9. However, we will look for whether in the Holy Scriptures there is not a Scripture under another name of the same concept which the Greek philosophers designate by the word ασωμάτου. We must also consider how God is to be conceived, whether corporeal and having a certain form, or with a different nature in comparison with the body, because this is not clearly indicated in our teaching. The same must be examined of Christ and of the Holy Spirit, as well as of every soul, and even more so of every rational being.

10. The Church's teaching also contains that there are certain angels of God and good forces that serve God in the dispensation of the salvation of people; but when they are created, or what they are, or how they are, this is not clearly indicated. As for the sun, moon, and stars, it is not clear whether they are animate or without a soul. Whoever wishes to build on the basis of all these things one organic whole (seriem quamdam et corpus), according to the commandment "enlighten yourselves with the light of knowledge" (Hosea 10:12), must make use of these elements and foundations, in order to investigate on the basis of clear and necessary propositions about each subject, what it really is, and, as we have said, to form a single organism (unum corpus) from examples and propositions, and which it will either find in the Holy Scriptures. Scripture or will receive it by correct reasoning.

Chapter One. About God

1. I know that some will try to prove that God is a body, even on the basis of our Scriptures. In fact, they find in Moses the words: "Our God consumed fire," and also in the Gospel of John: "The Spirit is God, and whoever worships Him, in spirit and in truth is worthy to worship" (Deuteronomy 4:24; John 4:24); Fire and spirit, according to their understanding, are nothing but the body. But I want to ask them what they will say about the words of the Scriptures, which say that God is light, as John says in his epistle: "God is light, and there is not a single darkness in him?" (1 John 1:5). Of course, He is the light that enlightens every sense of people who are able to perceive the truth, as it is said in Psalm 35: "In Thy light we shall see the light" (Psalm 35:10). But what else is to be understood by the light of God, in which one sees light, if not the power of God, through the enlightenment of which man comes to know both the truth of all things, and God Himself, Who is truth? Such is the meaning of the words: "In Thy light we shall see the light"; namely: in Thy Word and Wisdom, which is Thy Son, in Thy Own we shall see the Father. Can God be considered like the light of this sun only because He is called light? And what meaning, however superficial, will be obtained if it is recognized that from this bodily light someone receives the cause of knowledge and finds the understanding of truth?

2. If, then, we accept this assertion of ours, which is proved by the very conception of the nature of light, and admit that in this conception of light God cannot be regarded as a body, then a similar reasoning can be applied to the designation of God as a consuming fire. Will anyone think that He devours bodily matter, e.g., wood, hay, straw? And what is worthy of divine glory in the thought that God is a fire that consumes things of this kind? True, we admit that it is God. indeed, it devours and destroys, but it destroys the evil thoughts of minds, destroys shameful deeds, destroys sinful desires, when everything is drunk in the minds of believers, and when the souls that become receptive to His Word and wisdom, after the destruction of all vices and passions in them, makes His temple pure and worthy of Himself, dwelling in them together with His Son, as it is said (in the Scriptures): "I and the Father will come, and make our abode with him" (John 14:23). To those who consider God to be a body on the basis of the words: "Spirit is God" (John 4:24), in my opinion, it is necessary to answer in the following way. In the Holy Scriptures. In the Scriptures, the word "spirit" is usually used when it is necessary to designate something contrary to a real gross and dense body. Thus, for example, the Scriptures say: "Writing kills, but the spirit gives life" (2 Corinthians 3:6). Here, without a doubt, by the expression "writing" the Scripture denotes the corporeal, and by the word "spirit" the mental, which we otherwise call spiritual. For the Apostle also says: "Even to this day, when Moses is honored, a veil lies over their hearts, but when they turn to the Lord, the veil is drawn forth. (And the Lord is spirit), and where the Spirit of the Lord is, that is freedom" (2 Corinthians 3:15-17). In fact, until someone turns to spiritual understanding, a veil lies over his heart, with which veil, i.e., a crude understanding, the Scriptures themselves are closed. The same veil lay on the face of Moses when he spoke to the people (Exodus 34:36), or what is the same when the law was read to the people. But if we turn to the Lord, Who has the word of God and in Whom the Holy Spirit reveals spiritual knowledge, then the veil will be removed, then with an open face we will behold the glory of God in the Scriptures.

