(Reprinted from Journal of the American Oriental Society, Volume 92, Number 1, January-March 1972)

A NEW SOURCE ON AHMAD IBN AL-TAYYIB AL-SARAKHSI: FLORENTINE MS ARABIC 299

MATTI MOOSA GANNON COLLEGE, EBIE, PENNSYLVANIA The Bibliotheea Medieeo-Laurenziana MS Arabic 299, entitled Kitab Fihi al-Shudhur alDhahabiyya f i Ma&hhab al-Nasraniyya, has long been erroneously attributed to the Syrian logician Yahya ibn 'Adi. In fact, this anonymous MS is an anthology of essays written by several authors in defense of Christian doctrine. A very interesting portion of this MS is a dialogue between Israel, bishop of Kaskar, and Ahmad ibn al-Tayyib al-Sarakhsi, the pupil of the philosopher al-Kindi. The first part of this dialogue deals briefly with the agnomen Abu by which the Arabs customarily address each other; the second part treats the essence of numbers and debates whether this essence is altered by the process of addition; the last part deals with the question of whether there is any separation among the three persons of the Trinity. THE BIBLIOTHECA MEDICEO-LATJKENZIANA contains among its Oriental manuscripts Arabic MS. 299, entitled Kitab T?%hi al-Shudhur al-Dhahabiyya /$ MadKhab al-Nasraniyya, which we have undertaken to edit and comment upon for the benefit of those concerned with Christian apology. The first description of this manuscript was provided by Istiphan Awwad alSim'ani (Stephen Assemani), a member of the celebrated Lebanese family, in his Bibliothecae MediceoLaurentianae et Palatinae codicum manuscriptorum Orientalium Catalogus (pp. 113-15), Rev. Louis Cheikho (d. 1927) also mentions this manuscript in his monograph "Al-Makhtutat al-'Arabiyya li Katabat alNasraniyya" (Arabic Manuscripts of Christian Authors), in al-Mashriq (1924), pp. 220-21, but erroneously lists it among the works of the Syrian logician Yahya ibn Adi (d. 974). He cites the manuscript as "The Golden Fragments in the Christian Doctrine: Quotations from the Sayings of Yahya ibn 'Adi at the Florence Library." Other writers, to be sure, have copied this mistake and followed Cheikho in attributing the manuscript to Yahya ibn Adi.1
1 The anonymous article "Mashahir al-Suryan: alFaylasuf Yahya ibn 'Adi al-Mutawaffa Sanat 947," al-Hikma (1929), No. 4, p. 189, mentions the manuscript under discussion. After comparing this article with Murad Pu'ad Chiqql's introduction to Yahya ibn 'Adi, TahdMb al-ATMaq (Jerusalem, 1930), I am convinced that Chiqql is the author of the article, ChiqqJ's introduction, however, lists twenty-four additional works by Yahya ibn 'Adi which are not cited in the anonymous article; especially important to us is his listing of aZShudhur al-Dhahabiyya as item 71 in his introduction.

The first thing to be noticed about this manuscript is that it is anonymous. The explanation of its anonymity is that it is not the work of a single writer, but an anthology of essays of varying lengths written by several authors. These diverse essays, however, have as their common purpose the defense of Christian doctrine. The compiler's name does not appear on the manuscript, simply because it was not the custom of ancient Oriental learned men to compile and edit anthologies, as is the current practice in the Western world. However, the title of the manuscript, referring to "golden fragments," indicates that the work is an anthology. Stephen Assemani mentions in his commentary (p. 113) that this manuscript has been compiled by an anonymous person, but goes on to say that its author is unknown. (Possibly he has confused the terms "compiler" and "author"; perhaps tie has assumed that the essays were the work of one man, compiled later by another.) He further states that the "author" of this manuscript, whom he is unable to identify, lived possibly after the eleventh century. The MS. contains the following works: (1) Kitab al-Safya'ify, by al-Safi Abu al-Fada/il ibn al-Assal (his name does not appear in the text), (113pp.) (2) A tract including the doubt of al-Imam Fakhr al-Dln al-Khatib concerning the unity of the divine and human natures of Jesus, together with alSafTs answer to it (10 pp.). (3) A tract concerning the state of the soul after it departs from the body and before the Resurrection, being a summary of a monograph by the naturalist and sage Abu al-Farajj Hibat AQah Abu

