Writings of Augustine. On the Trinity, De Trinitate
|
Advanced Information
The Fifteen Books of Aurelius Augustinus, Bishop of Hippo,
on the Trinity, de Trinitate
Translated by the Rev. Arthur West Haddan, B.D.,
Hon. Canon of Worchester, and Rector of Barton-on-the-Heath,
Warwickshire.
Published in 1886 by Philip Schaff,
New York: Christian Literature Publishing Co.
.
Book IV.
Explains for what the Son of God was sent, viz, that by Christ's dying
for sinners, we were to be convinced how great is God's love for us,
and also what manner of men we are whom He loved. That the Word came
in the flesh, to the purpose also of enabling us to be so cleansed as
to contemplate and cleave to God. That our double death was abolished
by His death, being one and single. And hereupon is discussed, how the
single of our Saviour harmonizes to salvation with our double; and the
perfection is treated at length of the senary number, to which the
ratio itself of single to double is reducible. That all are gathered
together from many into one by the one Mediator of life, viz. Christ,
through Whom alone is wrought the true cleansing of the soul. Further
it is demonstrated that the Son of God, although made less by being
sent, on account of the form of a servant which He took, is not
therefore less than the Father according to the form of God, because
He was sent by Himself: and that the same account is to be given of
the sending of the Holy Spirit.
|
|
Preface.--The Knowledge of God is to Be Sought from God.
1. Theknowledge of things terrestrial and celestial is commonly
thought much of by men. Yet those doubtless judge better who prefer to
that knowledge, the knowledge of themselves; and that mind is more
praiseworthy which knows even its own weakness, than that which,
without regard to this, searches out, and even comes to know, the ways
of the stars, or which holds fast such knowledge already acquired,
while ignorant of the way by which itself to enter into its own proper
health and strength. But if any one has already become awake towards
God, kindled by the warmth of the Holy Spirit, and in the love of God
has become vile in his own eyes; and through wishing, yet not having
strength to come in unto Him, and through the light He gives, has
given heed to himself, and has found himself, and has learned that his
own filthiness cannot mingle with His purity; and feels it sweet to
weep and to entreat Him, that again and again He will have compassion,
until he have put off all his wretchedness; and to pray confidently,
as having already received of free gift the pledge of salvation
through his only Saviour and Enlightener of man:--such an one, so
acting, and so lamenting, knowledge does not puff up, because charity
edifieth; [438] for he has preferred knowledge to knowledge, he has
preferred to know his own weakness, rather than to know the walls of
the world, the foundations of the earth, and the pinnacles of heaven.
And by obtaining this knowledge, he has obtained also sorrow; [439]
but sorrow for straying away from the desire of reaching his own
proper country, and the Creator of it, his own blessed God. And if
among men such as these, in the family of Thy Christ, O Lord my God, I
groan among Thy poor, give me out of Thy bread to answer men who do
not hunger and thirst after righteousness, but are sated and abound.
[440] But it is the vain image of those things that has sated them,
not Thy truth, which they have repelled and shrunk from, and so fall
into their own vanity. I certainly know how many figments the human
heart gives birth to. And what is my own heart but a human heart? But
I pray the God of my heart, that I may not vomit forth (eructuem) into
these writings any of these figments for solid truths, but that there
may pass into them only what the breath of His truth has breathed into
me; cast out though I am from the sight of His eyes, [441] and
striving from afar to return by the way which the divinity of His
only-begotten Son has made by His humanity. And this truth, changeable
though I am, I so far drink in, as far as in it I see nothing
changeable: neither in place and time, as is the case with bodies; nor
in time alone, and in a certain sense place, as with the thoughts of
our own spirits; nor in time alone, and not even in any semblance of
place, as with some of the reasonings of our own minds. For the
essence of God, whereby He is, has altogether nothing changeable,
neither in eternity, nor in truth, nor in will; since there truth is
eternal, love eternal; and there love is true, eternity true; and
there eternity is loved, and truth is loved.
Footnotes
[438] 1 Cor. viii. 1
[439] Eccles. i. 18
[440] Matt. v. 6
[441] Ps. xxxi. 22
Chapter 1.--We are Made Perfect by Acknowledgement of Our Own
Weakness. The Incarnate Word Dispels Our Darkness.
2. But since we are exiled from the unchangeable joy, yet neither cut
off nor torn away from it so that we should not seek eternity, truth,
blessedness, even in those changeable and temporal things (for we wish
neither to die, nor to be deceived, nor to be troubled); visions have
been sent to us from heaven suitable to our state of pilgrimage, in
order to remind us that what we seek is not here, but that from this
pilgrimage we must return thither, whence unless we originated we
should not here seek these things. And first we have had to be
persuaded how much God loved us, lest from despair we should not dare
to look up to Him. And we needed to be shown also what manner of men
we are whom He loved, lest being proud, as if of our own merits, we
should recede the more from Him, and fail the more in our own
strength. And hence He so dealt with us, that we might the rather
profit by His strength, and that so in the weakness of humility the
virtue of charity might be perfected. And this is intimated in the
Psalm, where it is said, "Thou, O God, didst send a spontaneous rain,
whereby Thou didst make Thine inheritance perfect, when it was weary."
[442] For by "spontaneous rain" nothing else is meant than grace, not
rendered to merit, but given freely, [443] whence also it is called
grace; for He gave it, not because we were worthy, but because He
willed. And knowing this, we shall not trust in ourselves; and this is
to be made "weak." But He Himself makes us perfect, who says also to
the Apostle Paul, "My grace is sufficient for thee, for my strength is
made perfect in weakness." [444] Man, then, was to be persuaded how
much God loved us, and what manner of men we were whom He loved; the
former, lest we should despair; the latter, lest we should be proud.
And this most necessary topic the apostle thus explains: "But God
commendeth," he says, "His love towards us, in that, while we were yet
sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by
His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him. For if, when we
were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son; much
more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by His life." [445] Also in
another place: "What," he says, "shall we then say to these things? If
God be for us, who can be against us? He that spared not His own Son,
but delivered Him up for us all, how has He not with Him also freely
given us all things?" [446] Now that which is declared to us as
already done, was shown also to the ancient righteous as about to be
done; that through the same faith they themselves also might be
humbled, and so made weak; and might be made weak, and so perfected.
3. Because therefore the Word of God is One, by which all things were
made, which is the unchangeable truth, all things are simultaneously
therein, potentially and unchangeably; not only those things which are
now in this whole creation, but also those which have been and those
which shall be. And therein they neither have been, nor shall be, but
only are; and all things are life, and all things are one; or rather
it is one being and one life. For all things were so made by Him, that
whatsoever was made in them was not made in Him, but was life in Him.
Since, "in the beginning," the Word was not made, but "the Word was
with God, and the Word was God, and all things were made by Him;"
neither had all things been made by Him, unless He had Himself been
before all things and not made. But in those things which were made by
Him, even body, which is not life, would not have been made by Him,
except it had been life in Him before it was made. For "that which was
made was already life in Him;" and not life of any kind soever: for
the soul also is the life of the body, but this too is made, for it is
changeable; and by what was it made, except by the unchangeable Word
of God? For "all things were made by Him; and without Him was not
anything made that was made." "What, therefore, was made was already
life in Him;" and not any kind of life, but "the life [which] was the
light of men;" the light certainly of rational minds, by which men
differ from beasts, and therefore are men. Therefore not corporeal
light, which is the light of the flesh, whether it shine from heaven,
or whether it be lighted by earthly fires; nor that of human flesh
only, but also that of beasts, and down even to the minutest of worms.
For all these things see that light: but that life was the light of
men; nor is it far from any one of us, for in it "we live, and move,
and have our being." [447]
Footnotes
[442] Ps. lxviii. 9.--Pluviam voluntariam.
[443] Gratis.
[444] 2 Cor. xii. 9
[445] Rom. v. 8-10--Donavit.
[446] Rom. viii. 31, 32
[447] Acts xvii. 27, 28
Chapter 2.--How We are Rendered Apt for the Perception of Truth
Thr
ough the Incarnate Word.
4. But "the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehended
it not." Now the "darkness" is the foolish minds of men, made blind by
vicious desires and unbelief. And that the Word, by whom all things
were made, might care for these and heal them, "The Word was made
flesh, and dwelt among us." For our enlightening is the partaking of
the Word, namely, of that life which is the light of men. But for this
partaking we were utterly unfit, and fell short of it, on account of
the uncleanness of sins. Therefore we were to be cleansed. And
further, the one cleansing of the unrighteous and of the proud is the
blood of the Righteous One, and the humbling of God Himself; [448]
that we might be cleansed through Him, made as He was what we are by
nature, and what we are not by sin, that we might contemplate God,
which by nature we are not. For by nature we are not God: by nature we
are men, by sin we are not righteous. Wherefore God, made a righteous
man, interceded with God for man the sinner. For the sinner is not
congruous to the righteous, but man is congruous to man. By joining
therefore to us the likeness of His humanity, He took away the
unlikeness of our unrighteousness; and by being made partaker of our
mortality, He made us partakers of His divinity. For the death of the
sinner springing from the necessity of comdemnation is deservedly
abolished by the death of the Righteous One springing from the free
choice of His compassion, while His single [death and resurrection]
answers to our double [death and resurrection]. [449] For this
congruity, or suitableness, or concord, or consonance, or whatever
more appropriate word there may be, whereby one is [united] to two, is
of great weight in all compacting, or better, perhaps, co-adaptation,
of the creature. For (as it just occurs to me) what I mean is
precisely that co-adaptation which the Greeks call harmonia. However
this is not the place to set forth the power of that consonance of
single to double which is found especially in us, and which is
naturally so implanted in us (and by whom, except by Him who created
us?), that not even the ignorant can fail to perceive it, whether when
singing themselves or hearing others. For by this it is that treble
and bass voices are in harmony, so that any one who in his note
departs from it, offends extremely, not only trained skill, of which
the most part of men are devoid, but the very sense of hearing. To
demonstrate this, needs no doubt a long discourse; but any one who
knows it, may make it plain to the very ear in a rightly ordered
monochord.
Footnotes
[448] John i. 1, 14
[449] [This singleness and doubleness is explained in chapter
3.--W.G.T.S.]
Chapter 3.--The One Death and Resurrection of The Body of Christ
Harmonizes with Our Double Death and Resurrection of Body and Soul, to
the Effect of Salvation. In What Way the Single Death of Christ is
Bestowed Upon Our Double Death.
5. But for our present need we must discuss, so far as God gives us
power, in what manner the single of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ
answers to, and is, so to say, in harmony with our double to the
effect of salvation. We certainly, as no Christian doubts, are dead
both in soul and body: in soul, because of sin; in body, because of
the punishment of sin, and through this also in body because of sin.
And to both these parts of ourselves, that is, both to soul and to
body, there was need both of a medicine and of resurrection, that what
had been changed for the worse might be renewed for the better. Now
the death of the soul is ungodliness, and the death of the body is
corruptibility, through which comes also a departure of the soul from
the body. For as the soul dies when God leaves it, so the body dies
when the soul leaves it; whereby the former becomes foolish, the
latter lifeless. For the soul is raised up again by repentance, and
the renewing of life is begun in the body still mortal by faith, by
which men believe on Him who justifies the ungodly; [450] and it is
increased and strengthened by good habits from day to day, as the
inner man is renewed more and more. [451] But the body, being as it
were the outward man, the longer this life lasts is so much the more
corrupted, either by age or by disease, or by various afflictions,
until it come to that last affliction which all call death. And its
resurrection is delayed until the end; when also our justification
itself shall be perfected ineffably. For then we shall be like Him,
for we shall see Him as He is. [452] But now, so long as the
corruptible body presseth down the soul, [453] and human life upon
earth is all temptation, [454] in His sight shall no man living be
justified, [455] in comparison of the righteousness in which we shall
be made equal with the angels, and of the glory which shall be
revealed in us. But why mention more proofs respecting the difference
between the death of the soul and the death of the body, when the Lord
in one sentence of the Gospel has made either death easily
distinguishable by any one from the other, where He says, "Let the
dead bury their dead"? [456] For burial was the fitting disposal of a
dead body. But by those who were to bury it He meant those who were
dead in soul by the impiety of unbelief, such, namely, as are awakened
when it is said, "Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead,
and Christ shall give thee light." [457] And there is a death which
the apostle denounces, saying of the widow, "But she that liveth in
pleasure is dead while she liveth." [458] Therefore the soul, which
was before ungodly and is now godly, is said to have come alive again
from the dead and to live, on account of the righteousness of faith.
But the body is not only said to be about to die, on account of that
departure of the soul which will be; but on account of the great
infirmity of flesh and blood it is even said to be now dead, in a
certain place in the Scriptures, namely, where the apostle says, that
"the body is dead because of sin, but the spirit is life because of
righteousness." [459] Now this life is wrought by faith, "since the
just shall live by faith." [460] But what follows? "But if the spirit
of Him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, He that raised
up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by His
Spirit which dwelleth in you." [461]
6. Therefore on this double death of ours our Saviour bestowed His own
single death; and to cause both our resurrections, He appointed
beforehand and set forth in mystery and type His own one resurrection.
For He was not a sinner or ungodly, that, as though dead in spirit, He
should need to be renewed in the inner man, and to be recalled as it
were to the life of righteousness by repentance; but being clothed in
mortal flesh, and in that alone dying, in that alone rising again, in
that alone did He answer to both for us; since in it was wrought a
mystery as regards the inner man, and a type as regards the outer. For
it was in a mystery as regards our inner man, so as to signify the
death of our soul, that those words were uttered, not only in the
Psalm, but also on the cross: "My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken
me?" [462] To which words the apostle agrees, saying, "Knowing this,
that our old man is crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be
destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin;" since by the
crucifixion of the inner man are understood the pains of repentance,
and a certain wholesome agony of self-control, by which death the
death of ungodliness is destroyed, and in which death God has left us.
And so the body of sin is destroyed through such a cross, that now we
should not yield our members as instruments of unrighteousness unto
sin. [463] Because, if even the inner man certainly is renewed day by
day, [464] yet undoubtedly it is old before it is renewed. For that is
done inwardly of which the same apostle speaks: "Put off the old man,
and put on the new;" which he goes on to explain by saying,
"Wherefore, putting away lying, speak every man truth." [465] But
where is lying put away, unless inwardly, that he who speaketh the
truth from his heart may inhabit the holy hill of God? [466] But the
resurrection of the body of the Lord is shown to belong to the mystery
of our own inner resurrection, where, after He had risen, He says to
the woman, "Touch me not, for I am not yet ascended to my Father;"
[467] with which mystery the apostle's words agree, where he says, "If
ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where
Christ sitteth on the right hand of God; set your thoughts [468] on
things above." [469] For not to touch Christ, unless when He had
ascended to the Father, means not to have thoughts [470] of Christ
after a fleshly manner. Again, the death of the flesh of our Lord
contains a type of the death of our outer man, since it is by such
suffering most of all that He exhorts His servants that they should
not fear those who kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul.
[471] Wherefore the apostle says, "That I may fill up that which is
behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh." [472] And the
resurrection of the body of the Lord is found to contain a type of the
resurrection of our outward man, because He says to His disciples,
"Handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see
me have." [473] And one of the disciples also, handling His scars,
exclaimed, "My Lord and my God!" [474] And whereas the entire
integrity of that flesh was apparent, this was shown in that which He
had said when exhorting His disciples: "There shall not a hair of your
head perish." [475] For how comes it that first is said, "Touch me
not, for I am not yet ascended to my Father;" [476] and how comes it
that before He ascends to the Father, He actually is touched by the
disciples: unless because in the former the mystery of the inner man
was intimated, in the latter a type was given of the outer man? Or can
any one possibly be so without understanding, and so turned away from
the truth, as to dare to say that He was touched by men before He
ascended, but by women when He had ascended? It was on account of this
type, which went before in the Lord, of our future resurrection in the
body, that the apostle says, "Christ the first-fruits; afterward they
that are Christ's." [477] For it was the resurrection of the body to
which this place refers, on account of which he also says, "Who has
changed our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto His glorious
body." [478] The one death therefore of our Saviour brought salvation
to our double death, and His one resurrection wrought for us two
resurrections; since His body in both cases, that is, both in His
death and in His resurrection, was ministered to us by a kind of
healing suitableness, both as a mystery of the inner man, and as a
type of the outer.
Footnotes
[450] Rom. iv. 5
[451] 2 Cor. iv. 16
[452] 1 John iii. 1
[453] Wisd. ix. 15
[454] Job. vii. 1
[455] Ps. cxliii. 2
[456] Matt. viii. 22
[457] Eph. v. 14
[458] 1 Tim. v. 6
[459] Rom. viii. 10
[460] Rom. i. 17
[461] Rom. viii. 10, 11
[462] Ps. xxii. 1, and Matt. xxvii. 46
[463] Rom. vi. 6, 13
[464] 2 Cor. iv. 16
[465] Eph. iv. 22-25
[466] Ps. xv. 1, 3
[467] John xx. 17
[468] Sapite
[469] Col. iii. 1, 2
[470] Sapere
[471] Matt. x. 28
[472] Col. i. 24
[473] Luke xxiv. 39
[474] John xx. 28
[475] Luke xxi. 18
[476] John xx. 17
[477] 1 Cor. xv. 23
[478] Phil. iii. 21
Chapter 4.--The Ratio of the Single to the Double Comes from the
Perfection of the Senary Number. The Perfection of The Senary Number
is Commended in the Scriptures. The Year Abounds in The Senary Number.
7. Now this ratio of the single to the double arises, no doubt, from
the ternary number, since one added to two makes three; but the whole
which these make reaches to the senary, for one and two and three make
six. And this number is on that account called perfect, because it is
completed in its own parts: for it has these three, sixth, third, and
half; nor is there any other part found in it, which we can call an
aliquot part. The sixth part of it, then, is one; the third part, two;
the half, three. But one and two and three complete the same six. And
Holy Scripture commends to us the perfection of this number,
especially in this, that God finished His works in six days, and on
the sixth day man was made in the image of God. [479] And the Son of
God came and was made the Son of man, that He might re-create us after
the image of God, in the sixth age of the human race. For that is now
the present age, whether a thousand years apiece are assigned to each
age, or whether we trace out memorable and remarkable epochs or
turning-points of time in the divine Scriptures, so that the first age
is to be found from Adam until Noah, and the second thence onwards to
Abraham, and then next, after the division of Matthew the evangelist,
from Abraham to David, from David to the carrying away to Babylon, and
from thence to the travail of the Virgin, [480] which three ages
joined to those other two make five. Accordingly, the nativity of the
Lord began the sixth, which is now going onwards until the hidden end
of time. We recognize also in this senary number a kind of figure of
time, in that threefold mode of division, by which we compute one
portion of time before the Law; a second, under the Law; a third,
under grace. In which last time we have received the sacrament of
renewal, that we may be renewed also in the end of time, in every
part, by the resurrection of the flesh, and so may be made whole from
our entire infirmity, not only of soul, but also of body. And thence
that woman is understood to be a type of the church, who was made
whole and upright by the Lord, after she had been bowed by infirmity
through the binding of Satan. For those words of the Psalm lament such
hidden enemies: "They bowed down my soul." [481] And this woman had
her infirmity eighteen years, which is thrice six. And the months of
eighteen years are found in number to be the cube of six, viz. six
times six times six. Nearly, too, in the same place in the Gospel is
that fig tree, which was convicted also by the third year of its
miserable barrenness. But intercession was made for it, that it might
be let alone that year, that year, that if it bore fruit, well; if
otherwise, it should be cut down. [482] For both three years belong to
the same threefold division, and the months of three years make the
square of six, which is six times six.