3. It is true that many saints participate in the Holy Spirit, but on this basis we should not consider the Holy Spirit to be the Holy Spirit. The Spirit is a kind of body, in which, after dividing it into bodily parts, each of the saints seems to participate. St. The Spirit is, of course, a sanctifying power, in which, as they say, all who deserve sanctification by His grace have a part. However, in order to make it easier to understand what we are saying, let us take an example, even if from the realm of things of an entirely different order. Thus, many people take part in medical science or in the medical art. Is it to be thought that all those who take part in medicine, sitting in the midst of a body called medicine, disassemble their parts of it, and thus take part in it? Would it not be better to understand this participation in the sense that everyone, after preparing and educating his mind, comprehends the very meaning of this art and science? However, this example of medicine should not be considered a perfect likeness and an exact comparison in relation to the Holy Scriptures. To the spirit, this example only proves that what many participate in should not necessarily be considered the body. The Holy Spirit is immeasurably different from medicine, both in essence and in doctrine, besides the fact that the Holy Spirit is a spiritual (intellectualis) essence (subsistentia). It exists and exists in the proper sense of the word (proprie), and medicine is nothing of the sort.

4. But let us pass on to the Gospel saying itself, in which it is written that "the spirit is God" (John 4:24), and show how it should be understood in application to what has been said above. At the same time, we must ask ourselves: when did our Saviour actually utter this expression, and also to whom and when discussing what question? We find, no doubt, that He said this in a conversation with a Samaritan woman, who, according to the general opinion of the Samaritans, thought that God should be worshipped on Mount Gerizim. The Samaritan woman, taking Him for a Jew, asked Him whether God should be worshipped in Jerusalem or on this mountain, and said thus: "Our fathers bowed down in this mountain, and ye say, that in Jerusalem there is a place where it is fitting to worship" (John 4:20). Thus, with regard to such an opinion of the Samaritan woman, who thought that because of the superiority of bodily places, either the Jews in Jerusalem or the Samaritans on Mount Gerizim did not worship God quite correctly and lawfully (minus recte vel rite), the Saviour replied that whoever wishes to follow the Lord must abandon the prejudice regarding the superiority of places, and in this case He says thus: "The hour is coming when the true worshippers will worship the Father, neither in Jerusalem nor in this mountain; the spirit is God, and whosoever worshipeth Him, in spirit and in truth is worthy to worship" (John 4:21-24). And see how consistently He united truth with spirit: unlike bodies, He called spirit, and unlike shadow or image, truth. For those who worshipped God in Jerusalem served the shadow or image proper, and consequently did not worship God in truth or spirit. In the same way, those who worshipped on Mount Gerizim worshipped God.

5. Having refuted, as far as possible, every thought of the corporeality of God, we affirm, in accordance with the truth, that God is incomprehensible (incomprehensibilem) and invaluable (inaestimabilem). Even if we were to be able to know or understand anything about God, we must still necessarily believe that He is incomparably better than what we have learned about Him. For if we were to see a man who can scarcely see a spark of light, or the light of the shortest candle, and if to this same man, whose acuteness of sight cannot perceive light any more than we have said above, we should wish to give him an idea of the brightness and brilliance of the sun, we should surely say to him, that the brilliance of the sun is inexpressibly and incomparably better and more beautiful than any light seen by it. Though he is considered much higher than the corporeal nature, yet when he strives for the incorporeal, and goes deep into the contemplation of it, he is scarcely equal to a spark or a candle, so long as he is imprisoned in the bonds of flesh and blood, and, by virtue of his participation in such matter, remains comparatively motionless and dull. And among all spiritual (intellectualibus), i.e., incorporeal beings, what being is so inexpressible and incomparably superior to all others, if not God? In fact, His nature cannot be comprehended and contemplated by the power of the human mind, even if it be the purest and brightest mind.

