL)]*? and: *I desire to be dissolved and to be with Christ [n: (Philip. I)]*; and: *Come, Lord Jesus, come, show your face [n: (Psal. LXXIX)]*. *My soul refused to be comforted; I remembered God, and was delighted [1018B] [n: (Psal. LXXVI)]*. For every soul devoted to God, and wounded by charity, and languishing with love, finds nothing under the sun in which to be comforted. The memory of God alone delights it, whose every desire is to be before the Lord. But the raven has a far different moan. For the raven moans when carcasses are lacking to it, in whose stench to plunge its beak; the raven moans when it is told to go forth from the body. Then it cries out, and says: Not today, but tomorrow; not today, but tomorrow. The dove does not say tomorrow, but today, when it is admonished to go out of the prison. Let each one, then, see what he loves, and thus understand whence he is, and of what sort — whether a raven or a dove. Brethren, let our whole endeavor and the entire intention of our mind be to mortify the diseased affection of the flesh, [1018C] and to tear the mind away from the concupiscences of the world, and to kindle our hearts in the love of eternal life — which is done by assiduity in praying, reading, and meditating. Unto that life in which no one dies, no one is born, no one hungers, no one thirsts, no one dreads an enemy, no one betrays a friend; in which is eternal satiety, the highest beatitude. To which may he deign to lead us who is over all, God blessed unto the ages. Amen.