8. A single year also, if the whole twelve months are taken into
account, which are made up of thirty days each (for the month that has
been kept from of old is that which the revolution of the moon
determines), abounds in the number six. For that which six is, in the
first order of numbers, which consists of units up to ten, that sixty
is in the second order, which consists of tens up to a hundred. Sixty
days, then, are a sixth part of the year. Further, if that which
stands as the sixth of the second order is multiplied by the sixth of
the first order, then we make six times sixty, i.e. three hundred and
sixty days, which are the whole twelve months. But since, as the
revolution of the moon determines the month for men, so the year is
marked by the revolution of the sun; and five days and a quarter of a
day remain, that the sun may fulfill its course and end the year; for
four quarters make one day, which must be intercalated in every fourth
year, which they call bissextile, that the order of time may not be
disturbed: if we consider, also, these five days and a quarter
themselves, the number six prevails in them. First, because, as it is
usual to compute the whole from a part, we must not call it five days,
but rather six, taking the quarter days for one day. Next, because
five days themselves are the sixth part of a month; while the quarter
of a day contains six hours. For the entire day, i.e. including its
night, is twenty-four hours, of which the fourth part, which is a
quarter of a day, is found to be six hours. So much in the course of
the year does the sixth number prevail.
Footnotes
[479] Gen. i. 27
[480] Matt. i. 17
[481] Ps. lvii. 6
[482] Luke xiii. 6-17
Chapter 5.--The Number Six is Also Commended in the Building Up of the
Body of Christ and of the Temple at Jerusalem.
9. And not without reason is the number six understood to be put for a
year in the building up of the body of the Lord, as a figure of which
He said that He would raise up in three days the temple destroyed by
the Jews. For they said, "Forty and six years was this temple in
building." [483] And six times forty-six makes two hundred and
seventy-six. And this number of days completes nine months and six
days, which are reckoned, as it were, ten months for the travail of
women; not because all come to the sixth day after the ninth month,
but because the perfection itself of the body of the Lord is found to
have been brought in so many days to the birth, as the authority of
the church maintains upon the tradition of the elders. For He is
believed to have been conceived on the 25th of March, upon which day
also He suffered; so the womb of the Virgin, in which He was
conceived, where no one of mortals was begotten, corresponds to the
new grave in which He was buried, wherein was never man laid, [484]
neither before nor since. But He was born, according to tradition,
upon December the 25th. If, then you reckon from that day to this you
find two hundred and seventy-six days which is forty-six times six.
And in this number of years the temple was built, because in that
number of sixes the body of the Lord was perfected; which being
destroyed by the suffering of death, He raised again on the third day.
For "He spake this of the temple of His body," [485] as is declared by
the most clear and solid testimony of the Gospel; where He said, "For
as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly, so
shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of
the earth." [486]
Footnotes
[483] John ii. 20
[484] John xix. 41, 42
[485] John ii. 19-21
[486] Matt. xii. 40
Chapter 6.--The Three Days of the Resurrection, in Which Also the
Ratio of Single to Double is Apparent.
10. Scripture again witnesses that the space of those three days
themselves was not whole and entire, but the first day is counted as a
whole from its last part, and the third day is itself also counted as
a whole from its first part; but the intervening day, i.e. the second
day, was absolutely a whole with its twenty-four hours, twelve of the
day and twelve of the night. For He was crucified first by the voices
of the Jews in the third hour, when it was the sixth day of the week.
Then He hung on the cross itself at the sixth hour, and yielded up His
spirit at the ninth hour. [487] But He was buried, "now when the even
was come," as the words of the evangelist express it; [488] which
means, at the end of the day. Wheresoever then you begin,--even if
some other explanation can be given, so as not to contradict the
Gospel of John, [489] but to understand that He was suspended on the
cross at the third hour,--still you cannot make the first day an
entire day. It will be reckoned then an entire day from its last part,
as the third from its first part. For the night up to the dawn, when
the resurrection of the Lord was made known, belongs to the third day;
because God (who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, [490]
that through the grace of the New Testament and the partaking of the
resurrection of Christ the words might be spoken to us "For ye were
sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord" [491] )
intimates to us in some way that the day takes its beginning from the
night. For as the first days of all were reckoned from light to night,
on account of the future fall of man; [492] so these on account of the
restoration of man, are reckoned from darkness to light. From the
hour, then, of His death to the dawn of the resurrection are forty
hours, counting in also the ninth hour itself. And with this number
agrees also His life upon earth of forty days after His resurrection.
And this number is most frequently used in Scripture to express the
mystery of perfection in the fourfold world. For the number ten has a
certain perfection, and that multiplied by four makes forty. But from
the evening of the burial to the dawn of the resurrection are
thirty-six hours which is six squared. And this is referred to that
ratio of the single to the double wherein there is the greatest
consonance of co-adaptation. For twelve added to twenty-four suits the
ratio of single added to double and makes thirty-six: namely a whole
night with a whole day and a whole night, and this not without the
mystery which I have noticed above. For not unfitly do we liken the
spirit to the day and the body to the night. For the body of the Lord
in His death and resurrection was a figure of our spirit and a type of
our body. In this way, then, also that ratio of the single to the
double is apparent in the thirty-six hours, when twelve are added to
twenty-four. As to the reasons, indeed, why these numbers are so put
in the Holy Scriptures, other people may trace out other reasons,
either such that those which I have given are to be preferred to them,
or such as are equally probable with mine, or even more probable than
they are; but there is no one surely so foolish or so absurd as to
contend that they are so put in the Scriptures for no purpose at all,
and that there are no mystical reasons why those numbers are there
mentioned. But those reasons which I have here given, I have either
gathered from the authority of the church, according to the tradition
of our forefathers, or from the testimony of the divine Scriptures, or
from the nature itself of numbers and of similitudes. No sober person
will decide against reason, no Christian against the Scriptures, no
peaceable person against the church.
Footnotes
[487] Matt. xxvii. 23-50
[488] Mark xv. 42-46
[489] John xix. 14
[490] 2 Cor. iv. 6
[491] Eph. v. 8
[492] Gen. i. 4, 5
Chapter 7.--In What Manner We are Gathered from Many into One Through
One Mediator.
11. This mystery, this sacrifice, this priest, this God, before He was
sent and came, being made of a woman--of Him, all those things which
appeared to our fathers in a sacred and mystical way by angelical
miracles, or which were done by the fathers themselves, were
similitudes; in order that every creature by its acts might speak in
some way of that One who was to be, in whom there was to be salvation
in the recovery of all from death. For because by the wickedness of
ungodliness we had recoiled and fallen away in discord from the one
true and supreme God, and had in many things become vain, being
distracted through many things and cleaving fast to many things; it
was needful, by the decree and command of God in His mercy, that those
same many things should join in proclaiming the One that should come,
and that One should come so proclaimed by these many things, and that
these many things should join in witnessing that this One had come;
and that so, freed from the burden of these many things, we should
come to that One, and dead as we were in our souls by many sins, and
destined to die in the flesh on account of sin, that we should love
that One who, without sin, died in the flesh for us; and by believing
in Him now raised again, and by rising again with Him in the spirit
through faith, that we should be justified by being made one in the
one righteous One; and that we should not despair of our own
resurrection in the flesh itself, when we consider that the one Head
had gone before us the many members; in whom, being now cleansed
through faith, and then renewed by sight, and through Him as mediator
reconciled to God, we are to cleave to the One, to feast upon the One,
to continue one.
Chapter 8.--In What Manner Christ Wills that All Shall Be One in
Himself.
12. So the Son of God Himself, the Word of God, Himself also the
Mediator between God and men, the Son of man, [493] equal to the
Father through the unity of the Godhead, and partaker with us by the
taking upon Him of humanity, interceding for us with the Father in
that He was man, [494] yet not concealing that He was God, one with
the Father, among other things speaks thus: "Neither pray I for these
alone," He says, "but for them also which shall believe on me through
their word; that they all may be one; as Thou, Father, art in me, and
I in Thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe
that Thou hast sent me. And the glory which Thou gavest me I have
given them; that they may be one, even as we are one." [495]
Footnotes
[493] 1 Tim. ii. 5
[494] Rom. viii. 34
[495] John xvii. 20-22
Chapter 9.--The Same Argument Continued.
He did not say, I and they are one thing; [496] although, in that He
is the head of the church which is His body, [497] He might have said,
and they are, not one thing, [498] but one person, [499] because the
head and the body is one Christ; but in order to show His own Godhead
consubstantial with the Father (for which reason He says in another
place, "I and my Father are one" [500] ), in His own kind, that is, in
the consubstantial parity of the same nature, He wills His own to be
one, [501] but in Himself; since they could not be so in themselves,
separated as they are one from another by divers pleasures and desires
and uncleannesses of sin; whence they are cleansed through the
Mediator, that they may be one [502] in Him, not only through the same
nature in which all become from mortal men equal to the angels, but
also through the same will most harmoniously conspiring to the same
blessedness, and fused in some way by the fire of charity into one
spirit. For to this His words come, "That they may be one, even as we
are one;" namely, that as the Father and Son are one, not only in
equality of substance, but also in will, so those also may be one,
between whom and God the Son is mediator, not only in that they are of
the same nature, but also through the same union of love. And then He
goes on thus to intimate the truth itself, that He is the Mediator,
through whom we are reconciled to God, by saying, "I in them, and Thou
in me, that they may be made perfect in one." [503]
Footnotes
[496] Unum
[497] Eph. i. 22, 23
[498] Unum
[499] Unus
[500] John x. 30; unum.
[501] Unum
[502] Unum
[503] John xvii. 23
Chapter 10.--As Christ is the Mediator of Life, So the Devil is the
Mediator of Death.
13. Therein is our true peace and firm bond of union with our Creator,
that we should be purified and reconciled through the Mediator of
life, as we had been polluted and alienated, and so had departed from
Him, through the mediator of death. For as the devil through pride led
man through pride to death; so Christ through lowliness led back man
through obedience to life. Since, as the one fell through being lifted
up, and cast down [man] also who consented to him; so the other was
raised up through being abased, and lifted up [man] also who believed
in Him. For because the devil had not himself come thither whither he
had led the way (inasmuch as he bare indeed in his ungodliness the
death of the spirit, but had not undergone the death of the flesh,
because he had not assumed the covering of the flesh), he appeared to
man to be a mighty chief among the legions of devils, through whom he
exercises his reign of deceits; so puffing up man the more, who is
eager for power more than righteousness, through the pride of elation,
or through false philosophy; or else entangling him through
sacrilegious rites, in which, while casting down headlong by deceit
and illusion the minds of the more curious and prouder sort, he holds
him captive also to magical trickery; promising too the cleansing of
the soul, through those initiations which they call teletai, by
transforming himself into an angel of light, [504] through divers
machinations in signs and prodigies of lying.
Footnotes
[504] 2 Cor. xi. 14
Chapter 11.--Miracles Which are Done by Demons are to Be Spurned.
14. For it is easy for the most worthless spirits to do many things by
means of aerial bodies, such as to cause wonder to souls which are
weighed down by earthly bodies, even though they be of the better
inclined. For if earthly bodies themselves, when trained by a certain
skill and practice, exhibit to men so great marvels in theatrical
spectacles, that they who never saw such things scarcely believe them
when told; why should it be hard for the devil and his angels to make
out of corporeal elements, through their own aerial bodies, things at
which the flesh marvels; or even by hidden inspirations to contrive
fantastic appearances to the deluding of men's senses, whereby to
deceive them, whether awake or asleep, or to drive them into frenzy?
But just as it may happen that one who is better than they in life and
character may gaze at the most worthless of men, either walking on a
rope, or doing by various motions of the body many things difficult of
belief, and yet he may not at all desire to do such things, nor think
those men on that account to be preferred to himself; so the faithful
and pious soul, not only if it sees, but even if on account of the
frailty of the flesh it shudders at, the miracles of demons; yet will
not for that either deplore its own want of power to do such things,
or judge them on this account to be better than itself; especially
since it is in the company of the holy, who, whether they are men or
good angels, accomplish, through the power of God, to whom all things
are subject, wonders which are far greater and the very reverse of
deceptive.
Chapter 12.--The Devil the Mediator of Death, Christ of Life.
15. In no wise therefore are souls cleansed and reconciled to God by
sacrilegious imitations, or curious arts that are impious, or magical
incantations; since the false mediator does not translate them to
higher things, but rather blocks and cuts off the way thither through
the affections, malignant in proportion as they are proud, which he
inspires into those of his own company; which are not able to nourish
the wings of virtues so as to fly upwards, but rather to heap up the
weight of vices so as to press downwards; since the soul will fall
down the more heavily, the more it seems to itself to have been
carried upwards. Accordingly, as the Magi did when warned of God,
[505] whom the star led to adore the low estate of the Lord; so we
also ought to return to our country, not by the way by which we came,
but by another way which the lowly King has taught, and which the
proud king, the adversary of that lowly King, cannot block up. For to
us, too, that we may adore the lowly Christ, the "heavens have
declared the glory of God, when their sound went into all the earth,
and their words to the ends of the world." [506] A way was made for us
to death through sin in Adam. For, "By one man sin entered into the
world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all
have sinned." [507] Of this way the devil was the mediator, the
persuader to sin, and the caster down into death. For he, too, applied
his one death to work out our double death. Since he indeed died in
the spirit through ungodliness, but certainly did not die in the
flesh: yet both persuaded us to ungodliness, and thereby brought it to
pass that we deserved to come into the death of the flesh. We desired
therefore the one through wicked persuasion, the other followed us by
a just condemnation; and therefore it is written, "God made not
death," [508] since He was not Himself the cause of death; but yet
death was inflicted on the sinner, through His most just retribution.
Just as the judge inflicts punishment on the guilty; yet it is not the
justice of the judge, but the desert of the crime, which is the cause
of the punishment. Whither, then, the mediator of death caused us to
pass, yet did not come himself, that is, to the death of the flesh,
there our Lord God introduced for us the medicine of correction, which
He deserved not, by a hidden and exceeding mysterious decree of divine
and profound justice. In order, therefore, that as by one man came
death, so by one man might come also the resurrection of the dead;
[509] because men strove more to shun that which they could not shun,
viz. the death of the flesh, than the death of the spirit, i.e.
punishment more than the desert of punishment (for not to sin is a
thing about which either men are not solicitous or are too little
solicitous; but not to die, although it be not within reach of
attainment, is yet eagerly sought after); the Mediator of life, making
it plain that death is not to be feared, which by the condition of
humanity cannot now be escaped, but rather ungodliness, which can be
guarded against through faith, meets us at the end to which we have
come, but not by the way by which we came. For we, indeed, came to
death through sin; He through righteousness: and, therefore, as our
death is the punishment of sin, so His death was made a sacrifice for
sin.
Footnotes
[505] Matt. ii. 12
[506] Ps. xix. 1, 4
[507] Rom. v. 12--in quo.
[508] Wisd. i. 13
[509] 1 Cor. xv. 21, 22
Chapter 13.--The Death of Christ Voluntary. How the Mediator of Life
Subdued the Mediator of Death. How the Devil Leads His Own to Despise
the Death of Christ.
16. Wherefore, since the spirit is to be preferred to the body, and
the death of the spirit means that God has left it, but the death of
the body that the spirit has left it; and since herein lies the
punishment in the death of the body, that the spirit leaves the body
against its will, because it left God willingly; so that, whereas the
spirit left God because it would, it leaves the body although it would
not; nor leaves it when it would, unless it has offered violence to
itself, whereby the body itself is slain: the spirit of the Mediator
showed how it was through no punishment of sin that He came to the
death of the flesh, because He did not leave it against His will, but
because He willed, when He willed, as He willed. For because He is so
commingled [with the flesh] by the Word of God as to be one, He says:
"I have power to lay down my life, and I have power to take it again.
No man taketh it from me, but I lay down my life that I might take it
again." [510] And, as the Gospel tells us, they who were present were
most astonished at this, that after that [last] word, in which He set
forth the figure of our sin, He immediately gave up His spirit. For
they who are hung on the cross are commonly tortured by a prolonged
death. Whence it was that the legs of the thieves were broken, in
order that they might die directly, and be taken down from the cross
before the Sabbath. And that He was found to be dead already, caused
wonder. And it was this also, at which, as we read, Pilate marvelled,
when the body of the Lord was asked of him for burial. [511]
17. Because that deceiver then,--who was a mediator to death for man,
and feignedly puts himself forward as to life, under the name of
cleansing by sacrilegious rites and sacrifices, by which the proud are
led away,--can neither share in our death, nor rise again from his
own: he has indeed been able to apply his single death to our double
one; but he certainly has not been able to apply a single
resurrection, which should be at once a mystery of our renewal, and a
type of that waking up which is to be in the end. He then who being
alive in the spirit raised again His own flesh that was dead, the true
Mediator of life, has cast out him, who is dead in the spirit and the
mediator of death, from the spirits of those who believe in Himself,
so that he should not reign within, but should assault from without,
and yet not prevail. And to him, too, He offered Himself to be
tempted, in order that He might be also a mediator to overcome his
temptations, not only by succor, but also by example. But when the
devil, from the first, although striving through every entrance to
creep into His inward parts, was thrust out, having finished all his
alluring temptation in the wilderness after the baptism; [512]
because, being dead in the spirit, he forced no entrance into Him who
was alive in the spirit, he betook himself, through eagerness for the
death of man in any way whatsoever, to effecting that death which he
could, and was permitted to effect it upon that mortal element which
the living Mediator had received from us. And where he could do
anything, there in every respect he was conquered; and wherein he
received outwardly the power of slaying the Lord in the flesh, therein
his inward power, by which he held ourselves, was slain. For it was
brought to pass that the bonds of many sins in many deaths were
loosed, through the one death of One which no sin had preceded. Which
death, though not due, the Lord therefore rendered for us, that the
death which was due might work us no hurt. For He was not stripped of
the flesh by obligation of any authority, but He stripped Himself. For
doubtless He who was able not to die, if He would not, did die because
He would: and so He made a show of principalities and powers, openly
triumphing over them in Himself. [513] For whereas by His death the
one and most real sacrifice was offered up for us, whatever fault
there was, whence principalities and powers held us fast as of right
to pay its penalty, He cleansed, abolished, extinguished; and by His
own resurrection He also called us whom He predestinated to a new
life; and whom He called, them He justified; and whom He justified,
them He glorified. [514] And so the devil, in that very death of the
flesh, lost man, whom he was possessing as by an absolute right,
seduced as he was by his own consent, and over whom he ruled, himself
impeded by no corruption of flesh and blood, through that frailty of
man's mortal body, whence he was both too poor and too weak; he who
was proud in proportion as he was, as it were, both richer and
stronger, ruling over him who was, as it were, both clothed in rags
and full of troubles. For whither he drove the sinner to fall, himself
not following, there by following he compelled the Redeemer to
descend. And so the Son of God deigned to become our friend in the
fellowship of death, to which because he came not, the enemy thought
himself to be better and greater than ourselves. For our Redeemer
says, "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his
life for his friends." [515] Wherefore also the devil thought himself
superior to the Lord Himself, inasmuch as the Lord in His sufferings
yielded to him; for of Him, too, is understood what is read in the
Psalm, "For Thou hast made Him a little lower than the angels:" [516]
so that He, being Himself put to death, although innocent, by the
unjust one acting against us as it were by just right, might by a most
just right overcome him, and so might lead captive the captivity
wrought through sin, [517] and free us from a captivity that was just
on account of sin, by blotting out the handwriting, and redeeming us
who were to be justified although sinners, through His own righteous
blood unrighteously poured out.
