Letter 11: 1. When the question, which has long been brought before me by you with something even of friendly chiding, as to the way in which we might live together, was seriously disturbing my mind, and I had resolved to write to you, and to beg an answer from you bearing exclusively on this subject, and to employ my pen on no other theme pertaining to ou...

Augustine to Nebridius — Greetings. 1. That question you've been putting to me for so long now — with what I can only call affectionate nagging — about how we might arrange to live together: it was genuinely weighing on my mind, and I had resolved to write you about nothing else until we settled it. But then your most recent letter arrived and resolved the whole thing in a single, unanswerable sentence: there is nothing left to deliberate, because the moment either of us can travel to the other, we will both feel equally compelled to seize the opportunity. That settled my mind entirely. So I went back through all your letters to see what questions still awaited answers. I found so many that even if they were simple, their sheer number would overwhelm anyone. But they are not simple — they are extraordinarily difficult. If even one of them were assigned to me, I would freely confess myself overburdened. The point of saying all this is to persuade you: please stop sending new questions until I have cleared my debts. Confine your next letter to telling me what you think of my replies. At the same time, I know perfectly well that every delay in receiving your inspired thoughts is a loss I impose on myself. 2. So here is what I think about the mystery of the Incarnation — the doctrine that our faith teaches was accomplished for our salvation. I have chosen this question over all the others, not because it is the easiest, but because it matters most. Your questions about the physical world do not seem to me to bear directly enough on the pursuit of a blessed life, and however much pleasure they give when investigated, there is real danger that they consume time better devoted to higher things. Now, on the subject I have taken up: first, I am surprised that you were troubled by the question of why not the Father but the Son is said to have become incarnate, yet were not equally troubled by the same question regarding the Holy Spirit. For the unity of the Persons in the Trinity, as Catholic faith sets forth and a few holy and blessed souls actually understand, is so inseparable that whatever is done by the Trinity must be regarded as done by the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit together. Nothing is done by the Father that is not also done by the Son and the Spirit; nothing by the Spirit that is not also done by the Father and the Son; nothing by the Son that is not also done by the Father and the Spirit. From this it seems to follow that the whole Trinity assumed human nature. For if the Son did so but the Father and Spirit did not, then there would be something in which they act separately. Why, then, in our sacred rites and symbols, is the Incarnation ascribed only to the Son? This is an enormous question — so difficult and so vast that a fully clear statement, let alone satisfactory proof, may be beyond me. But since I am writing to you, I will sketch my thinking rather than attempt a full explanation, trusting your abilities and our intimacy to fill in the outlines. 3. There is no nature, Nebridius — indeed, no substance whatsoever — that does not contain and display these three characteristics: first, that it exists; second, that it is this particular thing rather than another; and third, that it persists in being what it is, as far as it can. The first points to the original cause from which all things derive their existence. The second points to the form by which all things are shaped in their particular way. The third points to a kind of permanence in which all things endure. Now, if it were possible for something to exist without being any particular thing and without persisting in its nature — or to be a particular thing without existing and without persisting — or to persist without existing and without being something — then it would also be possible for one Person of the Trinity to act without the others. But if you see, as I think you do, that whatever exists must immediately be something in particular and must persist in its nature as far as it can, then you see also that these Three do nothing in which all do not share. I realize I have only touched part of the question. But I wanted to open up for you — briefly, if I have managed it — how profound and how difficult to grasp is this Catholic doctrine of the inseparability of the Trinity's Persons. 