Letter 242: Augustine tells Elpidius that the Son is begotten, not made, and that divine truth cannot be boasted over.

To Elpidius, an excellent lord, deservedly honorable and longed for: Augustine. Which of us is mistaken in faith or in the knowledge of the Trinity is another question. I am grateful, at least, that although you do not know my face, because you thought I was in error you tried to call me back from error. May God repay you for this goodwill and make you know what you think you know, for the matter, as I judge, is difficult. And I ask you not to take as an insult the fact that I wished for so great a gift of knowledge to be given to you. I fear that the prejudice of supposed knowledge may close your ears, if not to true teaching, which I would not arrogantly claim to give you, then at least to my good wishes, which even as an unlearned man I may have for you. They should be offered not expertly, but as a friend. Otherwise you may be angry with me because I did not congratulate you already as a wise man, instead of thanking me because I prayed that you might become wise. Still, though I carry the burden of the episcopal name, I most gladly welcome your goodwill: you were kind enough, as you write, to send me across the sea to Bonosus and Jason, most learned men, to bring back rich fruit from their discussions; and you were further careful, with generous concern, to have brought to me the little book of one of your bishops, worked out by his talent and strength, to clear away every cloud of error. How much more fairly, then, should you receive in a good spirit the fact that I wished the Lord God to grant you what cannot be given by any human talent or strength? For the apostle says, "We have not received the spirit of this world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things given to us by God; and we speak these things not in words taught by human wisdom, but taught by the Spirit, comparing spiritual things with spiritual things. The natural person does not receive the things of the Spirit of God; they are foolishness to him." If it were possible, then, I would rather inquire with you how far someone should be called a natural person, so that if we have already passed beyond that condition, perhaps we may rightly rejoice that we have in some measure touched those realities which remain unchangeably above the human mind and understanding. We must beware lest, when we hear that the Son is equal to the Father, it seems foolish because we are still acting as natural people, of whom it was said that the things of the Spirit of God are foolishness to them. Although that majesty, exalted above all things, can perhaps be thought by spiritual people, it cannot be uttered by anyone. Yet as far as I can judge, it is easy to see that the one through whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made, was not himself made. For if he was made by himself, he existed before he was made, so that he could make himself. That is surely more absurd the more emptily it is imagined. But if he was not made by himself, he was not made at all, because whatever was made was made through him: "All things were made through him, and without him nothing was made." I am amazed that people pay too little attention to what the evangelist wished to make so explicit that he allowed no one to avoid it. It was not enough to say, "All things were made through him," unless he added, "and without him nothing was made." As for me, slow as I am, with the mist not yet cleared away and with the eye of my mind still wounded and weak before the incomparable and ineffable excellence of the Father and the Son, I nevertheless grasp this with complete ease: this was sown beforehand for us in the Gospel not so that we might comprehend that divinity from it, but so that we might be warned not to boast of a rash comprehension. If all things were made through him, whatever was not made through him was not made. He himself was not made through himself; therefore he was not made. The evangelist compels us to believe that all things were made through him; the same evangelist therefore compels us not to believe that he was made. Again, if without him nothing was made, then if he was made without himself, he is nothing. To think that would be sacrilege. It remains, then, that we must confess either that he was not made without himself, or that he was not made. But we cannot say that he was not made without himself. If he made himself, he already existed before he was made. If he gave help to another by whom he was made, so that he might be made with his own help, he likewise already existed before he was made. It remains, then, that he was made without himself. But whatever was made without him is nothing. Therefore either he is nothing, or he was not made. But he is not nothing; therefore he was not made. And if he was not made and yet is Son, he was without doubt begotten. "How," you ask, "could a Son equal to the one from whom he was born be born from the Father alone?" I cannot explain this, and I yield to the prophet who says, "Who will describe his generation?" If you think this should be understood of the human birth by which he was born through the Virgin, examine yourself and ask your soul whether, if it fails before human generation, it dares explain divine generation. "Then do not say equal," you say. Why should I not say what the apostle said? He said that Christ "did not think equality with God something to be seized." Although he did not unfold that equality to a human mind not yet purified, he still placed it in the Word, where it may be found by the mind when purified. Let us therefore devote ourselves to cleansing the heart, so that from it may rise the clear sight by which we can see these things: "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God." Passing beyond the dark images of the natural person, we will come to that serenity and clarity by which we may see what we see cannot be spoken. As for the little book you were kind enough to send, if I have leisure and the ability is granted me to answer each point, I think you will come to know that the more someone thinks he is displaying naked truth, the less he is clothed in the light of truth. Who could bear it, to pass over other things and mention only what made me groan most deeply, when the apostle Paul says, "Now we see through a mirror, in a riddle; then face to face," and this man already says that he "lays bare truth with every covering removed"? If he had said, "We see naked truth," no vision would be blinder than such arrogance. But he did not say, "We see"; he said, "We lay bare," as though truth were now not only open to the mind's discovery but also subject to the tongue's power. Many things can be said about the ineffability of the Trinity, not so that the Trinity itself may be spoken, for then it would not be ineffable, but so that by the things said we may understand that it cannot be spoken. But now, I think, my letter has exceeded measure, although in yours you warned me to write briefly. Since you were kind enough to excuse yourself by the practice of the ancients, it will not seem absurd to you if, because you mentioned Cicero in your letter, you do not mind remembering the length of some of Cicero's letters.

