Augustin on Faith 105

105 17. Neither is it strange that these things are said in reference to an ineffable Nature, when even in those objects which we discern with the bodily eyes, and judge of by the bodily sense, something similar holds good. For take the instance of an interrogation on the subject of a fountain, and consider how we are unable then to affirm that the said fountain is itself the river; and how, when we are asked about the river, we are as little able to call it the fountain; and, again, how we are equally unable to designate the draught, which comes of the fountain or the river, either river or fountain. Nevertheless, in the case of this trinity we use the name water [for the whole]; and when the question is put: regarding each of these separately, we reply in each several instance that the thing is water. For if I inquire whether it is water in the fountain, the reply is given that it is water; and if we ask whether it is water in the river, no different response is returned; and in the case of the said draught, no other answer can possibly be made: and yet, for all this, we do not speak of these things as three waters, but as one water. At the same time, of course, care must be taken that no one should conceive of the ineffable substance of that Majesty merely as he might think of this visible and material75 fountain, or river, or draught. For in the case of these latter that water which is at present in the fountain goes forth into the river, and does not abide in itself; and when it passes from the river or from the fountain into the draught, it does not continue permanently there where it is taken from. Therefore it is possible here that the same water may be in view at one time under the appellation of the fountain and at another under that of the river, and at a third under that of the draught. But in the case of that Trinity, we have affirmed it to be impossible that the Father should be sometime the Son, and sometime the Holy Spirit: just as, in a tree, the root is nothing else than the root, and the trunk (robur) is nothing else than the trunk, and we cannot call the branches anything else than branches for, what is called the root cannot be called trunk and branches; and the wood which belongs to the root cannot by any sort of transference be now in the root, and again in the trunk, and yet again in the branches, but only in the root; since this rule of designation stands fast, so that the root is wood. and the trunk is wood, and the branches are wood, while nevertheless it is not three woods that are thus spoken of, but only one. Or, if these objects have some sort of dissimilarity, so that on account of their difference in strength they may be spoken of, without any absurdity, as three woods; at least all parties admit the force of the former example,—namely, that if three cups be filled out of one fountain, they may certainly be called three cups, but cannot be spoken of as three waters, but only as one all together. Yet, at the same time, when asked concerning the several cups, one by one, we may answer that in each of them bY itself there is water; although in this case no such transference takes place as we were speaking of as occurring from the fountain into the river. But these examples in things material (corporalia exempla) have been adduced not in virtue of their likeness to that divine Nature, but in reference to the oneness which subsists even in things visible, so that it may be understood to be quite a possibility for threeobjects of some sort, not only severally, but also all together, to obtain one single name; and that in this way no one may wonder and think it absurd that we should call the Father God, the Son God, the Holy Spirit God, and that nevertheless we should say that there are not three Gods in that Trinity, but one God and one substance.76