license_source: Public Domain Mark 1.0

license_translation: CC BY-NC 4.0

license_apparatus: CC BY-NC 4.0


source_edition: Migne, Patrologia Latina, vol. 196, coll. 991B–994D

source_text:
## De tribus appropriatis personis in Trinitate

[0991B]Quaeris a me, mi Bernarde, quid mihi videatur de illa Augustini sententia, in qua attribuitur Patri unitas, Filio aequalitas, Spiritui sancto utriusque concordia. Libenter aperio mihi alteri quod sentio, communicare volens si quid recte, vel ex quantulacunque parte sapio, simul et corrigi ambiens, si quid aliter sentio: propria, si placet, singulorum consideremus, et forte illucescet quod quaerimus. [0991C] Subsistentia ingeniti, quae ab alia aliqua non est, in eo quod substantialiter vel personaliter est, nullam pluralitatem ingerit, nullam pluralitatem concludit: nam in eo quod gignit, nihil sibi, sed soli Filio confert, ut sit geniti autem subsistentia, quae ab alia accepit quod habet, sicut nec esse per seipsam, sic nec per seipsam intelligi valet. Si igitur pluralitatem ingerit subsistentia Filii, quanto magis quae a duobus est subsistentia Spiritus sancti? Recte igitur unitas Patri attribuitur, in cujus subsistentiae consideratione nulla pluralitas concurrere videtur. Addamus et illud, quia, quidquid substantialiter dici potest, veraciter unum est. Sed dicis, quia et hoc ei cum [0991D] caeteris commune est, sed procul dubio solus Pater habet hoc secundum, ut sic dicam, principalitatem: nam caeteri secundum acceptionem, et juxta alterius similitudinem. Hinc ergo colligitur cur ei unitas juxta hanc considerationem quasi specialiter attribuitur. Ecce quomodo in Patre unitas, quaeramus quomodo in Filio aequalitas. Certe ubi nulla pluralitas est, nec aequalitas recte vel dici, vel intelligi potest. Sicut enim nihil recte dicitur sibi simile, sic nec aequale. Itaque ubi primo pluralitas occurrit, ibi et aequalitatem primum quaerere oportebit. Constat autem quia Filius imago est Patris sui, non autem Pater imago Filii. Hinc illud Augustini. Non autem Pater et Filius simul ambo imago, sed Filius solus imago Patris. Audi et illud ejusdem. Imago [0992B] si perfecte implet illud cujus imago est, ipsa coaequatur ei, non illud imagini suae. Certum est autem quod Filius plenitudinem ejus capit et exprimit, cujus imago existit. Itaque secundum sententiam Augustini, Filius coaequatur Patri, non Pater suae imagini. Recte igitur aequalitas attribuitur non Patri, sed Filio. Sed cur, inquis, non etiam Spiritui sancto? Sed si des cur solus in Trinitate Filius [0992C] dicitur imago alterius, consequenter accipies cur aequalitas attribuatur soli Filio, non autem simul et Spiritui sancto. In his vero quae secundum substantiam dicuntur, non solum Filio, sed et Spiritui sancto aequalitas attribuitur, sed secundum principalitatem habet hoc solus Filius, non autem Spiritus sanctus. Verumtamen si in hujusmodi loquendi proprietas servaretur, magis identitas quam aequalitas diceretur. Ecce jam habes cur unitas Patri, cur aequalitas attribuatur Filio; restat quaerendum cur utriusque concordia attribuatur Spiritui sancto. Sicut qualitas nulla est sine consistentium pluralitate, sic nec quid tertium ponitur concordia duorum, sine consistentium Trinitate. In Patre origo unitatis, in Filio inchoatio pluralitatis, in Spiritu sancto completio Trinitatis. [0992D] Hinc tibi elucescere debet, quam merito dicatur caeterorum concordia, ille qui est tertia in Trinitate persona. Consideremus nunc propria singulorum, et videbimus quia alia est habitudo Patris ad Filium, alia ad Spiritum sanctum. Nihilominus aliter se habet Filius ad eumdem Spiritum, et aliter ad Patrem suum. Uniformiter autem habent tam Pater quam Filius ad Spiritum amborum, et e converso uniformiter se habet idem Spiritus tam ad Patrem quam Filium. Recte ergo caeterorum concordia dicitur, in quo habitudinis uniformitas omniformiter invenitur. Addamus et illud, quia plenitudinem concordiae facit idem velle, et idem nolle, recte itaque duorum concordia dicitur, qui est [0993A] amor utriusque. Cur autem amor potius quam amborum sapientia dicitur, alia quaestio videtur. Nunc vero videamus quomodo intelligendum sit, quod Augustinus ad illa superius posita, et exposita adjungit, cum dicit: Et tria haec unum omnia propter Patrem, aequalia omnia propter Filium, connexa omnia propter Spiritum sanctum. Si sola ingeniti persona fuisset nihilominus in divinitate unitas esset. Primordialiter itaque est, ut sic dicam, unitas in solo ingenito, sed juxta ejus similitudinem, vel emanationem tam in unigenito, quam in Spiritu sancto. Item, si sola ingeniti persona esset, nulla in divinitate aequalitas fuisset; et si sola Spiritus sancti persona deesset, nihilominus in divinitate aequalitas fuisset. Hinc est perpendere [0993B] quae aequalitas primordialiter est in solo unigenito, juxta tamen ejus similitudinem est etiam in Spiritu sancto. Tolle Spiritum sanctum, non erit in divinitate qui sit connexio plurium. Sed forte adhuc exigis cur, existente Trinitate, omnium connexio attribuatur soli Spiritui sancto. Sed scimus quoniam reliqui duo differenter se habent ad unigenitum, solus autem Spiritus sanctus indifferenter se habet tam ad ingenitum quam ad genitum, et ambo illorum uniformiter se habent ad Spiritum sanctum. Singulariter itaque omnium connexio attribuitur Spiritui sancto. Singulariter, inquam, quantum ad reliquas in divinitate personas, primordialiter etiam quantum ad creaturas. Nam quod in [0993C] creaturis connexio solet inveniri est de imitatione, vel similitudine Spiritus sancti. Ne mireris quod haec quae supradicta sunt per remotionem posuimus, ut ea quae sentienda sunt planius et plenius intelligamus. Primordialiter itaque unitas pertinet ad ingenitum et idcirco in Trinitate omnia unum propter ipsum. Aequalitas primordialiter pertinet ad unigenitum, et idcirco in Trinitate omnia aequalia propter ipsum. Connexio singulariter pertinet ad Spiritum sanctum, et ideo in Trinitate omnia connexa propter ipsum.