19

20

Journal of the American Oriental Society, 92,1 (1972} both of the eminent Muslim philosopher Abu Yusuf Ya'qub ibn Ishaq al-Kindi (d. ca. 873) and of his pupil al-Sarakhsi.5 The assembly of this metropolitan apparently has been recorded from the testimony of an authority who was present at the proceedings. According to this authority, while Iliyya was visiting al-Kindi, someone came with the news that Israel, the bishop of Kaskar, had arrived in Baghdad. Al-Kindi sent his pupil, alSarakhsi, to debate with the bishop in the presence of many people of different religious convictions (their debate is the substance of the account of the assembly, a translation of which will appear later in this article). The author of Kitab al-Majdal calls Israel, who was bishop of Kaskar from 860 until his death in 872, an intelligent and saintly man, skilled in logic, who was thought worthy to be a patriarch. Indeed, his nomination for that office caused an argument which led to his death; for one Sunday, while Israel was officiating at the altar, a man pushed his way through the congregation and attacked him, grasping his vitals and twisting them vigorously, so that he fainted. Forty days afterwards, Bishop Israel died and was buried in the Monastery of St. Phethion.6 All of this information is reiterated by Stephen Assemani in his commentary on Florentine MS. Arabic 299. Thus it seems incredible that Assemani should regard Iliyya, Metropolitan of Nisibin, and a contemporary of this bishop, as identical with Iliyya Bar Shinaya, who died in the middle of the eleventh century. It is my belief that the dialogue between Bishop Israel and Ahmad ibn al-Tayyib al-Sarakhsi has not been previously published. The distinguished professor Franz Rosenthal, who has written extensively on alSarakhsi's life and works, has made no mention of it.7
5 Florence MS. Arabic 299, pp. 149-50. See also this writer's article "Al-Kindi's Role in the Transmission of Greek Knowledge to the Arabs," Journal of the Pakistan Historical Society, XV (1967), 1, and Mar Ignatius Ya'qub III, "al-Kindi wa al-Suryaniyya," The Patriarchal Magazine (1963), No. 6, pp. 255-67. 6 'Amr ibn Matta, pp. 73-74. 7 See his book. Ahmad B. At-Tayyib As-Sarakhsl (New Haven, 1943), and the following articles of which he has generously sent me copies: "From Arabic Books and Manuscripts IV: New Fragments of As-Sarakhsi," JAOS, LXXI (1951), 135-42; "From Arabic Books and Manuscripts VI: Istanbul Materials from al-Kind! and As-Sarakhsi," JAOS, LXXVI (1956), 27-32; and "From Arabic Books and Manuscripts VIII: As-Sarakhsi on Love," JAOS, LXXXI (1961), 222-24.

al-Mufaddal ibn Abi Ishaq, known as ibn al-'Assal (10 pp.)." {4) A tract concerning the necessity of the incarnation of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, by Yahya ibn 'Adi (3 pp.). {5) An anonymous tract describing the Lord Christ as divine rather than human, although it concedes the propriety of describing him as both (6 pp.). (6) An assembly reported of Elias, Metropolitan of Nisibin, attended by Israel al-Kaskari (15 pp.). (7) Several anonymous tracts, not more than three pages each in length, dealing with various theological subjects (8) A tract by Yahya ibn 'Adi on the Lord who was born of Mary (7 pp.). (9) A brief tract from the book entitled al-Ahad by 'Abbad, containing a discussion of the Lord Jesus (3pp.). A very interesting portion of this manuscript is (6) the dialogue between Israel, bishop of Kaskar (Kashkar), and Ahmad ibn al-Tayyib al-Sarakhsi, the pupil of the philosopher al-Kindi, The dialogue is titled An Assembly Reported of Elias, Metropolitan of Nisibin, Attended by Israel al-Kaskari (Bishop of Kaskar).2 Israel, we know, was the bishop of a now extinct town located in present-day Iraq on the Tigris River. But the undiseerning reader may easily be misled into believing that Iliyya (Elias), the Metropolitan of Nisibin, is the same Iliyya known as Bar Shinaya (Ibn alSani), who lived in the eleventh century. Indeed, Stephen Assemani himself mistakenly believed that his Iliyya was Bar Shinaya, mentioned in Kitab alMajdal as the author of Daf al-Hamm (The Driving Away of Worry).3 What is still more puzzling is hoassertion that the manuscript here under review eontains most of the seven assemblies of Iliyya, Metris politan of Nisibin,4 for it is clear that the MS includes only one such assembly. Moreover, the manuscript refers to Iliyya as the metroplitan of al-Maghrib (the part of the Syrian world west of the Euphrates), adding that before becoming a monk he was called 'AH ibn t3"bayd ibn Dawud, and that he was a contemporary Florence MS. Arabic 299, pp. 149-56. 'Amr ibn Matta, Akhbar Fatarikat Kursl al-Mashriq: min Kitab al-Majdal, ed. Henricus Gismondi (Rome, 1896), p. 99. 4 Stephen Evodius Assemani, Bibliothecae MediceoLaurentianae et Palatinae codicum manuscriptorum Orientalium Catalogiis, p. 115.
2 3