18. And, indeed, on this subject of the Father and the Son, learned and spiritual77 men have conducted discussions in many books, in which, so far as men could do with men, they have endeavored to introduce an intelligible account as to how the Father was not one personally with the Son, and yet the two were one substantially;78 and as to what the Father was individually (proprie), and what the Son: to wit, that the former was the Begetter, the latter the Begotten; the formernot of the Son, the latter of the Father: theformer the Beginning of the latter, whence also He is called the Head of Christ,79 although Christ likewise is the Beginning,80 but not of the Father; the latter, moreover, the Image81 of the former, although in no respect dissimilar, and although absolutely and without difference equal (omnino et indifferenter aequalis). These questions are handled with greater breadth by those who, in less narrow limits than ours are at present, seek to set forth the profession of the Christian faith in its totality. Accordingly, in so far as He is the Son, of the Father received He it that He is, while that other [the Father] received not this of the Son; and in so far as He, in unutterable mercy, in a temporal dispensation took upon Himself the [nature of] man (hominem),—to wit, the changeable creature that was thereby to be changed into something better,—many statements concerning Him are discovered in the Scriptures, which are so expressed as to have given occasion to error in the impious intellects of heretics, with whom the desire to teach takes precedence of that to understand, so that they have supposed Him to be neither equal with the Father nor of the same substance. Such statements [are meant] as the following: “For the Father is greater than I;”82 and, “The head of the woman is the man, the Head of the man is Christ, and the Head of Christ is God;”83 and, “Then shall He Himself be subject unto Him that put all things under Him;”84 and, “I go to my Father and your Father, my God and your God,”85 together with some others of like tenor. Now all these have had a place given them, [certainly] not with the object of signifying an inequality of nature and substance; for to take them so would be to falsify a different class of statements, such as, “I and my Father are one” (unum);86 and, “He that hath seen me hath seen my Father also;”87 and, “The Word was God,”88 for He was not made, inasmuch as “all things were made by Him;”89 and, “He thought it not robbery to be equal with God:”90 together with all the other passages of a similar order. But these statements have had a place given them, partly with a view to that administration of His assumption of human nature (administrationem suscepti hominis), in accordance with which it is said that “He emptied Himself:” not that that Wisdom was changed, since it is absolutely unchangeable; but that it was His will to make Himself known in such humble fashion to men. Partly then, I repeat, it is with a view to this administration that those things have been thus written which the heretics make the ground of their false allegations; and partly it was with a view to the consideration that the Son owes to the Father that which He is,91 —thereby also certainly owing this in particular to the Father, to wit, that He is equal to the same Father, or that He is His Peer (eidem Patri aequalis aut par est), whereas the Father owes whatsoever He is to no one.

19. With respect to the Holy Spirit, however, there has not been as yet, on the part of learned and distinguished investigators of the Scriptures, a discussion of the subject full enough or careful enough to make it possible for us to obtain an intelligent conception of what also constitutes His special individuality (proprium): in virtue of which special individuality it comes to be the case that we cannot call Him either the Son or the Father, but only the Holy Spirit; excepting that they predicate Him to be the Gift of God, so that we may believe God not to give a gift inferior to Himself. At the same time they hold by this position, namely, to predicate the Holy Spirit neither as begotten, like the Son, of the Father; for Christ is the only one [so begotten]: nor as [begotten] of the Son, like a Grandson of the Supreme Father: while they do not affirm Him to owe that which He is to no one, but [admit Him to owe it] to the Father, of whom are all things; lest we should establish two Beginnings without beginning (ne duo constituamus principia isne principio), which would be an assertion at once most false and most absurd, and one proper not to the catholic faith, but to the error of certain heretics.92 Some, however, have gone so far as to believe that the communion of the Father and the Son, and (so to speak) their Godhead (deitatem), which the Greeks designate qeotha, is the Holy Spirit; so that, inasmuch as the Father is God and the Son God, the Godhead itself, in which they are united with each other,—to wit, the former by begetting the Son, and the latter by cleaving to the Father,93 —should [thereby] be constituted equal with Him by whom He is begotten. This Godhead, then, which they wish to be understood likewise as the love and charity subsisting between these two [Persons], the one toward the other, they affirm to have received the name of the Holy Spirit. And this opinion of theirs they support by many proofs drawn from the Scriptures; among which we might instance either the passage which says, “For the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost, who has been given unto us,”94 or many other proofs texts of a similar tenor: while they ground their position also upon the express fact that it is through the Holy Spirit that we are reconciled unto God; whence also, when He is called the Gift of God, they will have it that sufficient indication is offered of the love of God and the Holy Spirit being identical. For we are not reconciled unto Him except through that love in virtue of which we are also called sons:95 as we are no more “under fear, like servants,”96 because “love, when it is made perfect, casteth out fear;”97 and [as] “we have received the spirit of liberty, wherein we cry, Abba, Father.”98 And inasmuch as, being reconciled and called back into friendship through love, we shall be able to become acquainted with all the secret things of God, for this reason it is said of the Holy Spirit that “He shall lead you into all truth.”99 For the same reason also, that confidence in preaching the truth, with which the apostles were filled at His advent,100 is rightly ascribed to love; because diffidence also is assigned to fear, which the perfecting of love excludes. Thus, likewise, the same is called the Gift of God,101 because no one enjoys that which he knows, unless he also love it. To enjoy the Wisdom of God, however, implies nothing else than to cleave to the same in love (ei dilectione cohaerere). Neither does any one abide in that which he apprehends, but by love; and accordingly the Holy Spirit is called the Spirit of sanctity (Spiritus Sanctus), inasmuch as all things that are sanctioned (sanciuntur)102 are sanctioned with a view to their permanence, and there is no doubt that the term sanctity (sanctitatem) is derived from sanction (a sanciendo). Above all, however, that testimony is employed by the upholders of this opinion, where it is thus written, “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit;”103 “for God is a Spirit.”104 For here He speaks of our regeneration,105 which is not, according to Adam, of the flesh, but, according to Christ, of the Holy Spirit. Wherefore, if in this passage mention is made of the Holy Spirit, when it is said, “For God is a Spirit,” they maintain that we must take note that it is not said, “for the Spirit is God,”106 but, “for God is a Spirit;” so that the very Godhead of the Father and the Son is in this passage called God, and that is the Holy Spirit. To this is added another testimony which the Apostle Jn offers, when he says, “For God is love.”107 For here, in like manner, what he says is not, “Love is God,”108 but, “God is love;” so that the very Godhead is taken to be love. And with respect to the circumstance that, in that enumeration of mutually connected objects which is given when it is said, “All things are yours, and ye are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s,”109 as also, “The head of the woman is the man, the Head of the man is Christ, and the Head of Christ is God,”110 there is no mention of the Holy Spirit; this they affirm to be but an application of the principle that, in general, the connection itself is not wont to be enumerated among the things which are connected with each other. Whence, also, those who read with closer attention appear to recognize the express Trinity likewise in that passage in which it is said, “For of Him, and through Him, and in Him, are all things.”111 “Of Him,” as if it meant, of that One who owes it to no one that He is: “through Him,” as if the idea were, through a Mediator; “in Him,” as if it were, in that One who holds together, that is, unites by connecting.