*Cur attribuatur potentia Patri, sapientia Filio, bonitas Spiritui sancto.*

Addis adhuc ut quaeras quid mihi causae videtur [0993D] cur potentia Patri in Scripturis sanctis specialius attribuitur, sapientia Filio, charitas vel bonitas Spiritui sancto. Si non dixero nisi quod in codicibus vestris invenitur, forte superfluum judicabitur; si quid aliud forte exsufflabitur, irridebitur. Merito ejusmodi timere debuissem si nescirem apud quem in aure loquens sermonem seu sensum meum effunderem. Tibi utique; tibi, inquam, libenter dico quod sentio. Quid sit potentia, quid sit sapientia, quid charitas vel bonitas omnes in commune novimus, et quotidiano experimento probamus. In his itaque quae manifesta et nobis nota sunt erudimur, ni fallor, ad eorum notionem quae humanae capacitatis modum excedunt. In his enim tribus forma quaedam et imago summae Trinitatis exprimitur, [0994A] et quoddam nobis velut speculum proponitur, ut invisibilia Dei per ea quae facta sunt intellecta conspiciantur. Quae igitur sunt in Trinitate ista, respondent his quae sunt in Trinitate illa, tria tribus, similia similibus, propria propriis, singula singulis. Videmus quia potest esse multiplex potentia etiam ubi nulla est vel esse potest sapientia. Taceo de elementis, vel quibuslibet rebus insensatis. In rebus autem animatis et brutis est potentia audiendi, videndi, potentia ambulandi, comedendi et bibendi, etc. hujusmodi, in his vero nulla sapientia est, nulla naturaliter inesse potest. Constat ergo, quod superius jam dictum est, quia potest esse multiplex potentia ubi nulla potest esse sapientia. Econtra autem ubi nulla potentia est, nulla sapientia [0994B] inesse potest. Nam posse sapere absque dubio est aliquid posse. Dat itaque esse posse non sapientia potentiae, sed potentia sapientiae. Item, constat quod Lucifer ille, qui mane oriebatur, multam habet potentiam, multam sapientiam, sed nullam omnino voluntatem bonam. Bonitatis est autem bene velle. Quid est enim bonitas nisi bona voluntas? Testis itaque est Lucifer ille obduratus in sua perversitate quod possit esse multiplex potentia simul et multiformis sapientia, ubi nulla manent bonitatis vestigia. Econtra autem nulla bonitas inesse poterit ubi sapientia vel potentia omnino defuerit. Nam posse bene velle est aliquid posse. Sapientiae vero est discernere inter bonum et malum, et sine hujusmodi [0994C] discretione nescit voluntas quid sit eligendum. Ut possis ergo bonitatem habere, oportet ut scias et valeas bonum eligere. Potentia dat posse, sapientia dat nosse, sine quibus bonitas non prodest ad esse. Contrahit itaque suum esse bonitas non tam a sapientia quam potentia. In hac itaque rerum Trinitate sola potentia non est de reliquarum aliqua, sapientia autem est de potentia sola, bonitas vero de potentia simul et sapientia. Vides certe quomodo in hac rerum Trinitate expressae sunt proprietates Trinitatis illius summae et aeternae. Ibi est persona ingeniti quae non est ab alio aliquo; ibi est persona geniti, quae est ab ingenito solo; ibi est persona Spiritus sancti, quae est tam a genito quam ab ingenito. Quoniam ergo in potentia exprimitur proprietas [0994D] ingeniti, speciali quodam considerationis modo merito ascribitur illi. Sed quoniam in sapientia exprimitur proprietas geniti, merito et illa juxta eumdem modum ascribitur ipsi. Item, quia in bonitate proprietas Spiritus sancti invenitur, merito et ei bonitas specialius assignatur. Ecce quomodo ex hac rerum Trinitate surgit consideratio ex qua per exemplum ostenditur qualiter quod de divinis proprietatibus legitur intelligi valet. Sed ex eadem rerum speculatione consideratio oritur longe ista sublimior, ex qua ratiocinando colligitur quod idem ipsum omnino fateri oportet. Sed in his metam figimus quoniam quaestioni vestrae nos satisfecisse jam credimus.