18. Hence also the devil mocks those who are his own until this very
day, to whom he presents himself as a false mediator, as though they
would be cleansed or rather entangled and drowned by his rites, in
that he very easily persuades the proud to ridicule and despise the
death of Christ, from which the more he himself is estranged, the more
is he believed by them to be the holier and more divine. Yet those who
have remained with him are very few, since the nations acknowledge and
with pious humility imbibe the price paid for themselves, and in trust
upon it abandon their enemy, and gather together to their Redeemer.
For the devil does not know how the most excellent wisdom of God makes
use of both his snares and his fury to bring about the salvation of
His own faithful ones, beginning from the former end, which is the
beginning of the spiritual creature, even to the latter end, which is
the death of the body, and so "reaching from the one end to the other,
mightily and sweetly ordering all things." [518] For wisdom "passeth
and goeth through all things by reason of her pureness, and no defiled
thing can fall into her." [519] And since the devil has nothing to do
with the death of the flesh, whence comes his exceeding pride, a death
of another kind is prepared in the eternal fire of hell, by which not
only the spirits that have earthly, but also those who have aerial
bodies, can be tormented. But proud men, by whom Christ is despised,
because He died, wherein He bought us with so great a price, [520]
both bring back the former death, and also men, to that miserable
condition of nature, which is derived from the first sin, and will be
cast down into the latter death with the devil. And they on this
account preferred the devil to Christ, because the former cast them
into that former death, whither he himself fell not through the
difference of his nature, and whither on account of them Christ
descended through His great mercy: and yet they do not hesitate to
believe themselves better than the devils, and do not cease to assail
and denounce them with every sort of malediction, while they know them
at any rate to have nothing to do with the suffering of this kind of
death, on account of which they despise Christ. Neither will they take
into account that the case may possibly be, that the Word of God,
remaining in Himself, and in Himself in no way changeable, may yet,
through the taking upon Him of a lower nature, be able to suffer
somewhat of a lower kind, which the unclean spirit cannot suffer,
because he has not an earthly body. And so, whereas they themselves
are better than the devils, yet, because they bear a body of flesh,
they can so die, as the devils certainly cannot die, who do not bear
such a body. They presume much on the deaths of their own sacrifices,
which they do not perceive that they sacrifice to deceitful and proud
spirits; or if they have come to perceive it, think their friendship
to be of some good to themselves, treacherous and envious although
they are, whose purpose is bent upon nothing else except to hinder our
return.
Footnotes
[510] John x. 17, 18
[511] Mark xv. 37, 39, 43, 44, and John xix. 30-34
[512] Matt. iv. 1-11
[513] Col. ii. 15
[514] Rom. viii. 30
[515] John xv. 13
[516] Ps. viii. 5
[517] Eph. iv. 8
[518] Wisd. viii. 1
[519] Wisd. vii. 24, 25
[520] 1 Cor. vi. 20
Chapter 14.--Christ the Most Perfect Victim for Cleansing Our Faults.
In Every Sacrifice Four Things are to Be Considered.
19. They do not understand, that not even the proudest of spirits
themselves could rejoice in the honor of sacrifices, unless a true
sacrifice was due to the one true God, in whose stead they desire to
be worshipped: and that this cannot be rightly offered except by a
holy and righteous priest; nor unless that which is offered be
received from those for whom it is offered; and unless also it be
without fault, so that it may be offered for cleansing the faulty.
This at least all desire who wish sacrifice to be offered for
themselves to God. Who then is so righteous and holy a priest as the
only Son of God, who had no need to purge His own sins by sacrifice,
[521] neither original sins, nor those which are added by human life?
And what could be so fitly chosen by men to be offered for them as
human flesh? And what so fit for this immolation as mortal flesh? And
what so clean for cleansing the faults of mortal men as the flesh born
in and from the womb of a virgin, without any infection of carnal
concupiscence? And what could be so acceptably offered and taken, as
the flesh of our sacrifice, made the body of our priest? In such wise
that, whereas four things are to be considered in every sacrifice,--to
whom it is offered, by whom it is offered, what is offered, for whom
it is offered,--the same One and true Mediator Himself, reconciling us
to God by the sacrifice of peace, might remain one with Him to whom He
offered, might make those one in Himself for whom He offered, Himself
might be in one both the offerer and the offering.
Footnotes
[521] Heb. vii
Chapter 15.--They are Proud Who Think They are Able, by Their Own
Righteousness, to Be Cleansed So as to See God.
20. There are, however, some who think themselves capable of being
cleansed by their own righteousness, so as to contemplate God, and to
dwell in God; whom their very pride itself stains above all others.
For there is no sin to which the divine law is more opposed, and over
which that proudest of spirits, who is a mediator to things below, but
a barrier against things above, receives a greater right of mastery:
unless either his secret snares be avoided by going another way, or if
he rage openly by means of a sinful people (which Amalek, being
interpreted, means), and forbid by fighting the passage to the land of
promise, he be overcome by the cross of the Lord, which is prefigured
by the holding out of the hands of Moses. [522] For these persons
promise themselves cleansing by their own righteousness for this
reason, because some of them have been able to penetrate with the eye
of the mind beyond the whole creature, and to touch, though it be in
ever so small a part, the light of the unchangeable truth; a thing
which they deride many Christians for being not yet able to do, who,
in the meantime, live by faith alone. But of what use is it for the
proud man, who on that account is ashamed to embark upon the ship of
wood, [523] to behold from afar his country beyond the sea? Or how can
it hurt the humble man not to behold it from so great a distance, when
he is actually coming to it by that wood upon which the other disdains
to be borne?
Footnotes
[522] Ex. xvii. 8-16
[523] [The wood of the cross is meant. One of the ancient symbols of
the church was a ship.--W.G.T.S.]
Chapter 16.--The Old Philosophers are Not to Be Consulted Concerning
the Resurrection and Concerning Things to Come.
21. These people also blame us for believing the resurrection of the
flesh, and rather wish us to believe themselves concerning these
things. As though, because they have been able to understand the high
and unchangeable substance by the things which are made, [524] for
this reason they had a claim to be consulted concerning the
revolutions of mutable things, or concerning the connected order of
the ages. For pray, because they dispute most truly, and persuade us
by most certain proofs, that all things temporal are made after a
science that is eternal, are they therefore able to see clearly in the
matter of this science itself, or to collect from it, how many kinds
of animals there are, what are the seeds of each in their beginnings,
what measure in their increase, what numbers run through their
conceptions, births, ages, settings; what motions in desiring things
according to their nature, and in avoiding the contrary? Have they not
sought out all these things, not through that unchangeable wisdom, but
through the actual history of places and times, or have trusted the
written experience of others? Wherefore it is the less to be wondered
at, that they have utterly failed in searching out the succession of
more lengthened ages, and in finding any goal of that course, down
which, as though down a river, the human race is sailing, and the
transition thence of each to its own appropriate end. For these are
subjects which historians could not describe, inasmuch as they are far
in the future, and have been experienced and related by no one. Nor
have those philosophers, who have profiled better than others in that
high and eternal science, been able to grasp such subjects with the
understanding; otherwise they would not be inquiring as they could
into past things of the kind, such as are in the province of
historians, but rather would foreknow also things future; and those
who are able to do this are called by them soothsayers, but by us
prophets:
Footnotes
[524] Rom. i. 20
Chapter 17.--In How Many Ways Things Future are Foreknown. Neither
Philosophers, Nor Those Who Were Distinguished Among the Ancients, are
to Be Consulted Concerning the Resurrection of the Dead.
22.--although the name of prophets, too, is not altogether foreign to
their writings. But it makes the greatest possible difference, whether
things future are conjectured by experience of things past (as
physicians also have committed many things to writing in the way of
foresight, which they themselves have noted by experience; or as again
husbandmen, or sailors, too, foretell many things; for if such
predictions are made a long while before, they are thought to be
divinations), or whether such things have already started on their
road to come to us, and being seen coming far off, are announced in
proportion to the acuteness of the sense of those who see them, by
doing which the aerial powers are thought to divine (just as if a
person from the top of a mountain were to see far off some one coming,
and were to announce it beforehand to those who dwelt close by in the
plain); or whether they are either fore-announced to certain men, or
are heard by them and again transmitted to other men, by means of holy
angels, to whom God shows those things by His Word and His Wisdom,
wherein both things future and things past consist: or whether the
minds of certain men themselves are so far borne upwards by theHoly
Spirit, as to behold, not through the angels, but of themselves, the
immoveable causes of things future, in that very highest pinnacle of
the universe itself. [And I say, behold,] for the aerial powers, too,
hear these things, either by message through angels, or through men;
and hear only so much as He judges to be fitting, to whom all things
are subject. Many things, too, are foretold by a kind of instinct and
inward impulse of such as know them not: as Caiaphas did not know what
he said, but being the high priest, he prophesied. [525]
23. Therefore, neither concerning the successions of ages, nor
concerning the resurrection of the dead, ought we to consult those
philosophers, who have understood as much as they could the eternity
of the Creator, in whom "we live, and move, and have our being." [526]
Since, knowing God through those things which are made, they have not
glorified Him as God, neither were thankful but professing themselves
wise, they became fools. [527] And whereas they were not fit to fix
the eye of the mind so firmly upon the eternity of the spiritual and
unchangeable nature, as to be able to see, in the wisdom itself of the
Creator and Governor of the universe, those revolutions of the ages,
which in that wisdom were already and were always, but here were about
to be so that as yet they were not; or, again, to see therein those
changes for the better, not of the souls only, but also of the bodies
of men, even to the perfection of their proper measure; whereas then,
I say, they were in no way fit to see these things therein, they were
not even judged worthy of receiving any announcement of them by the
holy angels; whether externally through the senses of the body, or by
interior revelations exhibited in the spirit; as these things actually
were manifested to our fathers, who were gifted with true piety, and
who by foretelling them, obtaining credence either by present signs,
or by events close at hand, which turned out as they had foretold,
earned authority to be believed respecting things remotely future,
even to the end of the world. But the proud and deceitful powers of
the air, even if they are found to have said through their soothsayers
some things of the fellowship and citizenship of the saints, and of
the true Mediator, which they heard from the holy prophets or the
angels, did so with the purpose of seducing even the faithful ones of
God, if they could, by these alien truths, to revolt to their own
proper falsehoods. But God did this by those who knew not what they
said, in order that the truth might sound abroad from all sides, to
aid the faithful, to be a witness against the ungodly.
Footnotes
[525] John xi. 51
[526] Acts xvii. 28
[527] Rom. i. 21, 22
Chapter 18.--The Son of God Became Incarnate in Order that We Being
Cleansed by Faith May Be Raised to the Unchangeable Truth.
24. Since, then, we were not fit to take hold of things eternal, and
since the foulness of sins weighed us down, which we had contracted by
the love of temporal things, and which were implanted in us as it were
naturally, from the root of mortality, it was needful that we should
be cleansed. But cleansed we could not be, so as to be tempered
together with things eternal, except it were through things temporal,
wherewith we were already tempered together and held fast. For health
is at the opposite extreme from disease; but the intermediate process
of healing does not lead us to perfect health, unless it has some
congruity with the disease. Things temporal that are useless merely
deceive the sick; things temporal that are useful take up those that
need healing, and pass them on healed, to things eternal. And the
rational mind, as when cleansed it owes contemplation to things
eternal; so, when needing cleansing, owes faith to things temporal.
One even of those who were formerly esteemed wise men among the Greeks
has said, The truth stands to faith in the same relation in which
eternity stands to that which has a beginning. And he is no doubt
right in saying so. For what we call temporal, he describes as having
had a beginning. And we also ourselves come under this kind, not only
in respect to the body, but also in respect to the changeableness of
the soul. For that is not properly called eternal which undergoes any
degree of change. Therefore, in so far as we are changeable, in so far
we stand apart from eternity. But life eternal is promised to us
through the truth, from the clear knowledge of which, again, our faith
stands as far apart as mortality does from eternity. We then now put
faith in things done in time on our account, and by that faith itself
we are cleansed; in order that when we have come to sight, as truth
follows faith, so eternity may follow upon mortality. And therefore,
since our faith will become truth, when we have attained to that which
is promised to us who believe: and that which is promised us is
eternal life; and the Truth (not that which shall come to be according
as our faith shall be, but that truth which is always, because in it
is eternity,--the Truth then) has said, "And this is life eternal,
that they might know Thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom
Thou hast sent:" [528] when our faith by seeing shall come to be
truth, then eternity shall possess our now changed mortality. And
until this shall take place, and in order that it may take
place,--because we adapt the faith of belief to things which have a
beginning, as in things eternal we hope for the truth of
contemplation, lest the faith of mortal life should be at discord with
the truth of eternal life,--the Truth itself, co-eternal with the
Father, took a beginning from earth, [529] when the Son of God so came
as to become the Son of man, and to take to Himself our faith, that He
might thereby lead us on to His own truth, who so undertook our
mortality, as not to lose His own eternity. For truth stands to faith
in the relation in which eternity stands to that which has a
beginning. Therefore, we must needs so be cleansed, that we may come
to have such a beginning as remains eternal, that we may not have one
beginning in faith, and another in truth. Neither could we pass to
things eternal from the condition of having a beginning, unless we
were transferred, by union of the eternal to ourselves through our own
beginning, to His own eternity. Therefore our faith has, in some
measure, now followed thither, whither He in whom we have believed has
ascended; born, [530] dead, risen again, taken up. Of these four
things, we knew the first two in ourselves. For we know that men both
have a beginning and die. But the remaining two, that is, to be
raised, and to be taken up, we rightly hope will be in us, because we
have believed them done in Him. Since, therefore, in Him that, too,
which had a beginning has passed over to eternity, in ourselves also
it will so pass over, when faith shall have arrived at truth. For to
those who thus believe, in order that they might remain in the word of
faith, and being thence led on to the truth, and through that to
eternity, might be freed from death, He speaks thus: "If ye continue
in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed." And as though they would
ask, With what fruit? He proceeds to say, "And ye shall know the
truth." And again, as though they would say, Of what good is truth to
mortal men? "And the truth," He says, "shall make you free." [531]
From what, except from death, from corruptions, from changeableness?
Since truth remains immortal, incorrupt, unchangeable. But true
immortality, true incorruptibility, true unchangeableness, is eternity
itself.
Footnotes
[528] John xvii. 3
[529] Ps. lxxxv. 11
[530] Ortus.
[531] John viii. 31, 32
Chapter 19.--In What Manner the Son Was Sent and Proclaimed
Beforehand. How in the Sending of His Birth in the Flesh He Was Made
Less Without Detriment to His Equality with the Father.
25. Behold, then, why the Son of God was sent; nay, rather behold what
it is for the Son of God to be sent. Whatever things they were which
were wrought in time, with a view to produce faith, whereby we might
be cleansed so as to contemplate truth, in things that have a
beginning, which have been put forth from eternity, and are referred
back to eternity: these were either testimonies of this mission, or
they were the mission itself of the Son of God. But some of these
testimonies announced Him beforehand as to come, some testified that
He had come already. For that He was made a creature by whom the whole
creation was made, must needs find a witness in the whole creation.
For except one were preached by the sending of many [witnesses] one
would not be bound to, the sending away of many. And unless there were
such testimonies as should seem to be great to those who are lowly, it
would not be believed, that He being great should make men great, who
as lowly was sent to the lowly. For the heaven and the earth and all
things in them are incomparably greater works of the Son of God, since
all things were made by Him, than the signs and the portents which
broke forth in testimony of Him. But yet men, in order that, being
lowly, they might believe these great things to have been wrought by
Him, trembled at those lowly things, as if they had been great.
26. "When, therefore, the fullness of time was come, God sent forth
His Son, made of a woman, made under the Law;" [532] to such a degree
lowly, that He was "made;" in this way therefore sent, in that He was
made. If, therefore, the greater sends the less, we too, acknowledge
Him to have been made less; and in so far less, in so far as made; and
in so far made, in so far as sent. For "He sent forth His Son made of
a woman." And yet, because all things were made by Him, not only
before He was made and sent, but before all things were at all, we
confess the same to be equal to the sender, whom we call less, as
having been sent. In what way, then, could He be seen by the fathers,
when certain angelical visions were shown to them, before that
fullness of time at which it was fitting He should be sent, and so
before He was sent, at a time when not yet sent He was seen as He is
equal with the Father? For how does He say to Philip, by whom He was
certainly seen as by all the rest, and even by those by whom He was
crucified in the flesh, "Have I been so long time with you, and yet
hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me, hath seen the
Father also;" unless because He was both seen and yet not seen? He was
seen, as He had been made in being sent; He was not seen, as by Him
all things were made. Or how does He say this too, "He that hath my
commandments and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me; and he that
loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will
manifest myself to him," [533] at a time when He was manifest before
the eyes of men; unless because He was offering that flesh, which the
Word was made in the fullness of time, to be accepted by our faith;
but was keeping back the Word itself, by whom all things were made, to
be contemplated in eternity by the mind when cleansed by faith?