20. Those parties oppose this opinion who think that the said communion, which we call either Godhead, or Love, or Charity, is not a substance. Moreover, they require the Holy Spirit to be set forth to them according to substance; neither do they take it to have been otherwise impossible for the expression God is Love” to have been used, unless love were a substance. In this, indeed, they are influenced by the wont of things of a bodily nature. For if two bodies are connected with each other in such wise as to be placed in juxtaposition one with the other, the connection itself is not a body: inasmuch as when these bodies which had been connected are separated, no such connection certainly is found [any more]; while, at the same time, it is not understood to have departed, as it were, and migrated, as is the case with those bodies themselves. But men like these should make their heart pure, so far as they can, in order that they may have power to see that in the substance of God there is not anything of such a nature as would imply that therein substance is one thing, and that which is accident to substance (aliud quod accidat subsantioe) another thing, and not substance; whereas whatsoever can be taken to be therein is substance. These things, however, can easily be spoken and believed; but seen, so as to reveal how they are in themselves, they absolutely cannot be, except by the pure heart. For which reason, whether the opinion in question be true, or something else be the case, the faith ought to be maintained unshaken, so that we should call the Father God, the Son God, the Holy Spirit God, and yet not affirm three Gods, but hold the said Trinity to be one God; and again, not affirm these [Persons] to be different in nature, but hold them to be of the same substance; and further uphold it, not as if the Father were sometime the Son, and sometime the Holy Spirit, but in such wise that the Father is always the Father, and the Son always the Son, and the Holy Spirit always the Holy Spirit. Neither should we make any affirmation on the subject of things unseen rashly, as if we had knowledge, but [only modestly] as believing. For these things cannot be seen except by the heart made pure; and [even] he who in this life sees them “in part,” as it has been said, and “in an enigma,”112 cannot secure it that the person to whom he speaks shall also see them, if he is hampered by impurities of heart. “Blessed,” however, “are they of a pure heart, for they shall see God.”113 This is the faith on the subject of God our Maker and Renewer.