4. Now hear how the difficulty that troubles your mind might be resolved. The second of those three characteristics — the mode of being a particular thing — is properly ascribed to the Son, and it has to do with formation, with a kind of art (if I may use that word for such matters), and with the exercise of intellect by which the mind itself is shaped in its thinking. Since the work accomplished by the assumption of human nature was precisely this — the effective presentation to us of a pattern for right living, an exemplification of what is commanded, conveyed through teachings of great authority and clarity — it is not without reason that all this is ascribed to the Son. Consider an analogy from the three kinds of questions I mentioned. Although when we ask whether something exists, we necessarily also ask what it is and whether it is good or bad — and likewise with the other types of question — nevertheless, each question takes its name from the specific point the inquirer has in view, not from all three together. In the same way, the training and formation of human beings could not exist without also being real and desirable, but what we seek first to know is its particular form and content. And knowing that, we come to know the reality from which it springs and the enduring good in which it rests. Therefore it was necessary, first and foremost, that a definite pattern of formation and instruction be plainly set before us — and this was accomplished through the divinely appointed method of the Incarnation, which is properly ascribed to the Son. From it follows our knowledge, through the Son, of the Father himself — the one first principle from which all things have their being — and also a certain inward, ineffable sweetness of remaining in that knowledge and of looking past all mortal things: a gift and work properly ascribed to the Holy Spirit. So while the divine Persons act perfectly in common and without any possibility of separation, their operations needed to be presented to us in a way that distinguishes them, on account of the weakness in us who have fallen from unity into multiplicity. For no one ever succeeds in raising another to the height on which he himself stands unless he stoops somewhat toward the level that other person occupies. Here, then, is a letter that may not put an end to your questions about this doctrine, but may set your own thinking to work on a solid foundation — so that with the talents I know you possess, and the devotion in which we must above all remain steadfast, you may pursue and lay hold of whatever still remains to be discovered.

Letter 11 (A.D. 389) To Nebridius Augustine Sends Greeting. 1. When the question, which has long been brought before me by you with something even of friendly chiding, as to the way in which we might live together, was seriously disturbing my mind, and I had resolved to write to you, and to beg an answer from you bearing exclusively on this subject, and to employ my pen on no other theme pertaining to our studies, in order that the discussion of this matter between us might be brought to an end, the very short and indisputable conclusion stated in your letter lately received at once delivered me from all further solicitude; your statement being to the effect that on this matter there ought to be no further deliberation, because as soon as it is in my power to come to you, or in your power to come to me, we shall feel alike constrained to improve the opportunity. My mind being thus, as I have said, at rest, I looked over all your letters, that I might see what yet remained unanswered. In these I have found so many questions, that even if they were easily solved, they would by their mere number more than exhaust the time and talents of any man. But they are so difficult, that if the answering of even one of them were laid upon me, I would not hesitate to confess myself heavily burdened. The design of this introductory statement is to make you desist for a little from asking new questions until I am free from debt, and that you confine yourself in your answer to the statement of your opinion of my replies. At the same time, I know that it is to my own loss that I postpone for even a little while the participation of your divine thoughts. 2. Hear, therefore, the view which I hold concerning the mystery of the Incarnation which the religion wherein we have been instructed commends to our faith and knowledge as having been accomplished in order to our salvation; which question I have chosen to discuss in preference to all the rest, although it is not the most easily answered. For those questions which are proposed by you concerning this world do not appear to me to have a sufficiently direct reference to the obtaining of a happy life; and whatever pleasure they yield when investigated, there is reason to fear lest they take up time which ought to be devoted to better things. With regard, then, to the subject which I have at this time undertaken, first of all I am surprised that you were perplexed by the question why not the Father, but the Son, is said to have become incarnate, and yet were not also perplexed by the same question in regard to the Holy Spirit. For the union of Persons in the Trinity is in the Catholic faith set forth and believed, and by a few holy and blessed ones understood, to be so inseparable, that whatever is done by the Trinity must be regarded as being done by the Father, and by the Son, and by the Holy Spirit together; and that nothing is done by the Father which is, not also done by the Son and by the Holy Spirit; and nothing done by the Holy Spirit which is not also done by the Father and by the Son; and nothing done by the Son which is not also done by the Father and by the Holy Spirit. From which it seems to follow as a consequence, that the whole Trinity assumed human nature; for if the Son did so, but the Father and the Spirit did not, there is something in which they act separately. Why, then, in our mysteries and sacred symbols, is the Incarnation ascribed only to the Son? This is a very great question, so difficult, and on a subject so vast, that it is impossible either to give a sufficiently clear statement, or to support it by satisfactory proofs. I venture, however, since I am writing to you, to indicate rather than explain what my sentiments are, in order that you, from your talents and our intimacy, through which you thoroughly know me, may for yourself fill up the outline. 