Florentine MS Arabic 299

21

So that the reader may comprehend its philosophical are not altered by the process of addition. Most probcontent and its uniqueness for himself, I have appended ably al-Sarakhsi asks this question in order to refute a complete translation of it to this article. But before the dogma of the Trinity, by proving that the addition discussing the dialogue, let us speak briefly about al- of the three persons of the Trinity represents pure Sarakhsi. polytheism, which is contrary to the Muslims' fundaThe date of al-Sarakhsi's birth is uncertain, but it mental belief in monotheism, Al-Sarakhsi apparently has been conjectured that he was born between 833 intends, by asking this question, to prepare his opand 837 at Sarakhs, in Khurasan in present Iran. His ponent for the final question, namely, whether there is full name, according to al-Mas'udi, is Ahmad ibn al- any separation among the three persons of the Trinity, Tayyib ibn Marwan; according to Yaqut, he was also Further, he asks, if there is such separation, is it essenknown as ibn al-Fara'iql. His agnomen is Abu al- tial or accidental? What al-Sarakhsi intends, of course, ' Abbas, but he was sometimes called Abu al-Faraj; is that the addition of the second person (Jesus) and Professor Rosenthal believes (though this is most un- the third person (the Holy Spirit) to the first (God the likely) that the two agnomens indicate that he must Father) would assign partners to God, who, according have had two sons, al-'Abbas and al-Faraj.8 to Islam, is alone and has no partner. To be sure, the Al-Sarakhsi was quite possibly the best of al-Kindi's Muslims have held this mistaken notion about the pupils, and his excellent knowledge and eminence as a Trinity from Muhammad's time to the present, erman of letters won him an appointment as tutor to the roneously believing that the persons of the Trinity are 'Abbasid Caliph al-Mu'tadid when the latter was still three separate individuals, worshipped as three sepaa prince. He accompanied al-Mu'tadid in his war rate Gods. The bishop says that the separation of the against Khumarawayh ibn Ahmad ibn Tulun, the persons of the Trinity is neither essential nor accidental, ruler of Egypt, and participated in the battle of al- but an imaginary separation occurring between the Tawahin (The Mills) in 884. When al-Mu'tadid be- incorporeal and corporeal elements, between the things came Caliph in 892, he entrusted his former tutor with described and their attributes, and between the particudifferent governmental positions. Later, however, al- lars and the qualities which indicate the reality of Sarakhsl fell into disfavor and was humiliated by the their causal determinants. In other words, although Caliph, who, for reasons which have been the cause of the persons of the Trinity are independent in their disagreement among Muslim historians, threw him qualities and attributes, yet they are one in essence. into prison, where he spent the last three years of his What is particularly noteworthy about this assembly life.9 is the great interest it reveals among many people in The dialogue between al-Sarakhsi and Bishop Israel Baghdad, whether they were Jews, Muslims, or Chrisconsists of three parts. The first of these deals briefly tians, in questions pertaining to religious dogmas; such with the agnomen (kunya) Abu by which the Arabs questions and debates were evidently encouraged by customarily address each other instead of using the the 'Abbasid Caliph al-Ma'mun, at least at the start personal name, such as Abu Yusuf, Abu Ya'qub, etc. of his reign. What evokes our admiration is the quiet The second part treats the essence of numbers and and scholarly atmosphere which dominated the asdebates whether the addition of one number to another sembly and above all the complete tolerance and alters its essence; e.g., if one is added to one, would freedom of speech with which the debaters exchanged the result be two, and would the entity and essence of their views. There is no indication that they became the number one be changed by the addition of another angered or condemned one another. The audience, number to it? To prove his argument, the bishop ap- meanwhile, was listening with great attention and parently resorts to Aristotle's view that a number has a consideration, even showing concern over the outcome distinct entity, and that even when another number is of the debate. Since the subject of the debate was religiadded to it, its essence is unchanged. When al-Sarakhsi ous, the audience must have thought that its outcome asks the bishop whether, if we add one to eight, the determined the truthfulness or falsehood of that aspect result will be nine, the bishop answers that the number of religious doctrine with which the participants were does not become nine, for the simple reason that each dealing. The dialogue presented in the following pages number has its separate entity and qualities, which is, as we have indicated above, consistent with the general nature of Florentine MS. Arabic 299, which contains treatises written in defense of various points of Cf. Rosenthal's book on al-Sarakhsi, pp. 16-17. Ibid,, p. 25. Christian dogma.