21. But inasmuch as love is enjoined upon us, not only toward God, when it was said, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind;”114 but also toward our neighbor, for “thou shalt love,” saith He, “thy neighbor as thyself;”115 and inasmuch, moreover, as the faith in question is less fruitful, if it does not comprehend a congregation and society of men, wherein brotherly charity may operate;—

Chapter 10.—Of the Catholic Church, the Remission of Sins, and the Resurrection of the Flesh.

—Inasmuch, I repeat, as this is the case, we believe also in The Holy Church, [intending thereby] assuredly the Catholic. For both heretics and schismatics style their congregations churches. But heretics, in holding false opinions regarding God, do injury to the faith itself; while schismatics, on the other hand, in wicked separations break off from brotherly charity, although they may believe just what we believe. Wherefore neither do the heretics belong to the Church catholic, which loves God; nor do the schismatics form a part of the same, inasmuch as: it loves the neighbor, and consequently readily forgives the neighbor’s sins, because it prays that forgiveness may be extended to itself by Him who has reconciled us to Himself, doing away with all past things, and calling us to a new life. And until we reach the perfection of this new life, we cannot be without sins. Nevertheless it is a matter of consequence of what sort those sins may be.

22. Neither ought we only to treat of the difference between sins, but we ought most thoroughly to believe that those things in which we sin are in no way forgiven us, if we show ourselves severely unyielding in the matter of forgiving the sins of others.116 Thus, then, we believe also in The Remission of Sins.

23. And inasmuch as there are three things of which man consists,—namely, spirit, soul, and body,—which again are spoken of as two, because frequently the soul is named along with the spirit; for a certain rational portion of the same, of which beasts are devoid, is called spirit: the principal part in us is the spirit; next, the life whereby we are united with the body is called the soul; finally, the body itself, as it is visible, is the last part in us. This “whole creation” (creatura), however, “groaneth and travaileth until now.”117 Nevertheless, He has given it the first-fruits of the Spirit, in that it has believed God, and is now of a good will.118 This spirit is also called the mind, regarding which an apostle speaks thus: “With the mind I serve the law of God.”119 Which apostle likewise expresses himself thus in another passage: “For God is my witness, whom I serve in my spirit.”120 Moreover, the soul, when as yet it lusts after carnal good things, is called the flesh. For a certain part thereof resists121 the Spirit, not in virtue of nature, but in virtue of the custom of sins; whence it is said, “With the mind I serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.” And this custom has been turned into a nature, according to mortal generation, by the sin of the first man. Consequently it is also written in this wise, “And we were sometime by nature the children of wrath,”122 that is, of vengeance, through which it has come to pass that we serve the law of sin. The nature of the soul, however, is perfect when it is made subject to its own spirit, and when it follows that spirit as the same follows God. Therefore “the animal man123 receiveth not the things which are of the Spirit of God.”124 But the soul is not so speedily subdued to the spirit unto good action, as is the spirit to God unto true faith and goodwill; but sometimes its impetus, whereby it moves downwards into things carnal and temporal, is more tardily bridled. But inasmuch as this same soul is also made pure, and receives the stability of its own nature, under the dominance of the spirit, which is the head for it, which head of the said soul has again its own head in Christ, we ought not to despair of the restoration of the body also to its own proper nature. But this certainly will not be effected so speedily as is the case with the soul; just as the soul too, is not restored so speedily as the spirit. Yet it will take place in the appropriate season, at the last trump, when “the dead shall rise uncorrupted, and we shall be changed.”125 And accordingly we believe also in The Resurrection of the Flesh, to wit, not merely that that soul, which at present by reason of carnal affections is called the flesh, is restored; but that it shall be so likewise with this visible flesh, which is the flesh according to nature, the name of which has been received by the soul, not in virtue of nature, but in reference to carnal affections: this visible flesh, then, I say, which is the flesh properly so called, must without doubt be believed to be destined to rise again. For the Apostle Paul appears to point to this, as it were, with his finger, when he says, “This corruptible must put on incorruption.”126 For when he says this, he, as it were, directs his finger toward it. Now it is that which is visible that admits of being pointed out with the finger; since the soul might also have been called corruptible, for it is itself corrupted by vices of manners. And when it is read, “and this mortal [must] put on immortality,” the same visible flesh is signified, inasmuch as at it ever and anon the finger is thus as it were pointed. For the soul also may thus in like manner be called mortal, even as it is designated corruptible in reference to vices of manners. For assuredly it is “the death of the soul to apostatize from God;”127 which is its first sin in Paradise, as it is contained in the sacred writings.