Footnotes
[532] Gal. iv. 4
[533] John xiv. 9, 21
Chapter 20.--The Sender and the Sent Equal. Why the Son is Said to Be
Sent by the Father. Of the Mission of the Holy Spirit. How and by Whom
He Was Sent. The Father the Beginning of the Whole Godhead.
27. But if the Son is said to be sent by the Father on this account,
that the one is the Father, and the other the Son, this does not in
any manner hinder us from believing the Son to be equal, and
consubstantial, and co-eternal with the Father, and yet to have been
sent as Son by the Father. Not because the one is greater, the other
less; but because the one is Father, the other Son; the one begetter,
the other begotten; the one, He from whom He is who is sent; the
other, He who is from Him who sends. For the Son is from the Father,
not the Father from the Son. And according to this manner we can now
understand that the Son is not only said to have been sent because
"the Word was made flesh," [534] but therefore sent that the Word
might be made flesh, and that He might perform through His bodily
presence those things which were written; that is, that not only is He
understood to have been sent as man, which the Word was made but the
Word, too, was sent that it might be made man; because He was not sent
in respect to any inequality of power, or substance, or anything that
in Him was not equal to the Father; but in respect to this, that the
Son is from the Father, not the Father from the Son; for the Son is
the Word of the Father, which is also called His wisdom. What wonder,
therefore, if He is sent, not because He is unequal with the Father,
but because He is "a pure emanation (manatio) issuing from the glory
of the Almighty God?" For there, that which issues, and that from
which it issues, is of one and the same substance. For it does not
issue as water issues from an aperture of earth or of stone, but as
light issues from light. For the words, "For she is the brightness of
the everlasting light," what else are they than, she is light of
everlasting light? For what is the brightness of light, except light
itself? and so co-eternal, with the light, from which the light is.
But it is preferable to say, "the brightness of light," rather than"
the light of light;" lest that which issues should be thought to be
darker than that from which it issues. For when one hears of the
brightness of light as being light itself, it is more easy to believe
that the former shines by means of the latter, than that the latter
shines less. But because there was no need of warning men not to think
that light to be less, which begat the other (for no heretic ever
dared say this, neither is it to be believed that any one will dare to
do so), Scripture meets that other thought, whereby that light which
issues might seem darker than that from which it issues; and it has
removed this surmise by saying, "It is the brightness of that light,"
namely, of eternal light, and so shows it to be equal. For if it were
less, then it would be its darkness, not its brightness; but if it
were greater, then it could not issue from it, for it could not
surpass that from which it is educed. Therefore, because it issues
from it, it is not greater than it is; and because it is not its
darkness, but its brightness, it is not less than it is: therefore it
is equal. Nor ought this to trouble us, that it is called a pure
emanation issuing from the glory of the Almighty God, as if itself
were not omnipotent, but an emanation from the Omnipotent; for soon
after it is said of it, "And being but one, she can do all things."
[535] But who is omnipotent, unless He who can do all things? It is
sent, therefore, by Him from whom it issues; for so she is sought
after by him who loved and desired her. "Send her," he says, "out of
Thy holy heavens, and from the throne of Thy glory, that, being
present, she may labor with me;" [536] that is, may teach me to labor
[heartily] in order that I may not labor [irksomely]. For her labors
are virtues. But she is sent in one way that she may be with man; she
has been sent in another way that she herself may be man. For,
"entering into holy souls, she maketh them friends of God and
prophets;" [537] so she also fills the holy angels, and works all
things fitting for such ministries by them. [538] But when the
fullness of time was come, she was sent, [539] not to fill angels, nor
to be an angel, except in so far as she announced the counsel of the
Father, which was her own also; nor, again, to be with men or in men,
for this too took place before, both in the fathers and in the
prophets; but that the Word itself should be made flesh, that is,
should be made man. In which future mystery, when revealed, was to be
the salvation of those wise and holy men also, who, before He was born
of the Virgin, were born of women; and in which, when done and made
known, is the salvation of all who believe, and hope, and love. For
this is "the great mystery of godliness, which [540] was manifest in
the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the
Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory." [541]
28. Therefore the Word of God is sent by Him, of whom He is the Word;
He is sent by Him, from whom He was begotten (genitum); He sends who
begot, That is sent which is begotten. And He is then sent to each
one, when He is apprehended and perceived by each, in so far as He can
be apprehended and perceived, in proportion to the comprehension of
the rational soul, either advancing towards God, or already perfect in
God. The Son, therefore, is not properly said to have been sent in
that He is begotten of the Father; but either in that the Word made
flesh appeared to the world, whence He says, "I came forth from the
Father, and am come into the world;" [542] or in that from time to
time, He is perceived by the mind of each, according to the saying,
"Send her, that, being present with me, she may labor with me." [543]
What then is born (natum) from eternity is eternal, "for it is the
brightness of the everlasting light;" but what is sent from time to
time, is that which is apprehended by each. But when the Son of God
was made manifest in the flesh, He was sent into this world in the
fullness of time, made of a woman. "For after that, in the wisdom of
God, the world by wisdom knew not God" (since "the light shineth in
darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not"), it "pleased God by
the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe," [544] and
that the Word should be made flesh, and dwell among us. [545] But when
from time to time He comes forth and is perceived by the mind of each,
He is said indeed to be sent, but not into this world; for He does not
appear sensibly, that is, He does not present Himself to the corporeal
senses. For we ourselves, too, are not in this world, in respect to
our grasping with the mind as far as we can that which is eternal; and
the spirits of all the righteous are not in this world, even of those
who are still living in the flesh, in so far as they have discernment
in things divine. But the Father is not said to be sent, when from
time to time He is apprehended by any one, for He has no one of whom
to be, or from whom to proceed; since Wisdom says, "I came out of the
mouth of the Most High," [546] and it is said of the Holy Spirit, "He
proceedeth from the Father," [547] but the Father is from no one.
29. As, therefore, the Father begat, the Son is begotten; so the
Father sent, the Son was sent. But in like manner as He who begat and
He who was begotten, so both He who sent and He who was sent, are one,
since the Father and the Son are one. [548] So also the Holy Spirit is
one with them, since these three are one. For as to be born, in
respect to the Son, means to be from the Father; so to be sent, in
respect to the Son, means to be known to be from the Father. And as to
be the gift of God in respect to the Holy Spirit, means to proceed
from the Father; so to be sent, is to be known to proceed from the
Father. Neither can we say that the Holy Spirit does not also proceed
from the Son, for the same Spirit is not without reason said to be the
Spirit both of the Father and of the Son. [549] Nor do I see what else
He intended to signify, when He breathed on the face of the disciples,
and said, "Receive ye the Holy Ghost." [550] For that bodily
breathing, proceeding from the body with the feeling of bodily
touching, was not the substance of the Holy Spirit, but a declaration
by a fitting sign, that the Holy Spirit proceeds not only from the
Father, but also from the Son. For the veriest of madmen would not
say, that it was one Spirit which He gave when He breathed on them,
and another which He sent after His ascension. [551] For the Spirit of
God is one, the Spirit of the Father and of the Son, the Holy Spirit,
who worketh all in all. [552] But that He was given twice was
certainly a significant economy, which we will discuss in its place,
as far as the Lord may grant. That then which the Lord says,--"Whom I
will send unto you from the Father," [553] --shows the Spirit to be
both of the Father and of the Son; because, also, when He had said,
"Whom the Father will send," He added also, "in my name." [554] Yet He
did not say, Whom the Father will send from me, as He said, "Whom I
will send unto you from the Father,"--showing, namely, that the Father
is the beginning (principium) of the whole divinity, or if it is
better so expressed, deity. [555] He, therefore, who proceeds from the
Father and from the Son, is referred back to Him from whom the Son was
born (natus). And that which the evangelist says, "For the Holy Ghost
was not yet given, because that Jesus was not yet glorified;" [556]
how is this to be understood, unless because the special giving or
sending of the Holy Spirit after the glorification of Christ was to be
such as it had never been before? For it was not previously none at
all, but it had not been such as this. For if the Holy Spirit was not
given before, wherewith were the prophets who spoke filled? Whereas
the Scripture plainly says, and shows in many places, that they spake
by the Holy Spirit. Whereas, also, it is said of John the Baptist,
"And he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's
womb." And his father Zacharias is found to have been filled with the
Holy Ghost, so as to say such things of him. And Mary, too, was filled
with the Holy Ghost, so as to foretell such things of the Lord, whom
she was bearing in her womb. [557] And Simeon and Anna were filled
with the Holy Spirit, so as to acknowledge the greatness of the little
child Christ. [558] How, then, was "the Spirit not yet given, since
Jesus was not yet glorified," unless because that giving, or granting,
or mission of the Holy Spirit was to have a certain speciality of its
own in its very advent, such as never was before? For we read nowhere
that men spoke in tongues which they did not know, through the Holy
Spirit coming upon them; as happened then, when it was needful that
His coming should be made plain by visible signs, in order to show
that the whole world, and all nations constituted with different
tongues, should believe in Christ through the gift of the Holy Spirit,
to fulfill that which is sung in the Psalm, "There is no speech nor
language where their voice is not heard; their sound is gone out
through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world." [559]
30. Therefore man was united, and in some sense commingled, with the
Word of God, so as to be One Person, when the fullness of time was
come, and the Son of God, made of a woman, was sent into this world,
that He might be also the Son of man for the sake of the sons of men.
And this person angelic nature could prefigure beforehand, so as to
pre-announce, but could not appropriate, so as to be that person
itself.
Footnotes
[534] John i. 3, 18, 14
[535] Wisd. vii. 25-27
[536] Wisd. ix. 10
[537] Wisd. vii. 27
[538] [The allusion is to the Wisdom of Proverbs, and of the Book of
Wisdom which Augustin regards as canonical, as his frequent citations
show.--W.G.T.S.]
[539] Gal. iv. 4
[540] Quod, scil. sacramentum
[541] 1 Tim. iii. 16
[542] John xvi. 28
[543] Wisd. ix. 10
[544] 1 Cor. i. 21
[545] John i. 5, 14
[546] Ecclus. xxiv. 3
[547] John xv. 26
[548] John x. 30
[549] [Augustin here, as in previous instances, affirms the procession
of the Spirit from the Father and Son.--W.G.T.S.]
[550] John xx. 22
[551] Acts ii. 1-4
[552] 1 Cor. xii. 6
[553] John xv. 26
[554] John xiv. 26
[555] [The term "beginning" is employed "relatively, and not according
to substance," as Augustin says. The Father is "the beginning of the
whole deity," with reference to the personal distinctions of Father,
Son, and Spirit--the Son being from the Father, and the Spirit from
Father and Son. The trinitarian relations or modes of the essence,
"begin" with the first person, not the second or the third. The phrase
"whole deity," in the above statement, is put for "trinity," not for
"essence." Augustin would not say that the Father is the "beginning"
(principium) of the divine essence considered abstractly, but only of
the essence as trinal. In this sense, Trinitarian writers denominate
the Father "fons trinitatis," and sometimes "fons deitatis." Turrettin
employs this latter phraseology (iii. xxx. i. 8); so does Owen
(Communion with Trinity, Ch. iii.); and Hooker (Polity, v. liv.). But
in this case, the guarding clause of Turretin is to be subjoined:
"fons deitatis, si modus subsistendi spectatur." The phrase "fons
trinitatis," or "principium trinitatis," is less liable to be
misconceived, and more accurate than "fons deitatis," or "principum
deitatis."--W.G.T.S.]
[556] John vii. 39
[557] Luke i. 15, 41-79
[558] Luke ii. 25-38
[559] Ps. xix. 3, 4
Chapter 21.--Of the Sensible Showing of the Holy Spirit, and of the
Coeternity of the Trinity. What Has Been Said, and What Remains to Be
Said.
But with respect to the sensible showing of the Holy Spirit, whether
by the shape of a dove, [560] or by fiery tongues, [561] when the
subjected and subservient creature by temporal motions and forms
manifested His substance co-eternal with the Father and the Son, and
alike with them unchangeable, while it was not united so as to be one
person with Him, as the flesh was which the Word was made; [562] I do
not dare to say that nothing of the kind was done aforetime. But I
would boldly say, that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, of one and
the same substance, God the Creator, the Omnipotent Trinity, work
indivisibly; but that this cannot be indivisibly manifested by the
creature, which is far inferior, and least of all by the bodily
creature: just as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit cannot be named by
our words, which certainly are bodily sounds, except in their own
proper intervals of time, divided by a distinct separation, which
intervals the proper syllables of each word occupy. Since in their
proper substance wherein they are, the three are one, the Father, and
the Son, and the Holy Spirit, the very same, by no temporal motion,
above the whole creature, without any interval of time and place, and
at once one and the same from eternity to eternity, as it were
eternity itself, which is not without truth and charity. But, in my
words, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are separated, and cannot be
named at once, and occupy their own proper places separately invisible
letters. And as, when I name my memory, and intellect, and will, each
name refers to each severally, but yet each is uttered by all three;
for there is no one of these three names that is not uttered by both
my memory and my intellect and my will together [by the soul as a
whole]; so the Trinity together wrought both the voice of the Father,
and the flesh of the Son, and the dove of the Holy Spirit, while each
of these things is referred severally to each person. And by this
similitude it is in some degree discernible, that the Trinity, which
is inseparable in itself, is manifested separably by the appearance of
the visible creature; and that the operation of the Trinity is also
inseparable in each severally of those things which are said to
pertain properly to the manifesting of either the Father, or the Son,
or the Holy Spirit.
31. If then I am asked, in what manner either words or sensible forms
and appearances were wrought before the incarnation of the Word of
God, which should prefigure it as about to come, I reply that God
wrought those things by the angels; and this I have also shown
sufficiently, as I think, by testimonies of the Holy Scriptures. And
if I am asked how the incarnation itself was brought to pass, I reply
that the Word of God itself was made flesh, that is, was made man, yet
not turned and changed into that which was made; but so made, that
there should be there not only the Word of God and the flesh of man,
but also the rational soul of man, and that this whole should both be
called God on account of God, and man on account of man. And if this
is understood with difficulty, the mind must be purged by faith, by
more and more abstaining from sins, and by doing good works, and by
praying with the groaning of holy desires; that by profiting through
the divine help, it may both understand and love. And if I am asked,
how, after the incarnation of the Word, either a voice of the Father
was produced, or a corporeal appearance by which the Holy Spirit was
manifested: I do not doubt indeed that this was done through the
creature; but whether only corporeal and sensible, or whether by the
employment also of the spirit rational or intellectual (for this is
the term by which some choose to call what the Greeks name noeron),
not certainly so as to form one person (for who could possibly say
that whatever creature it was by which the voice of the Father
sounded, is in such sense God the Father; or whatever creature it was
by which the Holy Spirit was manifested in the form of a dove, or in
fiery tongues, is in such sense the Holy Spirit, as the Son of God is
that man who was made of a virgin?), but only to the ministry of
bringing about such intimations as God judged needful; or whether
anything else is to be understood: is difficult to discover, and not
expedient rashly to affirm. Yet I see not how those things could have
been brought to pass without the rational or intellectual creature.
But it is not yet the proper place to explain, as the Lord may give me
strength, why I so think; for the arguments of heretics must first be
discussed and refuted, which they do not produce from the divine
books, but from their own reasons, and by which, as they think, they
forcibly compel us so to understand the testimonies of the Scriptures
which treat of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, as they
themselves will.
32. But now, as I think, it has been sufficiently shown, that the Son
is not therefore less because He is sent by the Father, nor the Holy
Spirit less because both the Father sent Him and the Son. For these
things are perceived to be laid down in the Scriptures, either on
account of the visible creature; or rather on account of commending to
our thoughts the emanation [within the Godhead]; [563] but not on
account of inequality, or imparity, or unlikeness of substance; since,
even if God the Father had willed to appear visibly through the
subject creature, yet it would be most absurd to say that He was sent
either by the Son, whom He begot, or by the Holy Spirit, who proceeds
from Him. Let this, therefore, be the limit of the present book.
Henceforth in the rest we shall see, the Lord helping, of what sort
are those crafty arguments of the heretics, and in what manner they
may be confuted.
Footnotes
[560] Matt. iii. 16
[561] Acts ii. 3
[562] John i. 14
[563] [The original is: "propter principii commendationem," which the
English translator renders "On account of commending to our thoughts
the principle [of the Godhead]." The technical use of "principium" is
missed. Augustin says that the phrases, "sending the Son," and
"sending the Spirit," have reference to the "visible creature" through
which in the theophanies each was manifested; but still more, to the
fact that the Father is the "beginning" of the Son, and the Father and
Son are the "beginning" of the Spirit. This fact of a "beginning," or
emanation (manatio) of one from another, is what is commended to our
thoughts.--W.G.T.S.]
.
Book V.
Proceeds to treat of the arguments put forward by the heretics, not
from Scripture, but from their own reason. Those are refuted, who
think the substance of the Father and of the Son to be not the same,
because everything predicated of God is, in their opinion, predicated
of Him according to substance; and therefore it follows, that to beget
and to be begotten, or to be begotten and unbegotten, being diverse,
are diverse substances; whereas it is here demonstrated that not
everything predicated of God is predicated according to substance, in
such manner as He is called good and great according to substance, or
anything else that is predicated of Him in respect to Himself; but
that some things are also predicated of Him relatively, i.e. not in
respect to Himself, but to something not Himself, as He is called
Father in respect to the Son, and Lord in respect to the creature that
serveth Him; in which case, if anything thus predicated relatively,
i.e. in respect to something not Himself, is even predicated as
happening in time, as e.g. "Lord, thou hast become our refuge," yet
nothing happens to God so as to work a change in Him, but He Himself
remains absolutely unchangeable in His own nature or essence.
Chapter 1.--What the Author Entreats from God, What from the Reader.
In God Nothing is to Be Thought Corporeal or Changeable.
1. Beginning, as I now do henceforward, to speak of subjects which
cannot altogether be spoken as they are thought, either by any man,
or, at any rate, not by myself; although even our very thought, when
we think of God the Trinity, falls (as we feel) very far short of Him
of whom we think, nor comprehends Him as He is; but He is seen, as it
is written, even by those who are so great as was the Apostle Paul,
"through a glass and in an enigma:" [564] first, I pray to our Lord
God Himself, of whom we ought always to think, and of whom we are not
able to think worthily, in praise of whom blessing is at all times to
be rendered, [565] and whom no speech is sufficient to declare, that
He will grant me both help for understanding and explaining that which
I design, and pardon if in anything I offend. For I bear in mind, not
only my desire, but also my infirmity. I ask also of my readers to
pardon me, where they may perceive me to have had the desire rather
than the power to speak, what they either understand better
themselves, or fail to understand through the obscurity of my
language, just as I myself pardon them what they cannot understand
through their own dullness.
