Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
| Why We Do Not in the Trinity Speak of One Person, and Three Essences. What He Ought to Believe Concerning the Trinity Who Does Not Receive What is Said Above. Man is Both After the Image, and is the Image of God. PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP
Chapter
6.—Why We Do Not in the Trinity Speak of One Person, and Three
Essences. What He Ought to Believe Concerning the Trinity Who Does
Not Receive What is Said Above. Man is Both After the Image, and is
the Image of God.
11. But lest I should seem to favor
ourselves [the Latins], let us make this further inquiry. Although
they [the Greeks] also, if they pleased, as they call three
substances three hypostases, so might call three persons three
“prosopa,” yet they preferred that word which, perhaps, was
more in accordance with the usage of their language. For the case
is the same with the word persons also; for to God it is not one
thing to be, another to be a person, but it is absolutely the same
thing. For if to be is said in respect to Himself, but person
relatively; in this way we should say three persons, the Father,
Son, and Holy Spirit; just as we speak of three friends, or three
relations, or three neighbors, in that they are so mutually, not
that each one of them is so in respect to himself. Wherefore any
one of these is the friend of the other two, or the
relation, or the neighbor, because these names have a relative
signification. What then? Are we to call the Father the person of
the Son and of the Holy Spirit, or the Son the person of the Father
and of the Holy Spirit, or the Holy Spirit the person of the Father
and of the Son? But neither is the word person commonly so used in
any case; nor in this Trinity, when we speak of the person of the
Father, do we mean anything else than the substance of the Father.
Wherefore, as the substance of the Father is the Father Himself,
not as He is the Father, but as He is, so also the person of the
Father is not anything else than the Father Himself; for He is
called a person in respect to Himself, not in respect to the Son,
or the Holy Spirit: just as He is called in respect to Himself both
God and great, and good, and just, and anything else of the kind;
and just as to Him to be is the same as to be God, or as to be
great, or as to be good, so it is the same thing to Him to be, as
to be a person. Why, therefore, do we not call these three together
one person, as one essence and one God, but say three persons,
while we do not say three Gods or three essences; unless it be
because we wish some one word to serve for that meaning whereby the
Trinity is understood, that we might not be altogether silent, when
asked, what three, while we confessed that they are three? For if
essence is the genus, and substance or person the species, as some
think, then I must omit what I just now said, that they ought to be
called three essences, as they are called three substances or
persons; as three horses are called three horses, and the same are
called three animals, since horse is the species, animal the genus.
For in this case the species is not spoken of in the plural, and
the genus in the singular, as if we were to say that three horses
were one animal; but as they are three horses by the special name,
so they are three animals by the generic one. But if they say that
the name of substance or person does not signify species, but
something singular and individual; so that any one is not so called
a substance or person as he is called a man, for man is common to
all men, but in the same manner as he is called this or that man,
as Abraham, as Isaac, as Jacob, or anyone else who, if present,
could be pointed out with the finger: so will the same reason reach
these too. For as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, are called three
individuals, so are they called three men, and three souls. Why
then are both the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, if we are
to reason about them also according to genus and species and
individual, not so called three essences, as they are called three
substances or persons? But this, as I said, I pass over: but I do
affirm, that if essence is a genus, then a single essence has no
species; just as, because animal is a genus, a single animal has no
species. Therefore the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not three
species of one essence. But if essence is a species, as man is a
species, but those are three which we call substances or persons,
then they have the same species in common, in such way as Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob have in common the species which is called man;
not as man is subdivided into Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, so can one
man also be subdivided into several single men; for this is
altogether impossible, since one man is already a single man. Why
then is one essence subdivided into three substances or persons?
For if essence is a species, as man is, then one essence is as one
man is: or do we, as we say that any three human beings of the same
sex, of the same constitution of body, of the same mind, are one
nature,—for they are three human beings, but one nature,—so
also say in the Trinity three substances one essence, or three
persons one substance or essence? But this is somehow a parallel
case, since the ancients also who spoke Latin, before they had
these terms, which have not long come into use, that is, essence or
substance, used for them to say nature. We do not therefore use
these terms according to genus or species, but as if according to a
matter that is common and the same. Just as if three statues were
made of the same gold, we should say three statues one gold, yet
should neither call the gold genus, and the statues species; nor
the gold species, and the statues individuals. For no species goes
beyond its own individuals, so as to comprehend anything external
to them. For when I define what man is, which is a specific name,
every several man that exists is contained in the same individual
definition, neither does anything belong to it which is not a man.
But when I define gold, not statues alone, if they be gold, but
rings also, and anything else that is made of gold, will belong to
gold; and even if nothing were made of it, it would still be called
gold; since, even if there were no gold statues, there will not
therefore be no statues at all. Likewise no species goes beyond the
definition of its genus. For when I define animal, since horse is a
species of this genus, every horse is an animal; but every statue
is not gold. So, although in the case of three golden statues we
should rightly say three statues, one gold; yet we do not so say
it, as to understand gold to be the genus, and the statues to be
species. Therefore neither do we so call the Trinity three
persons or substances, one essence and one God, as though three
somethings subsisted out of one matter [leaving a remainder, i.
e.]; although whatever that is, it is unfolded in these three.