22

Journal of the American Oriental Society, 92.1 [TRANSLATION] him and explained to him some of what had been said. I found him sitting with metropolitans and bishops at his left hand, and in his presence were other people who had come to greet him. Not long afterwards, Ahmad ibn al-Tayyib arrived with a group of polemicists and speculative thinkers, among them Jews, Muslims, and Mu'tazilites. They offered their greetings. Ahmad sat facing the bishop, and the people took their seats and turned their eyes toward him. He [the bishop] was good-looking and dignified, great in stature, with a consummate mind and a quiet, serene disposition, a venerable and august person, handsome and sonorous-voiced. We knew that this was the bishop. "When the assembly was filled, Ahmad said, 'Abu whom?may God strengthen you.' The bishop turned to his disciple and said, 'What is he inquiring about?' (It is said that he had probably seen and dictated to Ibrahim [the disciple] in the assemblies, and that he had a fair knowledge of logic and polemics.) 'I do not know the man.12 Therefore, I will address the answer to you in Syriac, so that you may interpret it to him in Arabic.' The bishop then said to the disciple in Syriae, 'Explain to him that this term [Abu] is divided into four parts, ah1 of which are invalid, according to philosophical speculation.' The disciple translated this for him. Ahmad, surprised at what he had heard, said, 'And what are these invalid parts?' He [the bishop] said, 'One of them is that this [term] is peculiar to the Arabs, and that speculation in our assembly is general, and the law of philosophical speculation does not make it necessary that particular knowledge should predominate over general knowledge. Second, it is a rank assumed by the Arabs, but I am a Syrian, and it would be shameful for me to assume what is not mine. Third, I find that many people have claimed the fatherhood of those who were not their sons and abandoned that which was their own [i.e., the fatherhood of their own sons]. Fourth, it is evident that groups of people have relinquished the nisba of fatherhood by not having sons. Therefore, as the causal determinants (ma"an%) of the divisions [of the term 'Abu' into four parts] are
12 This part of the MS. is confused, and several words appear to be missing. Evidently Bishop Israel, knowing no Arabic, brought with him an interpreter named Ibrahim, himself fairly well versed in logic and highly skilled in intellectual debate. Perhaps, again, Ibrahim was a Christian living in Baghdad who had met the Bishop's pupil, who had served as his interpreter at similar assemblies in Baghdad. At any rate, Bishop Israel relied on an interpreter in his debate with alSarakhsi, and this interpreter was a learned man.