24. Rise again, therefore, the body will, according to the Christian faith, which is incapable of deceiving. And if this appears incredible to any one, [it is because] he looks simply to what the flesh is at present, while he fails to consider of what nature it shall be hereafter. For at that time of angelic change it will no more be flesh and blood, but onlybody.128 For when the apostle speaks of the flesh, he says, “There is one flesh of cattle, another of birds, another of fishes, another of creeping things: there are also both celestial bodies and terrestrial bodies.”129 Now what he has said here is not “celestial flesh,” but “both celestial bodies and terrestrial bodies.” For all flesh is also body; but every body is not also flesh. In the first instance, [for example, this holds good] in the case of those terrestrial bodies, inasmuch as wood is body, but not flesh. In the case of man, again, or in that of cattle, we have both body and flesh. In the case of celestial bodies, on the other hand, there is no flesh, but only those simple and lucent bodies which the apostle designates spiritual, while some call them ethereal. And consequently, when he says, “Flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom of God,”130 that does not contradict the resurrection of the flesh; but the sentence predicates what will be the nature of that hereafter which at present is flesh and blood. And if any one refuses to believe that the flesh is capable of being changed into the sort of nature thus indicated, he must be led on, step by step, to this faith. For if you require of him whether earth is capable of being changed into water, the nearness of the thing will make it not seem incredible to him. Again, if you inquire whether water is capable of being changed into air, he replies that this also is not absurd, for the elements are near each other. And if, on the subject of the air, it is asked whether that can be changed into an ethereal, that is, a celestial body, the simple fact of the nearness at once convinces him of the possibility of the thing. But if, then, he concedes that through such gradations it is quite a possible thing that earth should be changed into an ethereal body, why does he refuse to believe, when that will of God, too, enters in addition, whereby a human body had power to walk upon the waters, that the same change is capable of being effected with the utmost rapidity, precisely in accordance with the saying, “in the twinkling of an eye,”131 and without any such gradations, even as, according to common wont, smoke is changed into flame with marvellous quickness? For our flesh assuredly is of earth. But philosophers, on the ground of whose arguments opposition is for the most part offered to the resurrection of the flesh, so far as in these they assert that no terrene body can possibly exist in heaven, yet concede that any kind of body may be converted and changed into every [other] sort of body. And when this resurrection of the body has taken place, being set free then from the condition of time, we shall fully enjoy Eternal Life in ineffable love and steadfastness, without corruption.132 For “then shall be brought to pass the saying which is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. Where is, O death, thy sting? Where is, O death, thy contention?”133

25. This is the faith which in few words is given in the Creed to Christian novices, to be held by them. And these few words are known to the faithful, to the end that in believing they may be made subject to God; that being made subject, they may rightly live; that in rightly living, they may make the heart pure; that with the heart made pure, they may understand that which they believe).