6. For a more obvious explanation of the matter, it seems not superfluous to use another comparison. Our eyes cannot contemplate the very nature of light, that is, the substance of the sun, but by contemplating its brilliance, or the rays pouring through windows or into some other small conductors of light, we can perceive how great is the heat and the very source of bodily light. In the same way, the works of divine providence and the art of organizing the universe are, as it were, some rays of the divine nature, in comparison with substance and nature itself. Our intellect cannot contemplate God Himself as He is, per seipsam, but knows the Father of all creatures from the beauty of works and the splendor of the universe. Thus God is not to be regarded as any body or as indwelling a body, but as a simple spiritual nature (intellectualis natura) which admits of no complexity. He has nothing greater or lower in Himself, but is, from whatever side, μονάς and, so to speak, ένας. He is the intellect and at the same time the source from which all rational nature or intellect derives. But the mind, in order to move or act, needs neither a material place, nor a sensible magnitude, nor a corporeal form or color, nor anything else that is proper to body or matter. Therefore God, as a simple nature and a complete (tota) mind, in His movement and action, cannot have any gradualness or retardation. Otherwise, the complexity of this kind would to some extent limit and violate the simplicity of the divine nature. But that which is the beginning of all things must not be complex and different: that which, being foreign to all bodily complexity, must consist, so to speak, of one kind of divinity, cannot be many, not one. And that the mind, in order to move according to its nature, does not need a place, is undoubtedly shown by the observation of our mind. For if the mind is in a normal state, and does not experience any dullness for any reason, the difference of places will not in the least hinder it from its activity, and, on the other hand, from the quality of the place it does not acquire any multiplication or increase of its activity. True, it will be objected that, for example, in men who sail in a ship, and are rocked by the waves of the sea, the mind works somewhat worse than it usually does on land. But in this case it must be thought that the mind undergoes this (change) not because of the difference of places, but because of the disturbance and confusion of the body with which the mind is united. The human body on the sea seems to act against its nature, and for this reason, with a certain kind of imbalance, it perceives the impulses of the mind in a disorderly manner and according to its condition, and poorly obeys the blows of its edge. The same thing happens with people on earth, for example, with those who are sick with fever. If their mind, because of fever, does not do its work, it is not the place that is to blame, but the disease of the body: the body, shaken and indignant by the fever, does not at all perform its usual duties towards the mind, in known and natural phenomena, because we men are animals, composed of the interaction of body and soul, and (only) in this way do we have the opportunity to dwell on earth. But God, who is the beginning of all things, should not be considered complex; otherwise it will turn out that the elements of which all that is called complex is composed existed before the very beginning. But the mind, for its action or movement, does not need corporeal magnitude, just as the eye, which expands when looking at very large bodies, and contracts and contracts when looking at small and small bodies. The mind needs mental magnitude, because it grows not bodily, but mentally. It is true that up to the twentieth or thirtieth year the mind increases with the body, not in bodily increments, but in such a way that, by study and exercise, the receptivity of the faculties is perfected, and all that is invested in them enters into the realm of understanding. In this way, the mind is made capable of greater understanding, not by increasing according to bodily increments, but by means of training exercises. However, the mind cannot perceive the teachings immediately after birth or in childhood, since the constitution of the (bodily) limbs, which the soul uses as organs for its exercise, has not yet reached a certain firmness and strength in the child, so that in consequence the mind is not able to endure strenuous activity and does not have sufficient ability to perceive the teaching.