For there is nothing else of that essence besides the Trinity. Yet
we say three persons of the same essence, or three persons one
essence; but we do not say three persons out of the same essence,
as though therein essence were one thing, and person another, as we
can say three statues out of the same gold; for there it is one
thing to be gold, another to be statues. And when we say three men
one nature, or three men of the same nature, they also can be
called three men out of the same nature, since out of the same
nature there can be also three other such men. But in that essence
of the Trinity, in no way can any other person whatever exist out
of the same essence. Further, in these things, one man is not as
much as three men together; and two men are something more than one
man: and in equal statues, three together amount to more of gold
than each singly, and one amounts to less of gold than two. But in
God it is not so; for the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit
together is not a greater essence than the Father alone or the Son
alone; but these three substances or persons, if they must be so
called, together are equal to each singly: which the natural man
does not comprehend. For he cannot think except under the
conditions of bulk and space, either small or great, since
phantasms or as it were images of bodies flit about in his
mind.
12. And until he be purged from
this uncleanness, let him believe in the Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit, one God, alone, great, omnipotent, good, just, merciful,
Creator of all things visible and invisible, and whatsoever can be
worthily and truly said of Him in proportion to human capacity. And
when he is told that the Father only is God, let him not separate
from Him the Son or the Holy Spirit; for together with Him He is
the only God, together with whom also He is one God; because, when
we are told that the Son also is the only God, we must needs take
it without any separation of the Father or the Holy Spirit. And let
him so say one essence, as not to think one to be either greater or
better than, or in any respect differing from, another. Yet not
that the Father Himself is both Son and Holy Spirit, or whatever
else each is singly called in relation to either of the others; as
Word, which is not said except of the Son, or Gift, which is not
said except of the Holy Spirit. And on this account also they admit
the plural number, as it is written in the Gospel, “I and my
Father are one.”651 He has both said
“one,”652 and “we
are653 one,”
according to essence, because they are the same God; “we are,”
according to relation, because the one is Father, the other is Son.
Sometimes also the unity of the essence is left unexpressed, and
the relatives alone are mentioned in the plural number: “My
Father and I will come unto him, and make our abode with him.”654 We will
come, and we will make our abode, is the plural number,
since it was said before, “I and my Father,” that is, the Son
and the Father, which terms are used relatively to one another.
Sometimes the meaning is altogether latent, as in Genesis: “Let
us make man after our image and likeness.”655 Both let us make and
our is said in the plural, and ought not to be received except
as of relatives. For it was not that gods might make, or make after
the image and likeness of gods; but that the Father, and Son, and
Holy Spirit might make after the image of the Father, and Son, and
Holy Spirit, that man might subsist as the image of God. And God is
the Trinity. But because that image of God was not made altogether
equal to Him, as being not born of Him, but created by Him; in
order to signify this, he is in such way the image as that he is
“after the image,” that is, he is not made equal by parity, but
approaches to Him by a sort of likeness. For approach to God is not
by intervals of place, but by likeness, and withdrawal from Him is
by unlikeness. For there are some who draw this distinction, that
they will have the Son to be the image, but man not to be the
image, but “after the image.” But the apostle refutes them,
saying, “For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch
as he is the image and glory of God.”656 He did not say after the
image, but the image. And this image, since it is
elsewhere spoken of as after the image, is not as if it were said
relatively to the Son, who is the image equal to the Father;
otherwise he would not say after our image. For how
our, when the Son is the image of the Father alone? But man is
said to be “after the image,” on account, as we have said, of
the inequality of the likeness; and therefore after our
image, that man might be the image of the Trinity;657
657 [Augustin would find this
“image” in the ternaries of nature and the human mind which
illustrate the Divine trinality. The remainder of the treatise is
mainly devoted to this abstruse subject; and is one of the most
metaphysical pieces of composition in patristic literature. The
exegetical portion of the work ends substantially with the seventh
chapter. The remainder is ontological, yet growing out of, and
founded upon the biblical data and results of the first
part.—W.G.T.S.] | not equal to
the Trinity as the Son is equal to the Father, but approaching to
it, as has been said, by a certain likeness;
just as nearness may in a sense be signified in things distant from
each other, not in respect of place, but of a sort of imitation.
For it is also said, “Be ye transformed by the renewing of your
mind;”658 to whom he
likewise says, “Be ye therefore imitators of God as dear
children.”659 For it is
said to the new man, “which is renewed to the knowledge of God,
after the image of Him that created him.”660 Or if we choose to admit the plural
number, in order to meet the needs of argument, even putting aside
relative terms, that so we may answer in one term when it is asked
what three, and say three substances or three persons; then let no
one think of any bulk or interval, or of any distance of howsoever
little unlikeness, so that in the Trinity any should be understood
to be even a little less than another, in whatsoever way one thing
can be less than another: in order that there may be neither a
confusion of persons, nor such a distinction as that there should
be any inequality. And if this cannot be grasped by the
understanding, let it be held by faith, until He shall dawn in the
heart who says by the prophet, “If ye will not believe, surely ye
shall not understand.”661
E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|