english:
## On the Three Things Appropriated to the Persons in the Trinity

[0991B]You ask of me, my Bernard, what I think of that saying of Augustine's, in which unity is attributed to the Father, equality to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit the concord of both. Gladly do I open to another self what I feel, wishing to share it if I understand anything rightly, or in however small a part, and at the same time seeking to be corrected if I feel otherwise about anything. Let us, if you please, consider the properties of each, and perhaps what we seek will shine forth. [0991C] The subsistence of the Unbegotten, which is not from any other, introduces no plurality and implies no plurality in that by which it is substantially or personally what it is; for in that which it begets it confers nothing upon itself, but upon the Son alone, that he may be. But the subsistence of the Begotten, which has received from another what it has, just as it is not able to be through itself, so neither is it able to be understood through itself. If, then, the subsistence of the Son introduces plurality, how much more the subsistence of the Holy Spirit, which is from two? Rightly, therefore, is unity attributed to the Father, in the consideration of whose subsistence no plurality appears to concur. Let us add this too: that whatever can be said substantially is truly one. But you say that this too is common to him with [0991D] the others; yet without doubt the Father alone has this by way, so to speak, of primacy, whereas the others have it by way of reception, and according to the likeness of another. Hence, then, it is gathered why unity is attributed to him, according to this consideration, as it were specially. See how unity is in the Father; let us seek how equality is in the Son. Certainly, where there is no plurality, equality can neither rightly be said nor understood. For just as nothing is rightly called like to itself, so neither equal. And so, where plurality first occurs, there also must equality first be sought. Now it is established that the Son is the image of his Father, but not the Father the image of the Son. Hence that saying of Augustine's: The Father and the Son are not together both an image, but the Son alone is the image of the Father. Hear also this of the same: An image, [0992B] if it perfectly fulfills that of which it is the image, is itself made equal to it, and not it to its image. But it is certain that the Son grasps and expresses the fullness of him whose image he is. And so, according to Augustine's opinion, the Son is made equal to the Father, not the Father to his image. Rightly, therefore, is equality attributed not to the Father, but to the Son. But why, you say, not also to the Holy Spirit? Yet if you can say why the Son alone in the Trinity [0992C] is called the image of another, you will consequently understand why equality is attributed to the Son alone, and not at the same time also to the Holy Spirit. But in those things which are said according to substance, equality is attributed not only to the Son but also to the Holy Spirit; yet according to primacy the Son alone has this, and not the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, if propriety of speech were preserved in a matter of this kind, it would rather be called identity than equality. See, now you have why unity is attributed to the Father and why equality to the Son; it remains to ask why the concord of both is attributed to the Holy Spirit. As there is no quality without a plurality of things subsisting, so too the concord of two, which is set down as a third something, is not without a trinity of things subsisting. In the Father is the origin of unity, in the Son the beginning of plurality, in the Holy Spirit the completion of the Trinity. [0992D] Hence it ought to shine clear to you how deservedly he who is the third person in the Trinity is called the concord of the others. Let us now consider the properties of each, and we shall see that the relation of the Father to the Son is one thing, and to the Holy Spirit another. No less does the Son stand in one way toward the same Spirit, and in another toward his Father. But both the Father and the Son stand uniformly toward the Spirit of both, and conversely the same Spirit stands uniformly toward both the Father and the Son. Rightly, then, is he called the concord of the others, in whom the uniformity of relation is found in every form. Let us add this too: that the same willing and the same not-willing makes the fullness of concord; and so he is rightly called the concord of the two, who is [0993A] the love of both. But why he is called love rather than the wisdom of both seems another question. Now, however, let us see how we are to understand what Augustine adds to the things set down and expounded above, when he says: And these three are all one on account of the Father, all equal on account of the Son, all connected on account of the Holy Spirit. If there had been the person of the Unbegotten alone, there would nonetheless be unity in the divinity. And so primordially, so to speak, unity is in the Unbegotten alone, but according to his likeness or emanation it is also both in the Only-begotten and in the Holy Spirit. Likewise, if there were the person of the Unbegotten alone, there would have been no equality in the divinity; and if the person of the Holy Spirit alone were lacking, there would nonetheless have been equality in the divinity. Hence one must weigh [0993B] that equality is primordially in the Only-begotten alone, yet according to his likeness it is also in the Holy Spirit. Take away the Holy Spirit, and there will be in the divinity no one who is the connection of the several. But perhaps you still press for why, the Trinity existing, the connection of all is attributed to the Holy Spirit alone. But we know that the remaining two stand differently toward the Only-begotten, whereas the Holy Spirit alone stands indifferently toward both the Unbegotten and the Begotten, and both of them stand uniformly toward the Holy Spirit. And so singularly is the connection of all attributed to the Holy Spirit. Singularly, I say, as regards the other persons in the divinity, and primordially also as regards creatures. For the fact that connection is wont to be found in [0993C] creatures is from the imitation or likeness of the Holy Spirit. Do not wonder that we have set down the things said above by way of removal, so that we may understand more plainly and more fully the things that are to be perceived. And so primordially unity pertains to the Unbegotten, and therefore in the Trinity all things are one on account of him. Equality primordially pertains to the Only-begotten, and therefore in the Trinity all things are equal on account of him. Connection singularly pertains to the Holy Spirit, and therefore in the Trinity all things are connected on account of him.