EPISTOLA 242 Scripta post a. 395. A. Elpidio, de arrogantia ac temeritate eum obiurgans (nn. 1 et 5), probans Dei Filium aequalem Deo genitumque ex eo, non factum (nn. 2-4), spondens denique se Ariani cuiusdam libello responsurum si otium facultasque detur (n. 5). DOMINO EXIMIO MERITOQUE HONORABILI ET DESIDERABILI ELPIDIO, AUGUSTINUS. A. increpat Elpidi arrogantiam 1. Quis nostrum erret in fide vel in cognitione Trinitatis, alia quaestio est. Gratum sane habeo quod me, quamvis incognitum facie, tamen quia errare credidisti, revocare ab errore conatus es. Huius tibi benevolentiae mercedem retribuat Deus, et nosse te faciat quod nosse te putas: res enim ardua est, ut existimo. Et quaeso te ne in ullam contumeliae partem acceperis, quod tibi tantae cognitionis munus optavi. Vereor enim ne opinatae scientiae praeiudicium, si non praecepta vera, quae nequaquam ad te mihi arrogaverim, at certe bona vota nostra, quae mihi etiam indocto habere de te licet (non enim perite, sed amice exhibenda sunt), repellat ab auribus tuis, potiusque mihi succenseas quod non tibi iam sicut sapienti gratulatus, quam gratias agas quod tibi sapientiam deprecatus sim. Verumtamen si ego portans episcopalis nominis sarcinam, libentissime amplector benevolentiam tuam, quod me Bonoso et Iasoni, ut scribis, doctissimis viris, etiam trans mare mittere dignatus es, ad reportandos ex eorum disputationibus uberes fructus; quod denique ad detergendas totius erroris caligines, libellum cuiusdam episcopi vestri ingenio et viribus elaboratum, ad me perferendum sollicita benignitate curasti: quanto est aequius te bono animo accipere, quod ea quae nullo humano ingenio et viribus dari possunt, a Domino Deo tibi ut concedantur optavi? Apostolus enim inquit: Non spiritum huius mundi accepimus, sed Spiritum qui ex Deo est; ut sciamus quae a Deo donata sunt nobis: quae et loquimur non in doctis humanae sapientiae verbis, sed docti Spiritu, spiritalibus spiritalia comparantes. Animalis autem homo non percipit quae sunt Spiritus Dei: stultitia est enim illi 1. Dei Filium Deo aequalem esse et increatum. 2. Magis ergo tecum, si fieri posset, mallem quaerere quousque appellandus sit animalis homo, ut si eum iam transcendimus, recte fortasse illa quae supra humanam mentem atque intellegentiam incommutabiliter manent, aliqua ex parte nos attigisse gaudeamus. Cavendum est enim ne propterea videatur stultum, cum Filium Patri audimus aequalem 2, quia hominem animalem adhuc agimus, de quo dictum est quod stultitia sunt illi quae sunt Spiritus Dei 3. Quamquam sane maiestas illa supra cuncta sublimis a spiritalibus cogitari possit, a nullo autem possit effari; videre tamen, quantum arbitror, facile est non esse factum per quem facta sunt omnia, et sine quo factum est nihil. Si enim per seipsum factus est, erat antequam fieret, ut fieri per se posset: quod certe tanto absurdius dicitur, quanto vanius cogitatur. Si autem non per se factus est, non est factus omnino; quoniam quidquid factum est, per ipsum factum est: Omnia enim per ipsum facta sunt, et sine ipso factum est nihil 4. Dei Filum increatum ex Patre natum esse. 3. Miror parum attendi quae tam expresse Evangelista voluit intimare, ut neminem dissimulare permitteret: non enim satis fuit dicere: Omnia per ipsum facta sunt, nisi adderet, et sine ipso factum est nihil. At ego quamvis tardus, et nondum detersa caligine, saucium mentis oculum gerens