3. There is no nature, Nebridius — and, indeed, there is no substance — which does not contain in itself and exhibit these three things: first, that it is; next, that it is this or that; and third, that as far as possible it remains as it is. The first of these three presents the original cause of nature from which all things exist; the second presents the form according to which all things are fashioned and formed in a particular way; the third presents a certain permanence, so to speak, in which all things are. Now, if it be possible that a thing can be, and yet not be this or that, and not remain in its own generic form; or that a thing can be this or that, and yet not be, and not remain in its own generic form, so far as it is possible for it to do so; or that a thing can remain in its own generic form according to the force belonging to it, and yet not be, and not be this or that — then it is also possible that in that Trinity one Person can do something in which the others have no part. But if you see that whatever is must immediately be this or that, and must remain so far as possible in its own generic form, you see also that these Three do nothing in which all have not a part. I see that as yet I have only treated a portion of this question, which makes its solution difficult. But I wished to open up briefly to you — if, indeed, I have succeeded in this — how great in the system of Catholic truth is the doctrine of the inseparability of the Persons of the Trinity, and how difficult to be understood. 4. Hear now how that which disquiets your mind may disquiet it no more. The mode of existence (Species — the second of the three above named) which is properly ascribed to the Son, has to do with training, and with a certain art, if I may use that word in regard to such things, and with the exercise of intellect, by which the mind itself is moulded in its thoughts upon things. Therefore, since by that assumption of human nature the work accomplished was the effective presentation to us of a certain training in the right way of living, and exemplification of that which is commanded, under the majesty and perspicuousness of certain sentences, it is not without reason that all this is ascribed to the Son. For in many things which I leave your own reflection and prudence to suggest, although the constituent elements be many, some one nevertheless stands out above the rest, and therefore not unreasonably claims a right of possession, as it were, of the whole for itself: as, e.g., in the three kinds of questions above mentioned, although the question raised be whether a thing is or not, this involves necessarily also both what it is (this or that), for of course it cannot be at all unless it be something, and whether it ought to be approved of or disapproved of, for whatever is is a fit subject for some opinion as to its quality; in like manner, when the question raised is what a thing is, this necessarily involves both that it is, and that its quality may be tried by some standard; and in the same way, when the question raised is what is the quality of a thing, this necessarily involves that that thing is, and is something, since all things are inseparably joined to themselves — nevertheless, the question in each of the above cases takes its name not from all the three, but from the special point towards which the inquirer directed his attention. Now there is a certain training necessary for men, by which they might be instructed and formed after some model. We cannot say, however, regarding that which is accomplished in men by this training, either that it does not exist, or that it is not a thing to be desired [i.e. we cannot say what it is, without involving an affirmation both of its existence and of its quality]; but we seek first to know what it is, for in knowing this we know that by which we may infer that it is something, and in which we may remain. Therefore the first thing necessary was, that a certain rule and pattern of training be plainly exhibited; and this was done by the divinely appointed method of the Incarnation, which is properly to be ascribed to the Son, in order that from it should follow both our knowledge, through the Son, of the Father Himself, i.e. of the one first principle whence all things have their being, and a certain inward and ineffable charm and sweetness of remaining in that knowledge, and of despising all mortal things — a gift and work which is properly ascribed to the Holy Spirit. Wherefore, although in all things the Divine Persons act perfectly in common, and without possibility of separation, nevertheless their operations behooved to be exhibited in such a way as to be distinguished from each other, on account of the weakness which is in us, who have fallen from unity into variety. For no one ever succeeds in raising another to the height on which he himself stands, unless he stoop somewhat towards the level which that other occupies. You have here a letter which may not indeed put an end to your disquietude in regard to this doctrine, but which may set your own thoughts to work upon a kind of solid foundation; so that, with the talents which I well know you to possess, you may follow, and, by the piety in which especially we must be steadfast, may apprehend that which still remains to be discovered.