*Why power is attributed to the Father, wisdom to the Son, goodness to the Holy Spirit.*

You add further that you may ask what reason appears to me [0993D] why power is more specially attributed to the Father in the Holy Scriptures, wisdom to the Son, love or goodness to the Holy Spirit. If I say nothing but what is found in your books, it will perhaps be judged superfluous; if I say anything else, perhaps it will be blown away and derided. Deservedly should I have feared such a thing, did I not know into whose ear I pour out my speech or my thought as I speak. To you assuredly; to you, I say, I gladly tell what I feel. What power is, what wisdom is, what love or goodness is, we all know in common, and prove by daily experience. And so by these things which are manifest and known to us we are instructed, unless I am mistaken, toward the knowledge of those things which exceed the measure of human capacity. For in these three a certain form and image of the highest Trinity is expressed, [0994A] and something like a mirror is set before us, so that the invisible things of God may be beheld, understood through the things that are made. The things, therefore, that are in this trinity answer to those that are in that Trinity — three to three, like to like, properties to properties, each to each. We see that there can be manifold power even where there is no wisdom, nor can be any. I say nothing of the elements, or of any insensible things whatever. But in animate and brute things there is the power of hearing, of seeing, the power of walking, of eating and drinking, and the like; yet in these there is no wisdom, nor can any be present by nature. It is established, then, as has already been said above, that there can be manifold power where there can be no wisdom. But conversely, where there is no power, no wisdom [0994B] can be present. For to be able to be wise is without doubt to be able to do something. And so it is not wisdom that gives being-able to power, but power that gives it to wisdom. Likewise, it is established that that Lucifer, who used to rise in the morning, has much power and much wisdom, but no good will at all. But it belongs to goodness to will well. For what is goodness but a good will? And so that Lucifer, hardened in his perversity, is witness that there can be manifold power and at the same time manifold wisdom, where no traces of goodness remain. But conversely no goodness can be present where wisdom or power is wholly lacking. For to be able to will well is to be able to do something. But it belongs to wisdom to discern between good and evil, and without such [0994C] discernment the will does not know what is to be chosen. Therefore, that you may be able to have goodness, you must both know and be able to choose the good. Power gives the being-able, wisdom gives the knowing, without which goodness avails nothing toward being. And so goodness draws its being not so much from wisdom as from power. And so in this trinity of things, power alone is from none of the rest, but wisdom is from power alone, and goodness from power and wisdom together. You see clearly how in this trinity of things the properties of that highest and eternal Trinity are expressed. There is the person of the Unbegotten, which is not from any other; there is the person of the Begotten, which is from the Unbegotten alone; there is the person of the Holy Spirit, which is both from the Begotten and from the Unbegotten. Since, therefore, in power the property of the [0994D] Unbegotten is expressed, it is deservedly ascribed to him by a certain special mode of consideration. But since in wisdom the property of the Begotten is expressed, it too is deservedly ascribed to him according to the same mode. Likewise, because in goodness the property of the Holy Spirit is found, goodness too is more specially assigned to him. See how from this trinity of things there arises a consideration by which it is shown, through an example, how what is read concerning the divine properties can be understood. But from the same contemplation of things there arises a consideration far more sublime than this, from which, by reasoning, it is gathered that one must confess altogether the very same thing. But here we fix our goal, since we now believe that we have satisfied your question.