2. And we shall mutually pardon one another the more easily, if we
know, or at any rate firmly believe and hold, that whatever is said of
a nature, unchangeable, invisible and having life absolutely and
sufficient to itself, must not be measured after the custom of things
visible, and changeable, and mortal, or not self-sufficient. But
although we labor, and yet fail, to grasp and know even those things
which are within the scope of our corporeal senses, or what we are
ourselves in the inner man; yet it is with no shamelessness that
faithful piety burns after those divine and unspeakable things which
are above: piety, I say, not inflated by the arrogance of its own
power, but inflamed by the grace of its Creator and Saviour Himself.
For with what understanding can man apprehend God, who does not yet
apprehend that very understanding itself of his own, by which he
desires to apprehend Him? And if he does already apprehend this, let
him carefully consider that there is nothing in his own nature better
than it; and let him see whether he can there see any outlines of
forms, or brightness of colors, or greatness of space, or distance of
parts, or extension of size, or any movements through intervals of
place, or any such thing at all. Certainly we find nothing of all this
in that, than which we find nothing better in our own nature, that is,
in our own intellect, by which we apprehend wisdom according to our
capacity. What, therefore, we do not find in that which is our own
best, we ought not to seek in Him who is far better than that best of
ours; that so we may understand God, if we are able, and as much as we
are able, as good without quality, great without quantity, a creator
though He lack nothing, ruling but from no position, sustaining all
things without "having" them, in His wholeness everywhere, yet without
place, eternal without time, making things that are changeable,
without change of Himself, and without passion. Whoso thus thinks of
God, although he cannot yet find out in all ways what He is, yet
piously takes heed, as much as he is able, to think nothing of Him
that He is not.
Footnotes
[564] 1 Cor. xiii. 12
[565] Ps. xxxiv. 1
Chapter 2.--God the Only Unchangeable Essence.
3. He is, however, without doubt, a substance, or, if it be better so
to call it, an essence, which the Greeks call ousia. For as wisdom is
so called from the being wise, and knowledge from knowing; so from
being [566] comes that which we call essence. And who is there that
is, more than He who said to His servant Moses, "I am that I am;" and,
"Thus shall thou say unto the children of Israel, He who is hath sent
me unto you?" [567] But other things that are called essences or
substances admit of accidents, whereby a change, whether great or
small, is produced in them. But there can be no accident of this kind
in respect to God; and therefore He who is God is the only
unchangeable substance or essence, to whom certainly being itself,
whence comes the name of essence, most especially and most truly
belongs. For that which is changed does not retain its own being; and
that which can be changed, although it be not actually changed, is
able not to be that which it had been; and hence that which not only
is not changed, but also cannot at all be changed, alone falls most
truly, without difficulty or hesitation, under the category of being.
Footnotes
[566] Esse
[567] Ex. iii. 14
Chapter 3.--The Argument of the Arians is Refuted, Which is Drawn from
the Words Begotten and Unbegotten.
4. Wherefore,--to being now to answer the adversaries of our faith,
respecting those things also, which are neither said as they are
thought, nor thought as they really are:--among the many things which
the Arians are wont to dispute against the Catholic faith, they seem
chiefly to set forth this, as their most crafty device, namely, that
whatsoever is said or understood of God, is said not according to
accident, but according to substance, and therefore, to be unbegotten
belongs to the Father according to substance, and to be begotten
belongs to the Son according to substance; but to be unbegotten and to
be begotten are different; therefore the substance of the Father and
that of the Son are different. To whom we reply, If whatever is spoken
of God is spoken according to substance, then that which is said, "I
and the Father are one," [568] is spoken according to substance.
Therefore there is one substance of the Father and the Son. Or if this
is not said according to substance, then something is said of God not
according to substance, and therefore we are no longer compelled to
understand unbegotten and begotten according to substance. It is also
said of the Son, "He thought it not robbery to be equal with God."
[569] We ask, equal according to what? For if He is not said to be
equal according to substance, then they admit that something may be
said of God not according to substance. Let them admit, then, that
unbegotten and begotten are not spoken according to substance. And if
they do not admit this, on the ground that they will have all things
to be spoken of God according to substance, then the Son is equal to
the Father according to substance.
Footnotes
[568] John x. 30
[569] Phil. ii. 6
Chapter 4.--The Accidental Always Implies Some Change in the Thing.
5. That which is accidental commonly implies that it can be lost by
some change of the thing to which it is an accident. For although some
accidents are said to be inseparable, which in Greek are called
achorista, as the color black is to the feather of a raven; yet the
feather loses that color, not indeed so long as it is a feather, but
because the feather is not always. Wherefore the matter itself is
changeable; and whenever that animal or that feather ceases to be, and
the whole of that body is changed and turned into earth, it loses
certainly that color also. Although the kind of accident which is
called separable may likewise be lost, not by separation, but by
change; as, for instance, blackness is called a separable accident to
the hair of men, because hair continuing to be hair can grow white;
yet, if carefully considered, it is sufficiently apparent, that it is
not as if anything departed by separation away from the head when it
grows white, as though blackness departed thence and went somewhere
and whiteness came in its place, but that the quality of color there
is turned and changed. Therefore there is nothing accidental in God,
because there is nothing changeable or that may be lost. But if you
choose to call that also accidental, which, although it may not be
lost, yet can be decreased or increased,--as, for instance, the life
of the soul: for as long as it is a soul, so long it lives, and
because the soul is always, it always lives; but because it lives more
when it is wise, and less when it is foolish, here, too, some change
comes to pass, not such that life is absent, as wisdom is absent to
the foolish, but such that it is less;--nothing of this kind, either,
happens to God, because He remains altogether unchangeable.
Chapter 5.--Nothing is Spoken of God According to Accident, But
According to Substance or According to Relation.
6. Wherefore nothing in Him is said in respect to accident, since
nothing is accidental to Him, and yet all that is said is not said
according to substance. For in created and changeable things, that
which is not said according to substance, must, by necessary
alternative, be said according to accident. For all things are
accidents to them, which can be either lost or diminished, whether
magnitudes or qualities; and so also is that which is said in relation
to something, as friendships, relationships, services, likenesses,
equalities, and anything else of the kind; so also positions and
conditions, [570] places and times, acts and passions. But in God
nothing is said to be according to accident, because in Him nothing is
changeable; and yet everything that is said, is not said, according to
substance. For it is said in relation to something, as the Father in
relation to the Son and the Son in relation to the Father, which is
not accident; because both the one is always Father, and the other is
always Son: yet not "always," meaning from the time when the Son was
born [natus], so that the Father ceases not to be the Father because
the Son never ceases to be the Son, but because the Son was always
born, and never began to be the Son. But if He had begun to be at any
time, or were at any time to cease to be, the Son, then He would be
called Son according to accident. But if the Father, in that He is
called the Father, were so called in relation to Himself, not to the
Son; and the Son, in that He is called the Son, were so called in
relation to Himself, not to the Father; then both the one would be
called Father, and the other Son, according to substance. But because
the Father is not called the Father except in that He has a Son, and
the Son is not called Son except in that He has a Father, these things
are not said according to substance; because each of them is not so
called in relation to Himself, but the terms are used reciprocally and
in relation each to the other; nor yet according to accident, because
both the being called the Father, and the being called the Son, is
eternal and unchangeable to them. Wherefore, although to be the Father
and to be the Son is different, yet their substance is not different;
because they are so called, not according to substance, but according
to relation, which relation, however, is not accident, because it is
not changeable.
Footnotes
[570] Habitus
Chapter 6.--Reply is Made to the Cavils of the Heretics in Respect to
the Same Words Begotten and Unbegotten.
7. But if they think they can answer this reasoning thus,--that the
Father indeed is so called in relation to the Son, and the Son in
relation to the Father, but that they are said to be unbegotten and
begotten in relation to themselves, not in relation each to the other;
for that it is not the same thing to call Him unbegotten as it is to
call Him the Father, because there would be nothing to hinder our
calling Him unbegotten even if He had not begotten the Son; and if any
one beget a son, he is not therefore himself unbegotten, for men, who
are begotten by other men, themselves also beget others; and therefore
they say the Father is called Father in relation to the Son, and the
Son is called Son in relation to the Father, but unbegotten is said in
relation to Himself, and begotten in relation to Himself; and
therefore, if whatever is said in relation to oneself is said
according to substance, while to be unbegotten and to be begotten are
different, then the substance is different:--if this is what they say,
then they do not understand that they do indeed say something that
requires more careful discussion in respect to the term unbegotten,
because neither is any one therefore a father because unbegotten, nor
therefore unbegotten because he is a father, and on that account he is
supposed to be called unbegotten, not in relation to anything else,
but in respect to himself; but, on the other hand, with a wonderful
blindness, they do not perceive that no one can be said to be begotten
except in relation to something. For he is therefore a son because
begotten; and because a son, therefore certainly begotten. And as is
the relation of son to father, so is the relation of the begotten to
the begetter; and as is the relation of father to son, so is the
relation of the begetter to the begotten. And therefore any one is
understood to be a begetter under one notion, but understood to be
unbegotten under another. For though both are said of God the Father,
yet the former is said in relation to the begotten, that is to the
Son, which, indeed, they do not deny; but that He is called
unbegotten, they declare to be said in respect to Himself. They say
then, If anything is said to be a father in respect to itself, which
cannot be said to be a son in respect to itself, and whatever is said
in respect to self is said according to substance; and He is said to
be unbegotten in respect to Himself, which the Son cannot be said to
be; therefore He is said to be unbegotten according to substance; and
because the Son cannot be so said to be, therefore He is not of the
same substance. This subtlety is to be answered by compelling them to
say themselves according to what it is that the Son is equal to the
Father; whether according to that which is said in relation to
Himself, or according to that which is said in relation to the Father.
For it is not according to that which is said in relation to the
Father, since in relation to the Father He is said to be Son, and the
Father is not Son, but Father. Since Father and Son are not so called
in relation to each other in the same way as friends and neighbors
are; for a friend is so called relatively to his friend, and if they
love each other equally, then the same friendship is in both; and a
neighbor is so called relatively to a neighbor, and because they are
equally neighbors to each other (for each is neighbor to the other, in
the same degree as the other is neighbor to him), there is the same
neighborhood in both. But because the Son is not so called relatively
to the Son, but to the Father, it is not according to that which is
said in relation to the Father that the Son is equal to the Father;
and it remains that He is equal according to that which is said in
relation to Himself. But whatever is said in relation to self is said
according to substance: it remains therefore that He is equal
according to substance; therefore the substance of both is the same.
But when the Father is said to be unbegotten, it is not said what He
is, but what He is not; and when a relative term is denied, it is not
denied according to substance, since the relative itself is not
affirmed according to substance.
Chapter 7.--The Addition of a Negative Does Not Change the
Predicament.
8. This is to be made clear by examples. And first we must notice,
that by the word begotten is signified the same thing as is signified
by the word son. For therefore a son, because begotten, and because a
son, therefore certainly begotten. By the word unbegotten, therefore,
it is declared that he is not son. But begotten and unbegotten are
both of them terms suitably employed; whereas in Latin we can use the
word "filius," but the custom of the language does not allow us to
speak of "infilius." It makes no difference, however, in the meaning
if he is called "non filius;" just as it is precisely the same thing
if he is called "non genitus," instead of "ingenitus." For so the
terms of both neighbor and friend are used relatively, yet we cannot
speak of "invicinus" as we can of "inimicus." Wherefore, in speaking
of this thing or that, we must not consider what the usage of our own
language either allows or does not allow, but what clearly appears to
be the meaning of the things themselves. Let us not therefore any
longer call it unbegotten, although it can be so called in Latin; but
instead of this let us call it not begotten, which means the same. Is
this then anything else than saying that he is not a son? Now the
prefixing of that negative particle does not make that to be said
according to substance, which, without it, is said relatively; but
that only is denied, which, without it, was affirmed, as in the other
predicaments. When we say he is a man, we denote substance. He
therefore who says he is not a man, enunciates no other kind of
predicament, but only denies that. As therefore I affirm according to
substance in saying he is a man, so I deny according to substance in
saying he is not a man. And when the question is asked how large he
is? and I say he is quadrupedal, that is, four feet in measure, I
affirm according to quantity, and he who says he is not quadrupedal,
denies according to quantity. I say he is white, I affirm according to
quality; if I say he is not white, I deny according to quality. I say
he is near, I affirm according to relation; if I say he is not near, I
deny according to relation. I affirm according to position, when I say
he lies down; I deny according to position, when I say he does not lie
down. I speak according to condition, [571] when I say he is armed; I
deny according to condition, when I say he is not armed; and it comes
to the same thing as if I should say he is unarmed. I affirm according
to time, when I say he is of yesterday; I deny according to time, when
I say he is not of yesterday. And when I say he is at Rome, I affirm
according to place; and I deny according to place, when I say he is
not at Rome. I affirm according to the predicament of action, when I
say he smites; but if I say he does not smite, I deny according to
action, so as to declare that he does not so act. And when I say he is
smitten, I affirm according to the predicament of passion; and I deny
according to the same, when I say he is not smitten. And, in a word,
there is no kind of predicament according to which we may please to
affirm anything, without being proved to deny according to the same
predicament, if we prefix the negative particle. And since this is so,
if I were to affirm according to substance, in saying son, I should
deny according to substance, in saying not son. But because I affirm
relatively when I say he is a son, for I refer to the father;
therefore I deny relatively if I say he is not a son, for I refer the
same negation to the father, in that I wish to declare that he has not
a parent. But if to be called son is precisely equivalent to the being
called begotten (as we said before), then to be called not begotten is
precisely equivalent to the being called not son. But we deny
relatively when we say he is not son, therefore we deny relatively
when we say he is not begotten. Further, what is unbegotten, unless
not begotten? We do not escape, therefore, from the relative
predicament, when he is called unbegotten. For as begotten is not said
in relation to self, but in that he is of a begetter; so when one is
called unbegotten, he is not so called in relation to himself, but it
is declared that he is not of a begetter. Both meanings, however, turn
upon the same predicament, which is called that of relation. But that
which is asserted relatively does not denote substance, and
accordingly, although begotten and unbegotten are diverse, they do not
denote a different substance; because, as son is referred to father,
and not son to not father, so it follows inevitably that begotten must
be referred to begetter, and not-begotten to not-begetter. [572]
Footnotes
[571] Habitus
[572] The terms "unbegotten" and "begotten" are interchangeable with
the terms Father and Son. This follows from the relation of a
substantive to its adjective. In whatever sense a substantive is
employed, in the same sense must the adjective formed from it be
employed. Consequently, if the first person of the Trinity may be
called Father in a sense that implies deity, he may be called
Unbegotten in the same sense. And if the second person may be called
Son in a sense implying deity, he may be called Begotten in the same
sense. The Ancient church often employed the adjective, and spoke of
God the Unbegotten and God the Begotten (Justin Martyr, Apol. i. 25,
53; ii. 12, 13. Clem. Alex. Stromata v. xii.). This phraseology sounds
strange to the Modern church, yet the latter really says the same
thing when it speaks of God the Father, and God the Son.--W.G.T.S.]
Chapter 8.--Whatever is Spoken of God According to Substance, is
Spoken of Each Person Severally, and Together of the Trinity Itself.
One Essence in God, and Three, in Greek, Hypostases, in Latin,
Persons.
9. Wherefore let us hold this above all, that whatsoever is said of
that most eminent and divine loftiness in respect to itself, is said
in respect to substance, but that which is said in relation to
anything, is not said in respect to substance, but relatively; and
that the effect of the same substance in Father and Son and Holy
Spirit is, that whatsoever is said of each in respect to themselves,
is to be taken of them, not in the plural in sum, but in the singular.
For as the Father is God, and the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is
God, which no one doubts to be said in respect to substance, yet we do
not say that the very Supreme Trinity itself is three Gods, but one
God. So the Father is great, the Son great, and the Holy Spirit great;
yet not three greats, but one great. For it is not written of the
Father alone, as they perversely suppose, but of the Father and the
Son and the Holy Spirit, "Thou art great: Thou art God alone." [573]
And the Father is good, the Son good, and the Holy Spirit good; yet
not three goods, but one good, of whom it is said, "None is good, save
one, that is, God." For the Lord Jesus, lest He should be understood
as man only by him who said, "Good Master," as addressing a man, does
not therefore say, There is none good, save the Father alone; but,
"None is good, save one, that is, God." [574] For the Father by
Himself is declared by the name of Father; but by the name of God,
both Himself and the Son and the Holy Spirit, because the Trinity is
one God. But position, and condition, and places, and times, are not
said to be in God properly, but metaphorically and through
similitudes. For He is both said to dwell between the cherubims, [575]
which is spoken in respect to position; and to be covered with the
deep as with a garment, [576] which is said in respect to condition;
and "Thy years shall have no end," [577] which is said in respect of
time; and, "If I ascend up into heaven, Thou art there," [578] which
is said in respect to place. And as respects action (or making),
perhaps it may be said most truly of God alone, for God alone makes
and Himself is not made. Nor is He liable to passions as far as
belongs to that substance whereby He is God. So the Father is
omnipotent, the Son omnipotent, and the Holy Spirit is omnipotent; yet
not three omnipotents, but one omnipotent: [579] "For of Him are all
things, and through Him are all things, and in Him are all things; to
whom be glory." [580] Whatever, therefore, is spoken of God in respect
to Himself, is both spoken singly of each person, that is, of the
Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit; and together of the Trinity
itself, not plurally but in the singular. For inasmuch as to God it is
not one thing to be, and another thing to be great, but to Him it is
the same thing to be, as it is to be great; therefore, as we do not
say three essences, so we do not say three greatnesses, but one
essence and one greatness. I say essence, which in Greek is called
ousia, and which we call more usually substance.
10. They indeed use also the word hypostasis; but they intend to put a
difference, I know not what, between ousia and hypostasis: so that
most of ourselves who treat these things in the Greek language, are
accustomed to say, mian ousian, treis hupostaseis or in Latin, one
essence, three substances. [581]
Footnotes
[573] Ps. lxxxvi. 10
[574] Luke xviii. 18, 19
[575] Ps. lxxx. 1
[576] Ps. civ. 6
[577] Ps. cii. 27
[578] Ps. cxxxix. 8
[579] [This phraseology appears in the analytical statements of the
so-called Athanasian creed (cap. 11-16), and affords ground for the
opinion that this symbol is a Western one, originating in the school
of Augustin.--W.G.T.S.]
[580] Rom. xi. 36
[581] [It is remarkable that Augustin, understanding thoroughly the
distinction between essence and person, should not have known the
difference between ousia and hupostasis. It would seem as if his only
moderate acquaintance with the Greek language would have been more
than compensated by his profound trinitarian knowledge. In respect to
the term "substantia"--when it was discriminated from "essentia," as
it is here by Augustin--it corresponds to hupostasis, of which it is
the translation. In this case, God is one essence in three substances.