ad intuendam Patris et Filii incomparabilem ineffabilemque praestantiam; tamen hoc tota facilitate complector, quod nobis in Evangelio propterea praeseminatum est, non ut hinc comprehenderemus illam divinitatem, sed ut hinc admoneremur non oportere nos de temeraria comprehensione iactare. Si enim omnia per ipsum facta sunt; quidquid non per ipsum factum est, non est factum. Ipse autem per se factus non est: non est igitur factus. Et omnia per ipsum facta esse ab Evangelista credere cogimur: ab eodem ergo cogimur eum factum esse non credere. Item, si sine ipso factum est nihil, ipse ergo nihil est, quia sine se factus est. Quod si opinari sacrilegum est; restat ut fateamur, non sine se factum esse, aut factum non esse. Non autem sine se factum esse, non possumus dicere. Si enim ipse se fecit, iam erat antequam fieret: si autem ac se faciendum alteri, a quo factus est, adiutorium praebuit; nihilominus ut se adiuvante ipse fieret, iam erat antequam fieret. Relinquitur itaque ut sine se factus sit. Quidquid autem sine illo factum est, nihil est. Aut nihil est igitur, aut factus non est: sed non est nihil, factus igitur non est. At si factus non est, et tamen Filius est, sine dubio natus est. De Verbi, Patri aequalis, generatione. 4. "Quomodo, inquis, potuit de solo Patre nasci Filius aequalis ei de quo natus est?". Iam hoc enarrare non possum, et cedo prophetae dicenti: Generationem eius quis enarrabit 5? Quod si tu de humana generatione qua per virginem natus est, accipiendum putas; ipse te discute, et interroga animam tuam, utrum si in generatione humana defecit, audeat enarrare divinam. "Noli ergo, inquis, dicere aequalem". Cur non dicam quod dixit Apostolus? Non rapinam, inquit, arbitratus est esse aequalis Deo 6. Etsi enim aequalitatem illam non explicavit humanae menti nondum purgatae, posuit tamen in Verbo, quod in re possit inveniri purgata. Demus itaque operam mundando cordi nostro, ut inde exsurgat acies qua ista videre valeamus: Beati enim, inquit, mundicordes; quoniam ipsi Deum videbunt 7. Ita excedentes animalis hominis caliginosas imagines, ad serenitatem illam sinceritatemque veniemus, qua videre possimus quod dici non posse videmus. Arianorum arrogantia reprobatur. 5. Nam libello quem dignatus es mittere, si mihi sit otium, facultasque tribuatur ad singula respondere, arbitror te cogniturum tanto minus quemque vestiri lumine veritatis, quanto magis sibi videtur nudam depromere veritatem. Quis enim ferat, ut alia omittam, et hoc solum interim commemorem quod maxime ingemui, cum apostolus Paulus dicat: Videmus nunc per speculum in aenigmate; tunc autem facie ad faciem 8; istum iam dicere "omni integumento retecto nudam se depromere veritatem?". Qui si diceret: "Nudam videmus veritatem", nihil esset caecius ista arrogantia visionis: non autem dixit: "Videmus", sed, "depromimus"; ut non solum iam veritas inventioni mentis patere, sed etiam potestati linguae subiacere videatur. Multa sunt quae de Trinitatis ineffabilitate dicantur; non ut ipsa dicatur, alioquin non est ineffabilis, sed ut illis dictis illa dici non posse intellegatur. Verum iam, ut arbitror, modum excessit epistola mea, cum per tuam me admonueris breviter scribere: sed quia institutione veterum te excusare dignatus es, non tibi absurdus videbor, si modum quarumdam epistolarum Ciceronis, quia eius quoque in litteris tuis mentionem fecisti, non te pigeat recordari.