EPISTOLA 11 Scripta post superiorem. A. explicat Nebridio difficillimam quaestionem (n. 1), id est cur hominis susceptio soli Filio tribuatur, cum divinae personae sint inseparabiles (n. 2-3), ut scilicet homines exemplo humilitatis Filii erigerentur ad Deum (n. 4).   Nebridio Augustinus Augustinus difficillimae quaestioni respondet. 1. Cum me vehementer agitaret quaestio, a te dudum cum quadam etiam familiari obiurgatione proposita, quonam pacto una vivere possemus, et de hoc solo statuissem rescribere tibi, et rescripta flagitare, neque ad aliud aliquid, quod ad nostra studia pertinet, stilum avertere, donec inter nos istud ipsum terminaretur, cito me securum fecit recentis epistolae tuae brevissima et verissima ratio: propterea scilicet hinc non esse cogitandum, quia vel nos cum potuerimus ad te, vel tu cum potueris ad nos necessario venturus sis. Hinc ergo, ut dixi, securus effectus consideravi omnes epistolas tuas, ut viderem quarum responsionum debitor sim. In quibus tam multas quaestiones reperi, ut etiamsi facile dissolvi possent, ipso acervo cuiusvis ingenium otiumque superarent. Tam vero difficiles sunt, ut etsi una earum mihi esset imposita, non dubitarem me onustissimum confiteri. Hoc autem prooemium ad id valet, ut tantisper desinas nova quaerere, donec toto aere alieno liberemur, et de solo iudicio tuo mihi rescribas. Quanquam scio quam sit adversum me, qui tuarum divinarum cogitationum vel tantisper particeps esse differo. Cur Incarnatio soli Filio tribuatur. 2. Accipe igitur quid mihi videatur de susceptione hominis mystica quam propter salutem nostram factam esse religio, qua imbuti sumus, credendum cognoscendumque commendat: quam quaestionem non facillimam omnium elegi, cui potissimum responderem, sed ea mihi dignior ceteris visa est, cui operam cogitationis impenderem. Illa namque quae de hoc mundo quaeruntur, nec satis ad beatam vitam obtinendam mihi videntur pertinere; et si aliquid afferunt voluptatis, cum investigantur, metuendum est tamen ne occupent tempus rebus impendendum melioribus. Quamobrem quod ad hoc pertinet susceptum in praesentia, prius miror te esse commotum cur non Pater et Filius dicatur hominem suscepisse, sed etiam Spiritus Sanctus. Nam ista Trinitas catholica fide ita inseparabilis commendatur et creditur, ita etiam a paucis sanctis beatisque intellegitur, ut quidquid ab ea fit, simul fieri sit existimandum, et a Patre, et a Filio, et a Spiritu Sancto: nec quidquam Patrem facere, quod non et Filius et Spiritus Sanctus, nec quidquam Spiritum Sanctum, quod non et Pater et Filius, nec quidquam Filium, quod non et Pater et Spiritus Sanctus faciat. Ex quo videtur esse consequens, ut hominem Trinitas tota susceperit: nam si Filius suscepit, Pater autem et Spiritus Sanctus non susceperunt, aliquid praeter invicem faciunt. Cur ergo in mysteriis et sacris nostris hominis susceptio Filio tributa celebratur? Haec est plenissima quaestio ita difficilis, et de re tam magna, ut nec sententia hic satis expedita, nec eius probatio satis secura esse possit. Audeo tamen, siquidem ad te scribo, significare potius quid meus animus habeat, quam explicare; ut caetera pro ingenio tuo et familiaritate nostra, qua fit ut me optime noveris, per te ipse coniectes. De Trinis Personis earumque formis seu speciebus. 