An Assembly Reported of Ellas, Metropolitan of Nisibin, Attended by Israel al-Kaskari [Bishop of Kaskar]. A certain authority has told us about Iliyya [Elias], Metropolitan of al-Maghrib, who was called 'All ibn 'Ubayd ibn Dawud before he became a monk, that while he was with Ya'qub ibn Ishaq al-Kindi, someone came to inform him of the arrival of Israel, Bishop of Kaskar, in the city of Dar al-Salam [Baghdad]. He [al-Kindl] said, "I have been informed that this bishop has speculative knowledge of religion and has all the sciences at his disposal. I believe, however, that the matter may be different from what it is reported to be, for his reputation may exceed what he would show if he should be examined [orally]."10 [Elias] said to him, "Upon my life, with some reports it is perhaps as you say. However, conversation is more decisive, and talking with this bishop will give you more information than second-hand reports and will surpass all that you have heard about him." Al-Kindi said, "What is to be expected of him who maintains that three are one and one is three, and that God has become incarnate and that a man has become God? Would he exceed your learned men [in what they have maintained]?" [Elias] said to him, "Although those are eminent in their learning, yet this bishop has soundness of doctrine and authentic evidence, more than I can tell you in detail." Al-Kindi turned to Ahmad ibn alTayyib al-Sarakhsi, who was foremost of all his disciples, and said to him, "0, Abu al-'Abbas, hasten to this man [and stay] until you have come to know his views and the extent of his [knowledge]." [[Elias] said, "I left and went to see the bishop to inform him about what had happened. I found him staying at the monastery of Mar Phathion.11 I greeted
10 This statement comes from al-Kindi, who had been informed of Israel's knowledge in religion and speculative theology. " The Monastery of Mar (Saint) Phathion (Phethion) was built in the fifth century to memorialize the Persian nobleman Phethion, a native of Blashbar who embraced Christianity and was martyred in A.D. 446. The Monastery was built about a mile from Baghdad, near the village of Sunaya, which, soon after the building of Baghdad in the seventh century, became part of the section of the city referred to as "al-Mahalla al-'Atiqa" (The Old Quarter). Cf. Yaqut, Mu'jam al-Buldan, III, 19.

Florentine MS Arabic 899 rendered invalid by the whole of this argument, it also invalidates the relationship of what has been shown to be invalid and imperfect.' "Upon hearing his eloquence, the people turned their eyes to the bishop, because he had stated what no one else before him could have said so naturally and without constraint. His excellence became manifest to them, and they and Ahmad knew that he was skillful in philosophical reasoning and capable in argument. Ahmad said, 'How shall I call you, then?' And he said, *By my office, Bishop, since it has been my name.' Ahmad said, 'It is not permitted for me to compare myself with a dignitary of your denomination, such as yourself.' The argument continued, until at last an agreement was reached, that Ahmad should address him as 'Bishop'. "Ahmad said, '0 Bishop, may God make you happy, if we add one to eight, it becomes nine.' The bishop said to him, 'No.' Ahmad turned to those in the assembly and said, 'Are you not surprised at this objectionable [answer]? Is it not true that if we add one to eight, it becomes nine?' All of them said, Tes,' And they did not doubt that the bishop had forsaken the truth by failing [to provide an answer], and that he had refused to answer because he was incapable of doing so. Gloom hung over the Christians, for fear that the bishop might be unable to answer a point at the beginning of the first encounter, while Ahmad's voice, as well as the voices of al-Kindl's disciples, the Mu'tazilites and the Jews, were raised in commotion and ridicule, testifying to Ahmad's victory and the bishop's defeat. The bishop, however, maintained his calm and serious attitude, paying no attention to their foolish talk, and not abandoning his viewpoint because of their commotion. This made him even more insistent on his position and more adamant about what he had said. After a while the bishop turned to his disciple and said, 'Tell Ahmad, "If you have sought me for inquiry, then turn to me and hear my reply, and let your purpose not be to debate without proof and to contradict me without explanation."' Ahmad, elated by victory and arrogant in his triumph, began to agitate, as did the others who were present. When they calmed down, toward noontime or so, the bishop said with a sharp tongue, 'You say that when we add one to eight, the number becomes nine. But the condition of eight does not cease to be what it is, and it is not altered from its essence [literally, 'thatness'] by taking the number and altering it. Do you not see that if we should count a number of things to a certain term and then add the same amount or less, the charac-