But when "substantia" was identified with "essentia," then to say that
God is one essence in three substances would be a self-contradiction.
The identification of the two terms led subsequently to the coinage,
in the mediæval Latin, of the term "subsistantia," to denote
hupostasis.--W.G.T.S.]
Chapter 9.--The Three Persons Not Properly So Called [in a Human
Sense].
But because with us the usage has already obtained, that by essence we
understand the same thing which is understood by substance; we do not
dare to say one essence, three substances, but one essence or
substance and three persons: as many writers in Latin, who treat of
these things, and are of authority, have said, in that they could not
find any other more suitable way by which to enunciate in words that
which they understood without words. For, in truth, as the Father is
not the Son, and the Son is not the Father, and that Holy Spirit who
is also called the gift of God is neither the Father nor the Son,
certainly they are three. And so it is said plurally, "I and my Father
are one." [582] For He has not said, "is one," as the Sabellians say;
but, "are one." Yet, when the question is asked, What three? human
language labors altogether under great poverty of speech. The answer,
however, is given, three "persons," not that it might be [completely]
spoken, but that it might not be left [wholly] unspoken.
Footnotes
[582] John x. 30
Chapter 10.--Those Things Which Belong Absolutely to God as an
Essence, are Spoken of the Trinity in the Singular, Not in the Plural.
11. As, therefore, we do not say three essences, so we do not say
three greatnesses, or three who are great. For in things which are
great by partaking of greatness, to which it is one thing to be, and
another to be great, as a great house, and a great mountain, and a
great mind; in these things, I say, greatness is one thing, and that
which is great because of greatness is another, and a great house,
certainly, is not absolute greatness itself. But that is absolute
greatness by which not only a great house is great, and any great
mountain is great, but also by which every other thing whatsoever is
great, which is called great; so that greatness itself is one thing,
and those things are another which are called great from it. And this
greatness certainly is primarily great, and in a much more excellent
way than those things which are great by partaking of it. But since
God is not great with that greatness which is not Himself, so that
God, in being great, is, as it were, partaker of that
greatness;--otherwise that will be a greatness greater than God,
whereas there is nothing greater than God; therefore, He is great with
that greatness by which He Himself is that same greatness. And,
therefore, as we do not say three essences, so neither do we say three
greatnesses; for it is the same thing to God to be, and to be great.
For the same reason neither do we say three greats, but one who is
great; since God is not great by partaking of greatness, but He is
great by Himself being great, because He Himself is His own greatness.
Let the same be said also of the goodness, and of the eternity, and of
the omnipotence of God, and, in short, of all the predicaments which
can be predicated of God, as He is spoken of in respect to Himself,
not metaphorically and by similitude, but properly, if indeed anything
can be spoken of Him properly, by the mouth of man.
Chapter 11.--What is Said Relatively in the Trinity.
12. But whereas, in the same Trinity, some things severally are
specially predicated, these are in no way said in reference to
themselves in themselves, but either in mutual reference, or in
respect to the creature; and, therefore, it is manifest that such
things are spoken relatively, not in the way of substance. For the
Trinity is called one God, great, good, eternal, omnipotent; and the
same God Himself may be called His own deity, His own magnitude, His
own goodness, His own eternity, His own omnipotence: but the Trinity
cannot in the same way be called the Father, except perhaps
metaphorically, in respect to the creature, on account of the adoption
of sons. For that which is written, "Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God
is one Lord," [583] ought certainly not to be understood as if the Son
were excepted, or the Holy Spirit were excepted; which one Lord our
God we rightly call also our Father, as regenerating us by His grace.
Neither can the Trinity in any wise be called the Son, but it can be
called, in its entirety, the Holy Spirit, according to that which is
written, "God is a Spirit;" [584] because both the Father is a spirit
and the Son is a spirit, and the Father is holy and the Son is holy.
Therefore, since the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are one God,
and certainly God is holy, and God is a spirit, the Trinity can be
called also the Holy Spirit. But yet that Holy Spirit, who is not the
Trinity, but is understood as in the Trinity, is spoken of in His
proper name of the Holy Spirit relatively, since He is referred both
to the Father and to the Son, because the Holy Spirit is the Spirit
both of the Father and of the Son. But the relation is not itself
apparent in that name, but it is apparent when He is called the gift
of God; [585] for He is the gift of the Father and of the Son, because
"He proceeds from the Father," [586] as the Lord says; and because
that which the apostle says, "Now, if any man have not the Spirit of
Christ, he is none of His," [587] he says certainly of the Holy Spirit
Himself. When we say, therefore, the gift of the giver, and the giver
of the gift, we speak in both cases relatively in reciprocal
reference. Therefore the Holy Spirit is a certain unutterable
communion of the Father and the Son; and on that account, perhaps, He
is so called, because the same name is suitable to both the Father and
the Son. For He Himself is called specially that which they are called
in common; because both the Father is a spirit and the Son a spirit,
both the Father is holy and the Son holy. [588] In order, therefore,
that the communion of both may be signified from a name which is
suitable to both, the Holy Spirit is called the gift of both. And this
Trinity is one God, alone, good, great, eternal, omnipotent; itself
its own unity, deity, greatness, goodness, eternity, omnipotence.
Footnotes
[583] Deut. vi. 4
[584] John iv. 24
[585] Acts viii. 20
[586] John xv. 26
[587] Rom. viii. 9
[588] [The reason which Augustin here assigns, why the name Holy
Spirit is given to the third person--namely, because spirituality is a
characteristic of both the Father and Son, from both of whom he
proceeds--is not that assigned in the more developed trinitarianism.
The explanation in this latter is, that the third person is
denominated the Spirit because of the peculiar manner in which the
divine essence is communicated to him--namely, by spiration or
out-breathing: spiritus quia spiratus. This is supported by the
etymological signification of pneuma, which is breath; and by the
symbolical action of Christ in John xx. 22, which suggests the eternal
spiration, or out-breathing of the third person. The third trinitarian
person is no more spiritual, in the sense of immaterial, than the
first and second persons, and if the term "Spirit" is to be taken in
this the ordinary signification, the "trinitarian relation," or
personal peculiarity, as Augustin remarks, "is not itself apparent in
this name;" because it would mention nothing distinctive of the third
person, and not belonging to the first and second. But taken
technically to denote the spiration or out-breathing by the Father and
Son, the trinitarian peculiarity is apparent in the name. And the
epithet "Holy" is similarly explained. The third person is the Holy
Spirit, not because he is any more holy than the first and second, but
because he is the source and author of holiness in all created
spirits. This is eminently and officially his work. In this way also,
the epithet "Holy"--which in its ordinary use would specify nothing
peculiar to the third person,--mentions a characteristic that
differentiates him from the Father and Son.--W.G.T.S.]
Chapter 12.--In Relative Things that are Reciprocal, Names are
Sometimes Wanting.
13. Neither ought it to influence us--since we have said that the Holy
Spirit is so called relatively, not the Trinity itself, but He who is
in the Trinity--that the designation of Him to whom He is referred,
does not seem to answer in turn to His designation. For we cannot, as
we say the servant of a master, and the master of a servant, the son
of a father and the father of a son, so also say here--because these
things are said relatively. For we speak of the Holy Spirit of the
Father; but, on the other hand, we do not speak of the Father of the
Holy Spirit, lest the Holy Spirit should be understood to be His Son.
So also we speak of the Holy Spirit of the Son; but we do not speak of
the Son of the Holy Spirit, lest the Holy Spirit be understood to be
His Father. For it is the case in many relatives, that no designation
is to be found by which those things which bear relation to each other
may [in name] mutually correspond to each other. For what is more
clearly spoken relatively than the word earnest? Since it is referred
to that of which it is an earnest, and an earnest is always an earnest
of something. Can we then, as we say, the earnest of the Father and of
the Son, [589] say in turn, the Father of the earnest or the Son of
the earnest? But, on the other hand, when we say the gift of the
Father and of the Son, we cannot indeed say the Father of the gift, or
the Son of the gift; but that these may correspond mutually to each
other, we say the gift of the giver and the giver of the gift; because
here a word in use may be found, there it cannot.
Footnotes
[589] 2 Cor. v. 5, and Eph. i. 14
Chapter 13.--How the Word Beginning (Principium) is Spoken Relatively
in the Trinity.
14. The Father is called so, therefore, relatively, and He is also
relatively said to be the Beginning, and whatever else there may be of
the kind; but He is called the Father in relation to the Son, the
Beginning in relation to all things, which are from Him. So the Son is
relatively so called; He is called also relatively the Word and the
Image. And in all these appellations He is referred to the Father, but
the Father is called by none of them. And the Son is also called the
Beginning; for when it was said to Him, "Who art Thou?" He replied,
"Even the Beginning, who also speak to you." [590] But is He, pray,
the Beginning of the Father? For He intended to show Himself to be the
Creator when He said that He was the Beginning, as the Father also is
the beginning of the creature in that all things are from Him. For
creator, too, is spoken relatively to creature, as master to servant.
And so when we say, both that the Father is the Beginning, and that
the Son is the Beginning, we do not speak of two beginnings of the
creature; since both the Father and the Son together is one beginning
in respect to the creature, as one Creator, as one God. But if
whatever remains within itself and produces or works anything is a
beginning to that thing which it produces or works; then we cannot
deny that the Holy Spirit also is rightly called the Beginning, since
we do not separate Him from the appellation of Creator: and it is
written of Him that He works; and assuredly, in working, He remains
within Himself; for He Himself is not changed and turned into any of
the things which He works. And see what it is that He works: "But the
manifestation of the Spirit," he says, "is given to every man to
profit withal. For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom;
to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; to another faith
by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same
Spirit; to another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to
another the discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues;
to another the interpretation of tongues: but all these worketh that
one and the self-same Spirit, dividing to every man severally as He
will;" certainly as God--for who can work such great things but
God?--but "it is the same God which worketh all in all." [591] For if
we are asked point by point concerning the Holy Spirit, we answer most
truly that He is God; and with the Father and the Son together He is
one God. Therefore, God is spoken of as one Beginning in respect to
the creature, not as two or three beginnings.
Footnotes
[590] John viii. 25
[591] 1 Cor. xii. 6-11
Chapter 14.--The Father and the Son the Only Beginning (Principium) of
the Holy Spirit.
15. But in their mutual relation to one another in the Trinity itself,
if the begetter is a beginning in relation to that which he begets,
the Father is a beginning in relation to the Son, because He begets
Him; but whether the Father is also a beginning in relation to the
Holy Spirit, since it is said, "He proceeds from the Father," is no
small question. Because, if it is so, He will not only be a beginning
to that thing which He begets or makes, but also to that which He
gives. And here, too, that question comes to light, as it can, which
is wont to trouble many, Why the Holy Spirit is not also a son, since
He, too, comes forth from the Father, as it is read in the Gospel.
[592] For the Spirit came forth, not as born, but as given; and so He
is not called a son, because He was neither born, as the
Only-begotten, nor made, so that by the grace of God He might be born
into adoption, as we are. For that which is born of the Father, is
referred to the Father only when called Son, and so the Son is the Son
of the Father, and not also our Son; but that which is given is
referred both to Him who gave, and to those to whom He gave; and so
the Holy Spirit is not only the Spirit of the Father and of the Son
who gave Him, but He is also called ours, who have received Him: as
"The salvation of the Lord," [593] who gives salvation, is said also
to be our salvation, who have received it. Therefore, the Spirit is
both the Spirit of God who gave Him, and ours who have received Him.
Not, indeed, that spirit of ours by which we are, because that is the
spirit of a man which is in him; but this Spirit is ours in another
mode, viz. that in which we also say, "Give us this day our bread."
[594] Although certainly we have received that spirit also, which is
called the spirit of a man. "For what hast thou," he says, "which thou
didst not receive?" [595] But that is one thing, which we have
received that we might be; another, that which we have received that
we might be holy. Whence it is also written of John, that he "came in
the spirit and power of Elias;" [596] and by the spirit of Elias is
meant the Holy Spirit, whom Elias received. And the same thing is to
be understood of Moses, when the Lord says to him, "And I will take of
thy spirit, and will put it upon them;" [597] that is, I will give to
them of the Holy Spirit, which I have already given to thee. If,
therefore, that also which is given has him for a beginning by whom it
is given, since it has received from no other source that which
proceeds from him; it must be admitted that the Father and the Son are
a Beginning of the Holy Spirit, not two Beginnings; but as the Father
and Son are one God, and one Creator, and one Lord relatively to the
creature, so are they one Beginning relatively to the Holy Spirit. But
the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is one Beginning in respect
to the creature, as also one Creator and one God. [598]
Footnotes
[592] John xv. 26
[593] Ps. iii. 8
[594] Matt. vi. 11
[595] 1 Cor. iv. 7
[596] Luke i. 17
[597] Num. xi. 17
[598] [The term "beginning" (principium), when referring to the
relation of the Trinity, or of any person of the Trinity, to the
creature, denotes creative energy, whereby a new substance is
originated from nothing. This is the reference in chapter 13. But when
the term refers to the relations of the persons of the Trinity to each
other, it denotes only a modifying energy, whereby an existing
uncreated substance is communicated by generation and spiration. This
is the reference in chapter 14. When it is said that the Father is the
"beginning" of the Son, and the Father and Son are the "beginning" of
the Spirit, it is not meant that the substance of the Son is created
ex nihilo by the Father, and the substance of the Spirit is created by
the Father and Son, but only that the Son by eternal generation
receives from the Father the one uncreated and undivided substance of
the Godhead, and the Spirit by eternal spiration receives the same
numerical substance from the Father and Son. The term "beginning"
relates not to the essence, but to the personal peculiarity. Sonship
originates in fatherhood; but deity is unoriginated. The Son as the
second person "begins" from the Father, because the Father
communicates the essence to him. His sonship, not his deity or
godhood, "begins" from the Father. And the same holds true of the term
"beginning" as applied to the Holy Spirit. The "procession" of the
Holy Spirit "begins" by spiration from the Father and Son, but not his
deity or godhood.--W.G.T.S.]
Chapter 15.--Whether the Holy Spirit Was a Gift Before as Well as
After He Was Given.
16. But it is asked further, whether, as the Son, by being born, has
not only this, that He is the Son, but that He is absolutely; and so
also the Holy Spirit, by being given, has not only this, that He is
given, but that He is absolutely--whether therefore He was, before He
was given, but was not yet a gift; or whether, for the very reason
that God was about to give Him, He was already a gift also before He
was given. But if He does not proceed unless when He is given, and
assuredly could not proceed before there was one to whom He might be
given; how, in that case, was He [absolutely] in His very substance,
if He is not unless because He is given? just as the Son, by being
born, not only has this, that He is a Son, which is said relatively,
but His very substance absolutely, so that He is. Does the Holy Spirit
proceed always, and proceed not in time, but from eternity, but
because He so proceeded that He was capable of being given, was
already a gift even before there was one to whom He might be given?
For there is a difference in meaning between a gift and a thing that
has been given. For a gift may exist even before it is given; but it
cannot be called a thing that has been given unless it has been given.
Chapter 16.--What is Said of God in Time, is Said Relatively, Not
Accidentally.
17. Nor let it trouble us that the Holy Spirit, although He is
co-eternal with the Father and the Son, yet is called something which
exists in time; as, for instance, this very thing which we have called
Him, a thing that has been given. For the Spirit is a gift eternally,
but a thing that has been given in time. For if a lord also is not so
called unless when he begins to have a slave, that appellation
likewise is relative and in time to God; for the creature is not from
all eternity, of which He is the Lord. How then shall we make it good
that relative terms themselves are not accidental, since nothing
happens accidentally to God in time, because He is incapable of
change, as we have argued in the beginning of this discussion? Behold!
to be the Lord, is not eternal to God; otherwise we should be
compelled to say that the creature also is from eternity, since He
would not be a lord from all eternity unless the creature also was a
servant from all eternity. But as he cannot be a slave who has not a
lord, neither can he be a lord who has not a slave. And if there be
any one who says that God, indeed, is alone eternal, and that times
are not eternal on account of their variety and changeableness, but
that times nevertheless did not begin to be in time (for there was no
time before times began, and therefore it did not happen to God in
time that He should be Lord, since He was Lord of the very times
themselves, which assuredly did not begin in time): what will he reply
respecting man, who was made in time, and of whom assuredly He was not
the Lord before he was of whom He was to be Lord? Certainly to be the
Lord of man happened to God in time. And that all dispute may seem to
be taken away, certainly to be your Lord, or mine, who have only
lately begun to be, happened to God in time. Or if this, too, seems
uncertain on account of the obscure question respecting the soul, what
is to be said of His being the Lord of the people of Israel? since,
although the nature of the soul already existed, which that people had
(a matter into which we do not now inquire), yet that people existed
not as yet, and the time is apparent when it began to exist. Lastly,
that He should be Lord of this or that tree, or of this or that corn
crop, which only lately began to be, happened in time; since, although
the matter itself already existed, yet it is one thing to be Lord of
the matter (materiæ), another to be Lord of the already created nature
(naturæ). [599] For man, too, is lord of the wood at one time, and at
another he is lord of the chest, although fabricated of that same
wood; which he certainly was not at the time when he was already the
lord of the wood. How then shall we make it good that nothing is said
of God according to accident, except because nothing happens to His
nature by which He may be changed, so that those things are relative
accidents which happen in connection with some change of the things of
which they are spoken. As a friend is so called relatively: for he
does not begin to be one, unless when he has begun to love; therefore
some change of will takes place, in order that he may be called a
friend. And money, when it is called a price, is spoken of relatively,
and yet it was not changed when it began to be a price; nor, again,
when it is called a pledge, or any other thing of the kind. If,
therefore, money can so often be spoken of relatively with no change
of itself, so that neither when it begins, nor when it ceases to be so
spoken of, does any change take place in that nature or form of it,
whereby it is money; how much more easily ought we to admit,
concerning that unchangeable substance of God, that something may be
so predicated relatively in respect to the creature, that although it
begin to be so predicated in time, yet nothing shall be understood to
have happened to the substance itself of God, but only to that
creature in respect to which it is predicated? "Lord," it is said,
"Thou hast been made our refuge." [600] God, therefore, is said to be
our refuge relatively, for He is referred to us, and He then becomes
our refuge when we flee to Him; pray does anything come to pass then
in His nature, which, before we fled to Him, was not? In us therefore
some change does take place; for we were worse before we fled to Him,
and we become better by fleeing to Him: but in Him there is no change.