3. Nulla natura est, Nebridi, et omnino nulla substantia quae non in se habeat haec tria, et prae se gerat: primo ut sit, deinde ut hoc vel illud sit, tertio ut in eo quod est maneat quantum potest. Primum illud causam ipsam naturae ostentat, ex qua sunt omnia; alterum, speciem per quam fabricantur, et quodammodo formantur omnia; tertium, manentiam quamdam, ut ita dicam, in qua sunt omnia. Quod si fieri potest ut aliquid sit quod non hoc vel illud sit, neque in genere suo maneat; aut hoc quidem aut illud sit, sed non sit, neque in genere suo maneat quantum potest; aut in suo genere quidem pro ipsius sui generis viribus maneat, sed tamen nec sit, neque hoc vel illud sit: fieri etiam potest, ut in illa Trinitate aliqua persona praeter alias aliquid faciat. At si cernis necesse esse ut quidquid sit, continuo et hoc vel illud sit et in suo genere maneat, quantum potest, nihil tria illa praeter invicem faciunt. Video adhuc partem me egisse huius quaestionis, qua fit difficilis solutio. Sed breviter tibi aperire volui, si tamen sit, et in suo genere maneat quantum potest, nihil tria illa praeter egi quod volui, quam subtiliter, et quanta veritate in Catholica intellegatur huiusce inseparabilitas Trinitatis. Cur Verbum caro factum sit. 4. Nunc accipe quomodo possit non movere animum illud quod movet. Species quae proprie Filio tribuitur, ea pertinet etiam ad disciplinam, et ad artem quamdam, si bene hoc vocabulo in his rebus utimur, et ad intellegentiam quae ipse animus rerum cogitatione formatur. Itaque quoniam per illam susceptionem hominis id actum est, ut quaedam nobis disciplina vivendi, et exemplum praecepti, sub quarumdam sententiarum maiestate ac perspicuitate insinuaretur, non sine ratione hoc totum Filio tribuitur. In multis enim rebus quas cogitationi et prudentiae committo tuae, quamvis multa insint, aliquid tamen eminet, et ideo sibi proprietatem quamdam non absurde vindicat; velut in illis tribus generibus quaestionum, etiamsi quaeratur an sit, ibi est et quid sit, esse enim non potest profecto, nisi aliquid sit; ibi etiam, probandum improbandumve sit; quidquid enim est, nonnulla aestimatione dignum est: ita cum quaeritur quid sit, necesse est ut et sit, et aliqua aestimatione pendatur. Hoc modo etiam cum quaeritur quale sit, et aliquid est utique ita, cum sibi inseparabiliter iuncta sunt omnia; nomen tamen quaestio non ex omnibus accipit, sed ut sese habuerit quaerentis intentio. Ergo disciplina hominibus erat necessaria, qua imbuerentur, et qua ad modum formarentur. Non tamen idipsum quod per hanc disciplinam fit in hominibus, aut non esse possumus dicere, aut non appetendum; sed scire prius intendimus, et per quod coniiciamus aliquid, et in quo maneamus. Demonstranda igitur prius erat quaedam norma et regula disciplinae; quod factum est per illam suscepti hominis dispensationem quae proprie Filio tribuenda est, ut esset consequens et ipsius Patris, id est unius principii ex quo sunt omnia, cognitio per Filium, et quaedam interior et ineffabilis suavitas atque dulcedo, in ista cognitione permanendi contemnendique omnia mortalia, quod donum et munus proprie Spiritui Sancto tribuitur. Ergo cum agantur omnia summa communione et inseparabilitate, tamen distincte demonstranda erant propter imbecillitatem nostram, qui ab unitate in varietatem lapsi sumus. Nemo enim quemquam erigit ad id in quo ipse est, nisi aliquantum ad id, in quo est ille, descendat. Habes epistolam, non quae tuam curam de hac re finierit, sed quae cogitationes tuas certo fortasse aliquo fondamento inchoaverit; ut caetera ingenio quod mihi notissimum est, persequaris, et pietate cui maxime standum est, consequaris.