23

teristic essence of the first number would not change to something else, though the number had been taken [and altered]? The number merges as a whole in a particular term, but nothing which exists in its essence passes from its nature when the number is taken [and added] to the [other] term.' "Ahmad and those in the assembly became astonished after they had been elated by their victory and, after having had no doubt of their triumph, all of them said, *By God, well done, the bishop has hit the point.' Ahmad stood stammering with shame and made no attempt to answer. When the assembly calmed down, Ahmad said, 'I do not know which makes me wonder more, your little regard for all of us while everyone testified to your defeat and the fact that you never yielded or cared for anyone, or your encountering me, despite the fact of your being a non-Arab, with this eloquent speech and effective tongue.' Thus became evident to Ahmad and those who were with him, and to all who were present, the capability of the bishop in speculative reasoning, his perfection in forming replies; his sound presentation of evidence, his mastery of polemics, and his ability in logic. "When the discussion in which the assembly was engaged calmed down, Ahmad said, Tour return in your "Gospel"13 to the predicate must be either with or without assent (tawatu3'),' The bishop said, Tes.' Ahmad said [to the others] as if he were astonished, 'Don't you realize what he has said?' The bishop said to him, 'Be calm, and do not hasten to make a judgment without proof, for soon I will explain to you the point of view and the reality of the truth, and I will consult with the people [in the assembly] on these matters.' Ahmad had no rebuttal to refute this answer. And when the affair had taken some time, the bishop said, 'One positive has only one negative, and the addition of assent or non-assent does not necessitate the existence of many negatives for one positive, because it is otherness [ghayriyya] which necessitates many contraries for one positive. What you ought to say is, "Can the predicate be with or without assent, if the negative is to be contrary to the positive and the contradictory, etc. with respect to assent contrary to its affirmative?" Otherness does not necessitate [eontradietoriness], for if you should say, "Can there be God and no God in the heavens?" the answer is, "No." But if you say, "[Can there be something] other than
13 This term, is quite obscure and difficult to comprehend. The only understanding I have of it is that alSarakhsi is referring to Inj^Ekum ("your Gospel").

24

Journal of the American Oriental Society, 92,1 (1972} not his life and reason. Therefore, what affects the speech of the [thing] described and the attributesuch as the causal determinant which is peculiar to itdoes not affect anything else. Also, with each one of them is associated a knowledge which differentiates it from its counterpart, and each one of them requires an evidence not required by its counterpart. And there are no substantial and accidental separations. Here you are, a living and rational being, and each oneyour person, your life, and your reasonis not the other, and between them there is no substantial and accidental separation. Consider the fire, which has heat, light, and dryness, and each onethe essence of fire and its qualitiesis not the other; each one of them subsists in the causal determinant which differentiates it from the others, without the existence of substantial and accidental separations. Also, [consider] the water in its coldness and dampness, and the air in its heat and dampness, and the earth in its coldness and dryness, and the sun in its light and raysthese elements, despite the fact that they are composites and are subject to quantities and qualities, [are such that there] may be found among their qualities and attributes that which differentiates them from the others and which makes them independent. And what makes the causal determinants of the division necessary is that one of these [elements] cannot stand alone unless the substantial separations are associated with it, and unless the accidental separations have some connection with it. [Thus] these separations should more appropriately and correctly be set apart from their Creator.' "Ahmad and those with him took the necessity of the noon prayer as an excuse to leave the place; I left, and they left too. Then the whole affair was related to al-Eindi, who began to paw the ground in astonishment in my presence, and nodded, looking downward, with great perplexity. And he forbade Ahmad to debate further with the bishop, and the speculative thinkers and polemicists heard of what had happened to Ahmad, despite his eminence and proficiency. This is what came of the questions and answers."

God?" then there are angels, birds, etc,' Ahmad was silenced, and the people approved the words of the bishop and his excellence in presenting [conclusive] proof, just as they had done at the beginning, when the first question was discussed. The bishop went on explaining his statement and confirming the evidence with conclusive eloquence and inimitable proof, while everyone was astonished at his presentation of logical indications and rational testimonies. "The people kept silent for a while; then Ahmad said, *Is there a separation between the three persons [of the Trinity] or not?' The bishop said, Tes.' Ahmad said, 'Is it substantial or accidental?' The bishop said, 'Neither substantial nor accidental.' Ahmad said to him, 'What is it?' The bishop said to him, 'An imaginary separation that occurs between the incorporeal and corporeal elements, between the [thing] described and its attributes, between the particular [thing] and the qualities which indicate the reality of its causal determinants and distinguish each one with respect to the causal determinant which it contains, designate it, and ascribe to it what belongs to it. As for the substantials and accidentals, they are lifted from the First Essence, which is unparalleled, and they are necessary for the corporeal [elements], not the ineorporeals; for the compound, not the simple; nay, as some of them are substantial that distinguish between the essences, kinds, and corporeal [elements], and as these three persons [of the Trinity] are not different corporeal [elements], therefore, they become subject to such separation and accident. Nor is [the difference] between the three persons of the Trinity the same as the difference between the reflections of corporeal [elements] which are similar in kind and dissimilar in qualities, and since these three persons are not corporeal, such imaginary separation between them becomes necessary. However, I am distinguishing between them only by using imaginary separation, like that which exists between the [thing] described and its attributes, between the particular [thing] and its qualities. The proof for this is that we find that the living rational being is