1 i.e. the third order of catechumens, embracing those thoroughly prepared for baptism.
2 Chap. 10,§0 24.
3 1Co 15,50
4 (Lc 24,39,
5 City of God, Bk. 22,Ch. 21).
1 (Ha 2,4 Rm 1,17 Ga 3,11 He 10,38).
2 (Rm 10,10,
3 (Is 7,9, according to the rendering of the Septuagint).
4 Naturam.
5 Reading pulchre ordinatum. Some editions give pulchre ornatum  = beautifully adorned).
6 Si mundum fabricare non posset. For si some Mss. give qui = inasmuch as He could not, etc.
7 De limo  = of mud.
8 (Sg 11,17,
9 Speciosissima species = the seemliest semblance.
10 (Jn 1,3,
11 (Jn 14,6 1Co 1,24
12 For qui several Mss. give quibus here = under many other appellations is the Lord Jesus Christ introduced to our mental apprehensions, by which He is commended to our faith.
13 For Rector we also find Creator = Creator).
14 (Sg 7,27).
15 Adopting the Benedictine version per ipsam innotescit dignis animis secretissimus Pater. There is, however, great variety of reading here. Some Mss. give ignis for dignis = the most hidden fire of the Father is made known to minds. Others give signis = the most hidden Father is made known by signs to minds, Others have innotescit animus secretissimus Patris, or innotescit signis secretissimus Pater = the most hidden mind of the Father is made known by the same, or = the most hidden Father is made known by the same in signs.
16 Sonantia verba = sounding, vocal words.
17 Appetitum.
18 Nostra notitia = our knowledge.
19 Reading conantes et verbis, etc. Three gooD Mss. give conante fetu verbi = as the offspring of the word makes the attempt. The Benedictine editors suggest conantes fetu verbi = making the attempt by the offspring of the word.
20 (1Co 1,24,
21 Sg 8,1.
22 (Jn 1,3,
23 According to the literal meaning of the phrase ex tempore. It may, however, here be used as = under conditions of time, or in time.
24 Reading sempiterne: for which sempiternus = the eternal wise God, is also given
25 (Ph 2,6
26 Condita et facta est).
27 Condere and creare.
28 (Jn 1,14,
29 Adopting in hominibus creavi. One important Ms. gives in omnibus = amongst all.
30 (Pr 8,22, with creavit me instead of the possessed me of the English version.
31 Various editions give principium et caput Ecclesiae est Christus = the beginning of His ways and the Head of the Church is Christ.
32 For via certa others give via recta = a right way.
33 (Gn 3,5,
34 (Ph 2,6, 7).
35 Per ejus primatum = by means of His standing as the First-born. We follow the Benedictine reading, qui post ejus et per ejus primatum in Dei gratiam renascuntur.But there is another, although less authoritative, version, viz). qui post ejus primitias in Dei gratia nascimur = all of us who, subsequently to His first-fruits, are born in the grace of God.
36 (Lc 8,21 Rm 8,15-17 Ga 4,5 Ep 1,5 He 2,11,
37 Id existens quod Pater est, etc. Another version is, idem existens quod Pater Deus = subsisting as the same that God the Father is.
38 (Jn 1,9,
39 The term dispensatio occurs very frequently as the equivalent of the Greek oijkonomiva = economy, designating the Incarnation.
40 (Ex 3,14).
41 Deserens. With less point, deferens has been suggested = bearing it, or delivering it).
42 Or it may = he should fail to have any relation to the salvation.
43 Referring to the Manicheans.
44 (Jn 2,4,
45 (Jn 19,26-27.
46 (Mt 12,48,
47 (Mt 23,9,
48 (1Co 1,25,
49 (Tt 1,15,
50 In reference to the Manicheans).
51 The Benedictine text gives, quibus intervenientibus habitat majestas Vervi ab humani corporis fragilitate secretius. Another well-supported version is, ad humani corporis fragilitatem, etc. = more retired in relation to the frailty of the human body).
52 (Ph 2,8,
53 For monumenti some editions give testamenti = testament.
54 (Jn 19,41,
55 (Ep 1,5,
56 (Rm 8,17,
57 (Mt 22,30,
58 (Ga 4,26,
59 (1Co 15,44,
60 Adopting the Benedictine reading, quod ita spiritui subditum est. But several Mss). give quia ita coaptandum est = it is understood to be a spiritual body, In that it is to be so adapted as to suit a heavenly habitation.
