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.

Chapter Two. About Christ

1. First of all, we need to know that in Christ the nature of His Godhead is different, because He is the only-begotten Son of God; and another thing is human nature, which He has recently assumed according to the economy. In view of this, we must first consider what the only-begotten Son of God is. It is known that He is called by many and different names, depending on the circumstances and the concepts of those who name Him. Thus He is called Wisdom, as we find it in the words of Solomon: "The Lord created Me (creatae) the beginning of His ways in His works before He accomplished anything, before the world founded Me. In the beginning, before the earth was made, and before the depths were made, before it was made a fountain of waters, before the mountains were raised, but before all the hills He gives birth to Me" (Proverbs 8:22-25). He is also called the firstborn, as the Apostle says: "Who is the firstborn of all creation" (Col. 1:15). And yet the firstborn is not different in nature from Wisdom, but one and the same (with Her). Finally, the Apostle Paul says: "Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God" (1 Corinthians 1:24).

2. But let no one think that when we call the Son the Wisdom of God, we do not consider Him to be something substantial, for instance, as if we do not regard Him as an intelligent living being, but as a thing which can make (men) wise, and communicate to the minds of those who are made receptive to the properties and to the understanding of them. If, therefore, it is once properly accepted that the only-begotten Son of God is His Wisdom, which exists substantially (substantialiter subsistentem), then, in my opinion, our reason should no longer wander in conjectures, such as whether the very ύπόστασις, i.e., the substance (substantia) of the Son, has something corporeal; for everything corporeal has either a form, or a color, or a size, but what sensible person would seek color or size in Wisdom as wisdom? God the Father could never, not for a single moment, certainly exist without giving birth to this Wisdom: so should everyone think and believe who only knows how to piously think and think about God. In fact, if God begat Wisdom that did not exist before, then He could not give birth to Her before He gave birth, or He could, but did not want to give birth. But this cannot be said of God: it is clear to all that both suppositions are both absurd and impious, and in both cases it is found that God either rose from a state of incapacity to a state of ability, or, on the assumption of His ability, He delayed and postponed the birth of Wisdom. Wherefore we always acknowledge God to be the Father of His only-begotten Son, begotten of Him, and receiving existence from Him, but without any beginning, not only such as can be divided into any temporal extensions, but also such as the mind (mens) alone usually contemplates in itself, and which is seen, so to speak, by pure thought and spirit (animo). Thus, it must be believed that Wisdom is born outside of any beginning, of which it is possible to speak or think. In this very hypostasis of Wisdom (sapientiae subsistentia) was all the power (virtus) and destiny (deformatio) of the future creation, both that which exists from the beginning of the world (principialiter) and that which happens afterwards (consequenter): all this was predestined and arranged in Wisdom by the power of foreknowledge.

In view of these creatures, which were, as it were, foreordained and predestined in Wisdom Herself, Wisdom says through Solomon of Herself that She was created by the beginning of the ways of God, or, what is the same thing, that She contains in Herself the beginnings, or forms, or forms of all creation.

3. And so, when it is said that Wisdom is the beginning of the ways of God, and that it is created, this, in our understanding, means that Wisdom predestines and contains in Himself the beginnings of all creation. Likewise, the name of Wisdom as the Word of God must be understood, namely, in the sense that Wisdom reveals to all other (beings), i.e., to all creation, the knowledge (rationem) of the mysteries and of all the hidden things contained within the (intra) Wisdom of God: She is called the Word because She serves as an interpreter of the mysteries of the spirit (mentis). Therefore, the saying written in the Acts of Paul seems to me to be correct: "This is the Word, a living being" (animal vivens). As for John, he speaks even more sublimely and beautifully, when at the beginning of his Gospel he gives his own definition that the Word is God. He thus says: "And God was the Word, and this was from time immemorial with (apud) God." But whoever at the same time ascribes the beginning to the Word of God, or the Wisdom of God, evidently extends his impiety even to the Father Himself (ingenitum), since then he will deny the truth that He was always the Father, and begat the Son, and had Wisdom in all previous times or ages, in a word, throughout all that can be signified in human language.

4. This Son is the truth and life of all things, and in justice. Indeed, how could all created beings live if not by virtue of Life alone? Or how would they stand in the truth if they did not come from the Truth? Or how could they be rational beings if the Word or Reason did not exist before them? Or how would they be wise if there were no Wisdom? But since some creatures were destined to fall away from life and to inflict death on themselves, namely by falling away from life (for death is nothing but falling away from life), and since at the same time it would certainly not be consistent if that which God once created for life were utterly lost, such a power must therefore have existed before death, which could destroy this future death and be a resurrection. This resurrection was realized in our Lord and Saviour, precisely the resurrection which dwelt in the Wisdom of God Itself, and in the Word, and in life. Since, furthermore, some created beings, who did not wish to remain forever unyielding, unchangeable, and abiding with the same and calm equilibrium in the same goods, were subsequently destined to be corrupted, to change, and to fall from their state, in consequence of the fact that good is inherent in them not by nature, i.e., not substantially, but as an accidental property, it is for this reason that the Word and Wisdom of God became the way. Wisdom is called the way because it leads to the Father those who come through it. Thus, what we have said about the Wisdom of God can be fully applied to the designation of the Son of God as Life, Word, Truth, Resurrection, because all these names are taken from His works and powers, and in none of these names can even the most superficial thought understand anything corporeal that has size, or form, or color. The sons of men that we see, or the children of other animals, correspond to the seed of their fathers or mothers, in whose womb they are formed and nourished; from them they have everything that they bring with them when they come into this world. But to compare God the Father, in the birth of His only-begotten Son, and in the bestowal of His existence (in subsistentia), with any parent from among men or other beings, is both impious and lawless. The birth of a son is something exceptional and worthy of God; for him no comparison can be found, not only in things, but also in thought and in mind, so that human thought cannot understand how the unborn God becomes the Father of the only-begotten Son. For this birth is eternal and uninterrupted (sempiterna), just as radiance is born of light. For the Son is not the Son by adoption from without through the Holy Spirit, but the Son by nature.