So also He begins to be our Father, when we are regenerated through
His grace, since He gave us power to become the sons of God. [601] Our
substance therefore is changed for the better, when we become His
sons; and He at the same time begins to be our Father, but without any
change of His own substance. Therefore that which begins to be spoken
of God in time, and which was not spoken of Him before, is manifestly
spoken of Him relatively; yet not according to any accident of God, so
that anything should have happened to Him, but clearly according to
some accident of that, in respect to which God begins to be called
something relatively. When a righteous man begins to be a friend of
God, he himself is changed; but far be it from us to say, that God
loves any one in time with as it were a new love, which was not in Him
before, with whom things gone by have not passed away and things
future have been already done. Therefore He loved all His saints
before the foundation of the world, as He predestinated them; but when
they are converted and find them; then they are said to begin to be
loved by Him, that what is said may be said in that way in which it
can be comprehended by human affections. So also, when He is said to
be wroth with the unrighteous, and gentle with the good, they are
changed, not He: just as the light is troublesome to weak eyes,
pleasant to those that are strong; namely, by their change, not its
own.
Footnotes
[599] ["Matter" denotes the material as created ex nihilo: "nature"
the material as formed into individuals. In this reference, Augustin
speaks of "the nature of the soul" of the people of Israel as existing
while "as yet that people existed not" individually-- having in mind
their race-existence in Adam.--W.G.T.S.]
[600] Ps. xc.1
[601] John i. 12
.
Book VI.
The question is proposed, how the apostle calls Christ "the power of
God, and the wisdom of God." And an argument is raised, whether the
Father is not wisdom Himself, but only the Father of wisdom; or
whether Wisdom begat Wisdom. But the answer to this is deferred for a
little, while the unity and equality of the Father, and of the Son,
and of the Holy Ghost, are proved; and that we ought to believe in a
Trinity, not in a threefold (triplicem) god. Lastly, that saying of
Hilary is explained, eternity in the Father, appearance in the image,
use in the gift.
Chapter 1.--The Son, According to the Apostle, is the Power and Wisdom
of the Father. Hence the Reasoning of the Catholics Against the
Earlier Arians. A Difficulty is Raised, Whether the Father is Not
Wisdom Himself, But Only the Father of Wisdom.
1. Somethink themselves hindered from admitting the equality of the
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, because it is written, "Christ, the
power of God, and the wisdom of God;" in that, on this ground, there
does not appear to be equality; because the Father is not Himself
power and wisdom, but the begetter of power and wisdom. And, in truth,
the question is usually asked with no common earnestness, in what way
God can be called the Father of power and wisdom. For the apostle
says, "Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God." [602] And
hence some on our side have reasoned in this way against the Arians,
at least against those who at first set themselves up against the
Catholic faith. For Arius himself is reported to have said, that if He
is a Son, then He was born; if He was born, there was a time when the
Son was not: not understanding that even to be born is, to God, from
all eternity; so that the Son is co-eternal with the Father, as the
brightness which is produced and is spread around by fire is co-eval
with it, and would be co-eternal, if fire were eternal. And therefore
some of the later Arians have abandoned that opinion, and have
confessed that the Son of God did not begin to be in time. But among
the arguments which those on our side used to hold against them who
said that there was a time when the Son was not, some were wont to
introduce such an argument as this: If the Son of God is the power and
wisdom of God, and God was never without power and wisdom, then the
Son is co-eternal with God the Father; but the apostle says, "Christ
the power of God, and the wisdom of God;" and a man must be senseless
to say that God at any time had not power or wisdom; therefore there
was no time when the Son was not.
2. Now this argument compels us to say that God the Father is not
wise, except by having the wisdom which He begat, not by the Father in
Himself being wisdom itself. Further, if it be so, just as the Son
also Himself is called God of God, Light of Light, we must consider
whether He can be called wisdom of wisdom, if God the Father is not
wisdom itself, but only the begetter of wisdom. And if we hold this,
why is He not the begetter also of His own greatness, and of His own
goodness, and of His own eternity, and of His own omnipotence; so that
He is not Himself His own greatness, and His own goodness, and His own
eternity, and His own omnipotence; but is great with that greatness
which He begat, and good with that goodness, and eternal with that
eternity, and omnipotent with that omnipotence, which was born of Him;
just as He Himself is not His own wisdom, but is wise with that wisdom
which was born of Him? For we need not be afraid of being compelled to
say that there are many sons of God, over and above the adoption of
the creature, co-eternal with the Father, if He be the begetter of His
own greatness, and goodness, and eternity, and omnipotence. Because it
is easy to reply to this cavil, that it does not at all follow,
because many things are named, that He should be the Father of many
co-eternal sons; just as it does not follow that He is the Father of
two sons, because Christ is said to be the power of God, and the
wisdom of God. For that certainly is the power which is the wisdom,
and that is the wisdom which is the power; and in like manner,
therefore, of the rest also; so that that is the greatness which is
the power, or any other of those things which either have been
mentioned above, or may hereafter be mentioned.
Footnotes
[602] 1 Cor. i. 24
Chapter 2 .--What is Said of the Father and Son Together, and What
Not.
3. But if nothing is spoken of the Father as such, except that which
is spoken of Him in relation to the Son, that is, that He is His
father, or begetter, or beginning; and if also the begetter is by
consequence a beginning to that which he begets of himself; but
whatever else is spoken of Him is so spoken as with the Son, or rather
in the Son; whether that He is great with that greatness which He
begat, or just with that justice which He begat, or good with that
goodness which He begat, or powerful with that force or power which He
begat, or wise with that wisdom which He begat: yet the Father is not
said to be greatness itself, but the begetter of greatness; but the
Son, as He is called the Son as such, is not so called with the Father
but in relation to the Father, so is not great in and by himself, but
with the Father, of whom He is the greatness; and so also is called
wise with the Father, of whom He Himself is the wisdom; just as the
Father is called wise with the Son, because He is wise with that
wisdom which He begat; therefore the one is not called without the
other, whatever they are called in respect to themselves; that is,
whatever they are called that manifests their essential nature, both
are so called together;--if these things are so, then the Father is
not God without the Son, nor the Son God without the Father, but both
together are God. And that which is said, "In the beginning was the
Word," means that the Word was in the Father. Or if "In the beginning"
is intended to mean, Before all things; then in that which follows,
"And the Word was with God," the Son alone is understood to be the
Word, not the Father and Son together, as though both were one Word
(for He is the Word in the same way as He is the Image, but the Father
and Son are not both together the Image, but the Son alone is the
Image of the Father: just as He is also the Son of the Father, for
both together are not the Son). But in that which is added, "And the
Word was with God," there is much reason to understand thus: "The
Word," which is the Son alone, "was with God," which is not the Father
alone, but God the Father and the Son together. [603] But what wonder
is there, if this can be said in the case of some twofold things
widely different from each other? For what are so different as soul
and body? Yet we can say the soul was with a man, that is, in a man;
although the soul is not the body, and man is both soul and body
together. So that what follows in the Scripture, "And the Word was
God," [604] may be understood thus: The Word, which is not the Father,
was God together with the Father. Are we then to say thus, that the
Father is the begetter of His own greatness, that is, the begetter of
His own power, or the begetter of His own wisdom; and that the Son is
greatness, and power, and wisdom; but that the great, omnipotent, and
wise God, is both together? How then God of God, Light of Light? For
not both together are God of God, but only the Son is of God, that is
to say, of the Father; nor are both together Light of Light, but the
Son only is of Light, that is, of the Father. Unless, perhaps, it was
in order to intimate and inculcate briefly that the Son is co-eternal
with the Father, that it is said, God of God, and Light of Light, or
anything else of the like kind: as if to say, This which is not the
Son without the Father, of this which is not the Father without the
Son; that is, this Light which is not Light without the Father, of
that Light, viz. the Father, which is not Light without the Son; so
that, when it is said, God which is not the Son without the Father,
and of God which is not the Father without the Son, it may be
perfectly understood that the Begetter did not precede that which He
begot. And if this be so, then this alone cannot be said of them,
namely, this or that of this or that, which they are not both
together. Just as the Word cannot be said to be of the Word, because
both are not the Word together, but only the Son; nor image of image,
since they are not both together the image; nor Son of Son, since both
together are not the Son, according to that which is said, "I and my
Father are one." [605] For "we are one" means, what He is, that am I
also; according to essence, not according to relation.
Footnotes
[603] [The term "God," in the proposition, "the Word was with God,"
must refer to the Father, not to "the Father and Son together,"
because the Son could not be said to be "with" himself. St. John says
that "the word was God" (theos). The absence of the article with theos
denotes the abstract deity, or the divine nature without reference to
the persons in it. He also says that "the Word was with God" (ton
theon). The presence of the article in this instance denotes one of
the divine persons in the essence: namely, the Father, with whom the
Word was from eternity, and upon whose "bosom" he was from eternity.
(John i. 18).--W.G.T.S.]
[604] John i. 1
[605] John x. 30
Chapter 3.--That the Unity of the Essence of the Father and the Son is
to Be Gathered from the Words, "We are One." The Son is Equal to the
Father Both in Wisdom and in All Other Things.
4. And I know not whether the words, "They are one," are ever found in
Scripture as spoken of things of which the nature is different. But if
there are more things than one of the same nature, and they differ in
sentiment, they are not one, and that so far as they differ in
sentiment. For if the disciples were already one by the fact of being
men, He would not say, "That they may be one, as we are one," [606]
when commending them to the Father. But because Paul and Apollos were
both alike men, and also of like sentiments, "He that planteth," he
says, "and he that watereth are one." [607] When, therefore, anything
is so called one, that it is not added in what it is one, and yet more
things than one are called one, then the same essence and nature is
signified, not differing nor disagreeing. But when it is added in what
it is one, it may be meant that something is made one out of things
more than one, though they are different in nature. As soul and body
are assuredly not one; for, what are so different? unless there be
added, or understood in what they are one, that is, one man, or one
animal [person]. Thence the apostle says, "He who is joined to a
harlot, is one body;" he does not say, they are one or he is one; but
he has added "body," as though it were one body composed by being
joined together of two different bodies, masculine and feminine. [608]
And, "He that is joined unto the Lord," he says," is one spirit:" he
did not say, he that is joined unto the Lord is one, or they are one;
but he added, "spirit." For the spirit of man and the Spirit of God
are different in nature; but by being joined they become one spirit of
two different spirits, so that the Spirit of God is blessed and
perfect without the human spirit, but the spirit of man cannot be
blessed without God. Nor is it without cause, I think, that when the
Lord said so much in the Gospel according to John, and so often, of
unity itself, whether of His own with the Father, or of ours
interchangeably with ourselves; He has nowhere said, that we are also
one with Himself, but, "that they maybe one as we also are one." [609]
Therefore the Father and the Son are one, undoubtedly according to
unity of substance; and there is one God, and one great, and one wise,
as we have argued.
5. Whence then is the Father greater? For if greater, He is greater by
greatness; but whereas the Son is His greatness, neither assuredly is
the Son greater than He who begat Him, nor is the Father greater than
that greatness, whereby He is great; therefore they are equal. For
whence is He equal, if not in that which He is, to whom it is not one
thing to be, and another to be great? Or if the Father is greater in
eternity, the Son is not equal in anything whatsoever. For whence
equal? If you say in greatness, that greatness is not equal which is
less eternal, and so of all things else. Or is He perhaps equal in
power, but not equal in wisdom? But how is that power which is less
wise, equal? Or is He equal in wisdom, but not equal in power? But how
is that wisdom equal which is less powerful? It remains, therefore,
that if He is not equal in anything, He is not equal in all. But
Scripture proclaims, that "He thought it not robbery to be equal with
God." [610] Therefore any adversary of the truth whatever, provided he
feels bound by apostolical authority, must needs confess that the Son
is equal with God in each one thing whatsoever. Let him choose that
which he will; from it he will be shown, that He is equal in all
things which are said of His substance.
Footnotes
[606] John xvii. 11
[607] 1 Cor. iii. 8
[608] 1 Cor. vi. 16, 17
[609] John xvii. 11
[610] Phil. ii. 6
Chapter 4.--The Same Argument Continued.
6. For in like manner the virtues which are in the human mind,
although each has its own several and different meaning, yet are in no
way mutually separable; so that, for instance, whosoever were equal in
courage, are equal also in prudence, and temperance, and justice. For
if you say that such and such men are equal in courage, but that one
of them is greater in prudence, it follows that the courage of the
other is less prudent, and so neither are they equal in courage, since
the courage of the former is more prudent. And so you will find it to
be the case with the other virtues, if you consider them one by one.
For the question is not of the strength of the body, but of the
courage of the mind. How much more therefore is this the case in that
unchangeable and eternal substance, which is incomparably more simple
than the human mind is? Since, in the human mind, to be is not the
same as to be strong, or prudent, or just, or temperate; for a mind
can exist, and yet have none of these virtues. But in God to be is the
same as to be strong, or to be just, or to be wise, or whatever is
said of that simple multiplicity, or multifold simplicity, whereby to
signify His substance. Wherefore, whether we say God of God in such
way that this name belongs to each, yet not so that both together are
two Gods, but one God; for they are in such way united with each
other, as according to the apostle's testimony may take place even in
diverse and differing substances; for both the Lord alone is a Spirit,
and the spirit of a man alone is assuredly a spirit; yet, if it cleave
to the Lord, "it is one spirit:" how much more there, where there is
an absolutely inseparable and eternal union, so that He may not seem
absurdly to be called as it were the Son of both, when He is called
the Son of God, if that which is called God is only said of both
together. Or perhaps it is, that whatever is said of God so as to
indicate His substance, is not said except of both together, nay of
the Trinity itself together? Whether therefore it be this or that
(which needs a closer inquiry), it is enough for the present to see
from what has been said, that the Son is in no respect equal with the
Father, if He is found to be unequal in anything which has to do with
signifying His substance, as we have already shown. But the apostle
has said that He is equal. Therefore the Son is equal with the Father
in all things, and is of one and the same substance.
Chapter 5.--The Holy Spirit Also is Equal to the Father and the Son in
All Things.
7. Wherefore also the Holy Spirit consists in the same unity of
substance, and in the same equality. For whether He is the unity of
both, or the holiness, or the love, or therefore the unity because the
love, and therefore the love because the holiness, it is manifest that
He is not one of the two, through whom the two are joined, through
whom the Begotten is loved by the Begetter, and loves Him that begat
Him, and through whom, not by participation, but by their own essence,
neither by the gift of any superior, but by their own, they are
"keeping the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace;" [611] which we
are commanded to imitate by grace, both towards God and towards
ourselves. "On which two commandments hang all the law and the
prophets." [612] So those three are God, one, alone, great, wise,
holy, blessed. But we are blessed from Him, and through Him, and in
Him; because we ourselves are one by His gift, and one spirit with
Him, because our soul cleaves to Him so as to follow Him. And it is
good for us to cleave to God, since He will destroy every man who is
estranged from Him. [613] Therefore the Holy Spirit, whatever it is,
is something common both to the Father and Son. But that communion
itself is consubstantial and co-eternal; and if it may fitly be called
friendship, let it be so called; but it is more aptly called love. And
this is also a substance, since God is a substance, and "God is love,"
as it is written. [614] But as He is a substance together with the
Father and the Son, so that substance is together with them great, and
together with them good, and together with them holy, and whatsoever
else is said in reference to substance; since it is not one thing to
God to be, and another to be great or to be good, and the rest, as we
have shown above. For if love is less great therein [i.e. in God] than
wisdom, then wisdom is loved in less degree than according to what it
is; love is therefore equal, in order that wisdom may be loved
according to its being; but wisdom is equal with the Father, as we
have proved above; therefore also the Holy Spirit is equal; and if
equal, equal in all things, on account of the absolute simplicity
which is in that substance. And therefore they are not more than
three: One who loves Him who is from Himself, and One who loves Him
from whom He is, and Love itself. And if this last is nothing, how is
"God love"? If it is not substance, how is God substance?
Footnotes
[611] Eph. iv. 3
[612] Matt. xxii. 37-40
[613] Ps. lxxvii. 28, 27
[614] 1 John iv. 16
Chapter 6.--How God is a Substance Both Simple and Manifold.
8. But if it is asked how that substance is both simple and manifold:
consider, first, why the creature is manifold, but in no way really
simple. And first, all that is body is composed certainly of parts; so
that therein one part is greater, another less, and the whole is
greater than any part whatever or how great soever. For the heaven and
the earth are parts of the whole bulk of the world; and the earth
alone, and the heaven alone, is composed of innumerable parts; and its
third part is less than the remainder, and the half of it is less than
the whole; and the whole body of the world, which is usually called by
its two parts, viz. the heaven and the earth, is certainly greater
than the heaven alone or the earth alone. And in each several body,
size is one thing, color another, shape another; for the same color
and the same shape may remain with diminished size; and the same shape
and the same size may remain with the color changed; and the same
shape not remaining, yet the thing may be just as great, and of the
same color. And whatever other things are predicated together of body
can be changed either all together, or the larger part of them without
the rest. And hence the nature of body is conclusively proved to be
manifold, and in no respect simple. The spiritual creature also, that
is, the soul, is indeed the more simple of the two if compared with
the body; but if we omit the comparison with the body, it is manifold,
and itself also not simple. For it is on this account more simple than
the body, because it is not diffused in bulk through extension of
place, but in each body, it is both whole in the whole, and whole in
each several part of it; and, therefore, when anything takes place in
any small particle whatever of the body, such as the soul can feel,
although it does not take place in the whole body, yet the whole soul
feels it, since the whole soul is not unconscious of it. But,
nevertheless, since in the soul also it is one thing to be skillful,
another to be indolent, another to be intelligent, another to be of
retentive memory; since cupidity is one thing, fear another, joy
another, sadness another; and since things innumerable, and in
innumerable ways, are to be found in the nature of the soul, some
without others, and some more, some less; it is manifest that its
nature is not simple, but manifold. For nothing simple is changeable,
but every creature is changeable.
Chapter 7.--God is a Trinity, But Not Triple (Triplex).
But God is truly called in manifold ways, great, good, wise, blessed,
true, and whatsoever other thing seems to be said of Him not
unworthily: but His greatness is the same as His wisdom; for He is not
great by bulk, but by power; and His goodness is the same as His
wisdom and greatness, and His truth the same as all those things; and
in Him it is not one thing to be blessed, and another to be great, or
wise, or true, or good, or in a word to be Himself.
9. Neither, since He is a Trinity, is He therefore to be thought
triple (triplex) [615] otherwise the Father alone, or the Son alone,
will be less than the Father and Son together. Although, indeed, it is
hard to see how we can say, either the Father alone, or the Son alone;
since both the Father is with the Son, and the Son with the Father,
always and inseparably: not that both are the Father, or both are the
Son; but because they are always one in relation to the other, and
neither the one nor the other alone. But because we call even the
Trinity itself God alone, although He is always with holy spirits and
souls, but say that He only is God, because they are not also God with
Him; so we call the Father the Father alone, not because He is
separate from the Son, but because they are not both together the
Father.