7. And if anyone considers the mind and soul itself to be the body, I would like him to tell me, how does the mind perceive the concepts and proofs of such great, difficult, and subtle things? Where does the power of memory come from? From —

But I don't see how anyone can describe or name the color of the mind as a mind that acts mentally? In order to confirm and clarify what we have said about the mind, or about the soul, namely, about the superiority of the mind over the entire corporeal nature, we can add the following. Each bodily sense is subject to a certain corresponding sensual substance, to which the bodily sense itself extends. For example, colors, shapes, and size are subject to vision; to the ear — words and sounds; smell – the smell of burning, good and bad smells; tastes are tastes; to the sense of touch, everything is cold and hot, hard and soft, rough and smooth. But it is clear to all that the sense of mind (sensus mentis) is far superior to the senses of which we have spoken. Is it not strange, then, that the lower senses should be subject to substances, to which their activity extends to the higher power, that is, that the sense of the mind is subject to nothing substantial, but that the force of the intellectual nature is an accidental appurtenance or consequence of bodies? Those who assert this are undoubtedly debasing a substance which is comparatively better in themselves. And this is an insult to God Himself, Who, from their point of view, is comprehensible with the help of corporeal substance, and consequently, according to them, is the body Himself, that which can be comprehended and known with the help of the body. They do not want to understand that the mind is in some degree related to God, that it serves as the intellectual image (imago) of Him, and that is why it can know something about the nature of the Godhead, especially if it is pure and detached from corporeal matter.

8. But perhaps these proofs have little authority for those who wish to draw knowledge of divine things from the Holy Scriptures. Scripture and it is from the Scriptures that he tries to ascertain how the nature of God transcends the bodily nature. And so, see if the Apostle does not say the same thing when he speaks of Christ in the following way: "Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation" (Col. 1:15). It is impossible to think, with some, that the nature of God is visible to some and invisible to others. For the Apostle did not say, "The image of God, invisible to men or to sinners," but quite firmly declares the very nature of God when he says, "The image of God invisible." Likewise, John, saying in the Gospel: "God is nowhere to be seen" (John 1:18), clearly declares to all who can understand that there is no nature for which God is visible; he does not say that God, being visible by His nature, is inaccessible only to the sight of the weakest creature, but that by His very nature He cannot be seen. If you ask me what I think of the Only-begotten Himself, is it possible, in my opinion, that the nature of God, which is invisible by His very nature, is not visible to Him? — then do not immediately consider this thought impious or foolish, because we will immediately indicate the basis of it. It is one thing to see and another thing to know. To be seen and to see is proper to bodies, but to be known and to know is proper to the intellectual nature. Therefore what is proper to bodies should not be thought of either the Father or the Son: in the mutual relationship of the Father and the Son there is only that which is proper to the nature of the Godhead. And, finally, the Saviour Himself did not say in the Gospel that no one sees the Father except the Son, nor the Son, except the Father, but said: "No man knoweth the Son but the Father, and no man knoweth the Father but the Son" (Matt. 11:27). This clearly indicates that what is called "to be seen and to see" in relation to corporeal beings is called "to know and to be known" in relation to the Father and the Son, by the power of knowledge, and not by temporal appearances. Thus, in relation to the incorporeal and invisible nature, it is impossible to speak of either vision or appearance, for this reason the Gospel does not say that the Father sees the Son, and the Son sees the Father, but it says that they know (each other).

9. Someone will ask us: why is it said: "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God?" (Matthew 5:8). But this saying, I think, further confirms our thought: for what does it mean to see God with the heart, but not to understand and know Him with the mind, as we have stated above? In general, the names of sensual terms often refer to the soul; hence to see with the eyes of the heart means to know something intellectual by the power of thought. In the same way, to hear with your ears means a feeling of the deepest understanding. We also say that the soul can use its teeth when it eats and eats the bread of life that comes down from heaven. It is said in the same way that the soul also uses the functions of other members, which are applied to its powers, just as Solomon says: "The knowledge of God you have found" (Proverbs 2:5). Solomon knew that there are two kinds of feelings in us, one kind of feelings—mortal, perishable, human; the other kind, immortal and spiritual, is that which he called divine. It is with this divine feeling, not of the eyes, nor of a pure heart, i.e., of the mind, that all those who are worthy (of Him) can see God. In general, in all the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, you will find many passages in which the heart is mentioned instead of the mind, that is, instead of the power of knowledge. Having thus reflected on the nature of God, though much worse than it should be, of course, on account of the lack of human understanding, we shall now consider what the name of Christ means.