61 (1Co 15,51, according to the Vulgate’s transposition of the negative.
62 (1Co 15,52).
63 (Rm 1,23).
64 (Mt 25,33,
65 Reading propter iniquitates, labores atque cruciatus. Several Mss. give propter iniquitatis labores, etc. = by reason of the labors and torments of unrighteousness.
66 Reading futura sit; for which fulsura sit also occurs = is destined to shine much mare manifestly, etc.
67 The text gives simply ante mortem. Some editions insert nostram = previous to our death.
68 (Ac 1,11,
69 (Ap 1,8,
70 Instead of fideique commendata et divina generatione, etc., another, but weakly supported, version is, fide atque commendata divina, etc., which makes the sense = The faith, therefore, having been systematically disposed, and our Lord’s divine generation and human dispensation having been commended to the understanding, etc..
71 Non minore natura quam Pater.The Benedictine editors suggest minor for minore = not inferior in nature, etc..
72 (Dt 6,4,
73 (Ps 82,6,
74 (Rm 11,36).
75 Corporeum = corporeal.
76 Many Mss., however, insert colamus after Deum in the closing sentence, sed unum Deum unamque substantiam. The sense then will be = and that nevertheless we should worship in that Trinity not three Gods, but one God and one substance).
77 Spiritales, for which religiosi = religious, is also sometimes given).
78 Non unus esset Pater et Filius, sed unum essent = how the Father and the Son were not one in person, but were one in essence).
79 (1Co 11,3).
80 In reference probably to Jn 8,25, where the Vulgate gives principium qui et loquor vobis as the literal equivalent for the Greek thn ajrchn oź,ti kaiv lalwv uvhi`n).
81 (Col 1,15).
82 (Jn 14,28).
83 (1Co 11,3,
84 (1Co 15,28,
85 (Jn 20,17,
86 (Jn 10,30
87 (Jn 14,9,
88 (Jn 1,1,
89 (Jn 1,3,
90 (Ph 2,9). [See R. V.].
91 Or it may be = that the Son owes it to the Father that He is.
92 In reference, again, to Manichean errorists.
93 Patri cohoerendo = by close connection with the Father.
94 (Rm 5,5).
95 (1Jn 3,1, word Dei = of God, is sometimes here.
96 (Rm 8,15,
97 (1Jn 4,18,
98 (Rm 8,15,
99 (Jn 16,13,
100 (Ac 2,4,
101 (Ep 3,7-8.
102 Instead of sanciuntur, which is the reading of the Mss., some editions give sanctificantur = all things that are sanctified are sanctioned, etc..
103 (Jn 3,6,
104 (Jn 4,24,
105 Reading, with the Mss. and the Benedictine editors, Hic enim regenerationem nostram dicit. Some editions give Hoc for Hic, and dicunt for dicit = for they say that this expresses our regeneration.
106 Quoniam Spiritus Deus est.But various editions and Mss. give Dei for Deus = for the Spirit is of God.
107 (1Jn 4,16,
108 Here again, instead of dilectio Deus est, we also find dilectio Dei est = love is of God.
109 (1Co 3,22-23.
110 (1Co 11,3,
111 (Rm 11,36).
112 (1Co 13,12,
113 (Mt 5,8,
114 (Dt 6,5,
115 (Lc 10,27,
116 (Mt 6,15
117 (Rm 8,22,
118 Reading spiritűs. Taking spiritus, the sense might be = Nevertheless, the spirit hath imparted the first-fruits, in that it has believed God, and is now of a good will.
119 (Rm 7,25,
120 (Rm 1,9,
121 Instead of caro nominatur. Pars enim ejus quoedam resistit, etc., some good Mss. read caro nominatur et resistit, etc. = is called the flesh, and resists, etc.
122 (Ep 2,3,
123 Animalis homo, literally = the soulish man.
124 (1Co 2,14).
125 (1Co 15,52,
126 (1Co 15,53,
127 3 The text gives, Mors quippe animae est apostatare a Deo. The reference, perhaps, is to Si 10,12, where the Vulgate has, initium superbioe hominis, apostatare a Deo.
128 4 Augustin refers to this statement in the passage quoted from the Retractations in the Introductory Notice above..
129 (1Co 15,39-40.
130 (1Co 15,50,
131 (1Co 15,52).
132 1 Instead of a temporis conditione liberati, aeterna vita ineffabili caritate atque stabilitate sine corruptione perfruemur, several Mss. read, corpus a temporis conditione liberatum aeterna vita ineffabili caritate perfruetur = the body, set free from the condition of time, shall fully enjoy eternal life in ineffable love).
133 (1Co 15,54-55).

Augustin on Faith 105