Footnotes
[615] [The Divine Unity is trinal, not triple. The triple is composed
of three different substances. It has parts, and is complex. The
trinal is without parts, and is incomplex. It denotes one simple
substance in three modes or forms. "We may speak of the trinal, but
not of the triple deity." Hollaz, in Hase's Hutterus, 172.--W.G.T.S.]
Chapter 8.--No Addition Can Be Made to the Nature of God.
Since, therefore, the Father alone, or the Son alone, or the Holy
Spirit alone, is as great as is the Father and the Son and the Holy
Spirit together, [616] in no manner is He to be called threefold.
Forasmuch as bodies increase by union of themselves. For although he
who cleaves to his wife is one body; yet it is a greater body than if
it were that of the husband alone, or of the wife alone. But in
spiritual things, when the less adheres to the greater, as the
creature to the Creator, the former becomes greater than it was, not
the latter. [617] For in those things which are not great by bulk, to
be greater is to be better. And the spirit of any creature becomes
better, when it cleaves to the Creator, than if it did not so cleave;
and therefore also greater because better. "He," then, that is joined
unto the Lord is one spirit:" [618] but yet the Lord does not
therefore become greater, although he who is joined to the Lord does
so. In God Himself, therefore when the equal Son, or the Holy Spirit
equal to the Father and the Son, is joined to the equal Father, God
does not become greater than each of them severally; because that
perfectness cannot increase. But whether it be the Father, or the Son,
or the Holy Spirit, He is perfect, and God the Father the Son and the
Holy Spirit is perfect; and therefore He is a Trinity rather than
triple.
Footnotes
[616] [Each trinitarian person is as great as the Trinity, if
reference be had to the essence, but not if reference be had to the
persons. Each person has the entire essence, and the Trinity has the
entire essence. But each person has the essence with only one personal
characteristic; while the Trinity has the essence with all three
personal characteristics. No trinitarian person is as comprehensive as
the triune Godhead, because he does not possess the two personal
characteristics belonging to the other two persons. The Father is God,
but he is not God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.--W.G.T.S.]
[617] [The addition of finite numbers, however great, to an infinite
number, does not increase the infinite. Similarly, any addition of
finite being to the Infinite Being is no increase. God plus the
universe is no larger an infinite than God minus the universe. The
creation of the universe adds nothing to the infinite being and
attributes of God. To add contingent being to necessary being, does
not make the latter any more necessary. To add imperfect being to
perfect being, does not make the latter more perfect. To add finite
knowledge to infinite knowledge, does not produce a greater amount of
knowledge. This truth has been overlooked by Hamilton, Mansell, and
others, in the argument against the personality of the Infinite, in
which the Infinite is confounded with the All, and which assumes that
the All is greater than the Infinite--in other words, that God plus
the universe is greater than God minus the universe.--W.G.T.S.]
[618] 1 Cor. vi. 17
Chapter 9.--Whether One or the Three Persons Together are Called the
Only God.
10. And since we are showing how we can say the Father alone, because
there is no Father in the Godhead except Himself, we must consider
also the opinion which holds that the only true God is not the Father
alone, but the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. For if any one
should ask whether the Father alone is God, how can it be replied that
He is not, unless perhaps we were to say that the Father indeed is
God, but that He is not God alone, but that the Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit are God alone? But then what shall we do with that testimony of
the Lord? For He was speaking to the Father, and had named the Father
as Him to whom He was speaking, when He says, "And this is life
eternal, that they may know Thee the one true God." [619] And this the
Arians indeed usually take, as if the Son were not true God. Passing
them by, however, we must see whether, when it is said to the Father,
"That they may know Thee the one true God," we are forced to
understand it as if He wished to intimate that the Father alone is the
true God; lest we should not understand any to be God, except the
three together, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Are we therefore,
from the testimony of the Lord, both to call the Father the one true
God, and the Son the one true God, and the Holy Spirit the one true
God, and the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit together, that is,
the Trinity itself together, not three true Gods but one true God? Or
because He added, "And Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent," are we to
supply "the one true God;" so that the order of the words is this,
"That they may know Thee, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent, the
one true God?" Why then did He omit to mention the Holy Spirit? Is it
because it follows, that whenever we name One who cleaves to One by a
harmony so great that through this harmony both are one, this harmony
itself must be understood, although it is not mentioned? For in that
place, too, the apostle seems as it were to pass over the Holy Spirit;
and yet there, too, He is understood, where he says, "All are yours,
and ye are Christ's, and Christ is God's." [620] And again, "The head
of the woman is the man, the head of the man is Christ, and the head
of Christ is God." [621] But again, if God is only all three together,
how can God be the head of Christ, that is, the Trinity the head of
Christ, since Christ is in the Trinity in order that it may be the
Trinity? Is that which is the Father with the Son, the head of that
which is the Son alone? For the Father with the Son is God, but the
Son alone is Christ: especially since it is the Word already made
flesh that speaks; and according to this His humiliation also, the
Father is greater than He, as He says, "for my Father is greater than
I;" [622] so that the very being of God, which is one to Him with the
Father, is itself the head of the man who is mediator, which He is
alone. [623] For if we rightly call the mind the chief thing of man,
that is, as it were the head of the human substance, although the man
himself together with the mind is man; why is not the Word with the
Father, which together is God, much more suitably and much more the
head of Christ, although Christ as man cannot be understood except
with the Word which was made flesh? But this, as we have already said,
we shall consider somewhat more carefully hereafter. At present the
equality and one and the same substance of the Trinity has been
demonstrated as briefly as possible, that in whatever way that other
question be determined, the more rigorous discussion of which we have
deferred, nothing may hinder us from confessing the absolute equality
of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Footnotes
[619] John xvii. 3
[620] 1 Cor. iii. 22, 23
[621] 1 Cor. xi. 3
[622] John xiv. 28
[623] 1 Tim. ii. 5
Chapter 10.--Of the Attributes Assigned by Hilary to Each Person. The
Trinity is Represented in Things that are Made.
11. A certain writer, when he would briefly intimate the special
attributes of each of the persons in the Trinity, tells us that
"Eternity is in the Father, form in the Image, use in the Gift." And
since he was a man of no mean authority in handling the Scriptures,
and in the assertion of the faith, for it is Hilary who put this in
his book (On the Trinity, ii.); I have searched into the hidden
meaning of these words as far as I can, that is, of the Father, and
the Image, and the Gift, of eternity, and of form, and of use. And I
do not think that he intended more by the word eternity, than that the
Father has not a father from whom He is; but the Son is from the
Father, so as to be, and so as to be co-eternal with Him. For if an
image perfectly fills the measure of that of which it is the image,
then the image is made equal to that of which it is the image, not the
latter to its own image. And in respect to this image he has named
form, I believe on account of the quality of beauty, where there is at
once such great fitness, and prime equality, and prime likeness,
differing in nothing, and unequal in no respect, and in no part
unlike, but answering exactly to Him whose image it is: where there is
prime and absolute life, to whom it is not one thing to live, and
another to be, but the same thing to be and to live; and prime and
absolute intellect, to whom it is not one thing to live, another to
understand, but to understand is to live, and is to be, and all things
are one: as though a perfect Word (John i. 1), to which nothing is
wanting, and a certain skill of the omnipotent and wise God, full of
all living, unchangeable sciences, and all one in it, as itself is one
from one, with whom it is one. Therein God knew all things which He
made by it; and therefore, while times pass away and succeed, nothing
passes away or succeeds to the knowledge of God. For things which are
created are not therefore known by God, because they have been made;
and not rather have been therefore made, even although changeable,
because they are known unchangeably by Him. Therefore that unspeakable
conjunction of the Father and His image is not without fruition,
without love, without joy. Therefore that love, delight, felicity, or
blessedness, if indeed it can be worthily expressed by any human word,
is called by him, in short, Use; and is the Holy Spirit in the
Trinity, not begotten, but the sweetness of the begetter and of the
begotten, filling all creatures according to their capacity with
abundant bountifulness and copiousness, that they may keep their
proper order and rest satisfied in their proper place.
12. Therefore all these things which are made by divine skill, show in
themselves a certain unity, and form, and order; for each of them is
both some one thing, as are the several natures of bodies and
dispositions of souls; and is fashioned in some form, as are the
figures or qualities of bodies, and the various learning or skill of
souls; and seeks or preserves a certain order, as are the several
weights or combinations of bodies and the loves or delights of souls.
When therefore we regard the Creator, who is understood by the things
that are made [624] we must needs understand the Trinity of whom there
appear traces in the creature, as is fitting. For in that Trinity is
the supreme source of all things, and the most perfect beauty, and the
most blessed delight. Those three, therefore, both seem to be mutually
determined to each other, and are in themselves infinite. But here in
corporeal things, one thing alone is not as much as three together,
and two are something more than one; but in that highest Trinity one
is as much as the three together, nor are two anything more than one.
And They are infinite in themselves. So both each are in each, and all
in each, and each in all, and all in all, and all are one. Let him who
sees this, whether in part, or "through a glass and in an enigma,"
[625] rejoice in knowing God; and let him honor Him as God, and give
thanks; but let him who does not see it, strive to see it through
piety, not to cavil at it through blindness. Since God is one, but yet
is a Trinity. Neither are we to take the words, "of whom, and through
whom, and to whom are all things," as used indiscriminately [i.e., to
denote a unity without distinctions]; nor yet to denote many gods, for
"to Him, be glory for ever and ever. Amen." [626]
Footnotes
[624] Rom. i. 20
[625] 1 Cor. xiii. 12. Darkly, A.V.
[626] Rom. xi. 36, in A.V.
.
Book VII.
The question is explained, which had been deferred in the previous
book, viz. that God the Father, who begat the Son, His power and
wisdom, is not only the Father of power and wisdom, but also Himself
power and wisdom; and similarly the Holy Spirit: yet that there are
not three powers or three wisdoms, but one power and one wisdom, as
there is one God and one essence. Inquiry is then made, why the Latins
say one essence, three persons, in God; but the Greeks, one essence,
three substances or hypostases: and both modes of expression are shown
to arise from the necessities of speech, that we might have an answer
to give when asked, what three, while truly confessing that there are
three, viz. the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Chapter 1.--Augustin Returns to the Question, Whether Each Person of
the Trinity by Itself is Wisdom. With What Difficulty, or in What Way,
the Proposed Question is to Be Solved.
1. Let us now inquire more carefully, so far as God grants, into that
which a little before we deferred; whether each person also in the
Trinity can also by Himself and not with the other two be called God,
or great, or wise, or true, or omnipotent, or just, or anything else
that can be said of God, not relatively, but absolutely; or whether
these things cannot be said except when the Trinity is understood. For
the question is raised,--because it is written, "Christ the power of
God, and the wisdom of God," [627] --whether He is so the Father of
His own wisdom and His own power, as that He is wise with that wisdom
which He begat, and powerful with that power which He begat; and
whether, since He is always powerful and wise, He always begat power
and wisdom. For if it be so, then, as we have said, why is He not also
the Father of His own greatness by which He is great, and of His own
goodness by which He is good, and of His own justice by which He is
just, and whatever else there is? Or if all these things are
understood, although under more names than one, to be in the same
wisdom and power, so that that is greatness which is power, that is
goodness which is wisdom, and that again is wisdom which is power, as
we have already argued; then let us remember, that when I mention any
one of these, I am to be taken as if I mentioned all. It is asked,
then, whether the Father also by Himself is wise, and is Himself His
own wisdom itself; or whether He is wise in the same way as He speaks.
For He speaks by the Word which He begat, not by the word which is
uttered, and sounds, and passes away, but by the Word which was with
God, and the Word was God, and all things were made by Him: [628] by
the Word which is equal to Himself, by whom He always and unchangeably
utters Himself. For He is not Himself the Word, as He is not the Son
nor the image. But in speaking (putting aside those words of God in
time which are produced in the creature, for they sound and pass
away,--in speaking then) by that co-eternal Word, He is not understood
singly, but with that Word itself, without whom certainly He does not
speak. Is He then in such way wise as He is one who speaks, so as to
be in such way wisdom, as He is the Word, and so that to be the Word
is to be wisdom, that is, also to be power, so that power and wisdom
and the Word may be the same, and be so called relatively as the Son
and the image: and that the Father is not singly powerful or wise, but
together with the power and wisdom itself which He begat (genuit);
just as He is not singly one who speaks, but by that Word and together
with that Word which He begat; and in like way great by that and
together with that greatness, which He begat? And if He is not great
by one thing, and God by another, but great by that whereby He is God,
because it is not one thing to Him to be great and another to be God;
it follows that neither is He God singly, but by that and together
with that deity (deitas) which He begat; so that the Son is the deity
of the Father, as He is the wisdom and power of the Father, and as He
is the Word and image of the Father. And because it is not one thing
to Him to be, another to be God, the Son is also the essence of the
Father, as He is His Word and image. And hence also--except that He is
the Father [the Unbegotten]--the Father is not anything unless because
He has the Son; so that not only that which is meant by Father (which
it is manifest He is not called relatively to Himself but to the Son,
and therefore is the Father because He has the Son), but that which He
is in respect to His own substance is so called, because He begat His
own essence. For as He is great, only with that greatness which He
begat, so also He is, only with that essence which He begat; because
it is not one thing to Him to be, and another to be great. Is He
therefore the Father of His own essence, in the same way as He is the
Father of His own greatness, as He is the Father of His own power and
wisdom? since His greatness is the same as His power, and His essence
the same as His greatness.
2. This discussion has arisen from that which is written, that "Christ
is the power of God, and the wisdom of God." Wherefore our discourse
is compressed into these narrow limits, while we desire to speak
things unspeakable; that either we must say that Christ is not the
power of God and the wisdom of God, and so shamelessly and impiously
resist the apostle; or we must acknowledge that Christ is indeed the
power of God and the wisdom of God, but that His Father is not the
Father of His own power and wisdom, which is not less impious; for so
neither will He be the Father of Christ, because Christ is the power
of God and the wisdom of God; or that the Father is not powerful with
His own power, or wise with His own wisdom: and who shall dare to say
this? Or yet, again, that we must understand, that in the Father it is
one thing to be, another thing to be wise, so that He is not by that
by which He is wise: a thing usually understood of the soul, which is
at some times unwise, at others wise; as being by nature changeable,
and not absolutely and perfectly simple. Or, again, that the Father is
not anything in respect to His own substance; and that not only that
He is the Father, but that He is, is said relatively to the Son. How
then can the Son be of the same essence as the Father, seeing that the
Father, in respect to Himself, is neither His own essence, nor is at
all in respect to Himself, but even His essence is in relation to the
Son? But, on the contrary, much more is He of one and the same
essence, since the Father and Son are one and the same essence; seeing
that the Father has His being itself not in respect to Himself, but to
the Son, which essence He begat, and by which essence He is whatever
He is. Therefore neither [person] is in respect to Himself alone; and
both exist relatively the one to the other. Or is the Father alone not
called Father of himself, but whatever He is called, is called
relatively to the Son, but the Son is predicated of in reference to
Himself? And if it be so, what is predicated of Him in reference to
Himself? Is it His essence itself? But the Son is the essence of the
Father, as He is the power and wisdom of the Father, as He is the Word
of the Father, and the image of the Father. Or if the Son is called
essence in reference to Himself, but the Father is not essence, but
the begetter of the essence, and is not in respect to Himself, but is
by that very essence which He begat; as He is great by that greatness
which He begat: therefore the Son is also called greatness in respect
to Himself; therefore He is also called, in like manner, power, and
wisdom, and word, and image. But what can be more absurd than that He
should be called image in respect to Himself? Or if image and word are
not the very same with power and wisdom, but the former are spoken
relatively, and the latter in respect to self, not to another; then we
get to this, that the Father is not wise with that wisdom which He
begat, because He Himself cannot be spoken relatively to it, and it
cannot be spoken relatively to Him. For all things which are said
relatively are said reciprocally; therefore it remains that even in
essence the Son is spoken of relatively to the Father. But from this
is educed a most unexpected sense: that essence itself is not essence,
or at least that, when it is called essence, not essence but something
relative is intimated. As when we speak of a master, essence is not
intimated, but a relative which has reference to a slave; but when we
speak of a man, or any such thing which is said in respect to self not
to something else, then essence is intimated. Therefore when a man is
called a master, man himself is essence, but he is called master
relatively; for he is called man in respect to himself, but master in
respect to his slave. But in regard to the point from which we
started, if essence itself is spoken relatively, essence itself is not
essence. Add further, that all essence which is spoken of relatively,
is also something, although the relation be taken away; as e.g. in the
case of a man who is a master, and a man who is a slave, and a horse
that is a beast of burden, and money that is a pledge, the man, and
the horse, and the money are spoken in respect to themselves, and are
substances or essences; but master, and slave, and beast of burden,
and pledge, are spoken relatively to something. But if there were not
a man, that is, some substance, there would be none who could be
called relatively a master; and if there were no horse having a
certain essence, there would be nothing that could be called
relatively a beast of burden; so if money were not some kind of
substance, it could not be called relatively a pledge. Wherefore, if
the Father also is not something in respect to Himself then there is
no one at all that can be spoken of relatively to something. For it is
not as it is with color. The color of a thing is referred to the thing
colored, and color is not spoken at all in reference to substance, but
is always of something that is colored; but that thing of which it is
the color, even if it is referred to color in respect to its being
colored, is yet, in respect to its being a body, spoken of in respect
to substance. But in no way may we think, in like manner, that the
Father cannot be called anything in respect to His own substance, but
that whatever He is called, He is called in relation to the Son; while
the same Son is spoken of both in respect to His own substance and in
relation to the Father, when He is called great greatness, and
powerful power, plainly in respect to Himself, and the greatness and
power of the great and powerful Father, by which the Father is great
and powerful. It is not so; but both are substance, and both are one
substance. And as it is absurd to say that whiteness is not white, so
is it absurd to say that wisdom is not wise; and as whiteness is
called white in respect to itself, so also wisdom is called wise in
respect to itself. But the whiteness of a body is not an essence,
since the body itself is the essence, and that is a quality of it; and
hence also a body is said from that quality to be white, to which body
to be is not the same thing as to be white. For the form in it is one
thing, and the color another; and both are not in themselves, but in a
certain bulk, which bulk is neither form nor color, but is formed and
colored. True wisdom is both wise, and wise in itself. And since in
the case of every soul that becomes wise by partaking of wisdom, if it
again becomes foolish, yet wisdom in itself remains; nor when that
soul was changed into folly is the wisdom likewise so changed;
therefore wisdom is not in him who becomes wise by it, in the same
manner as whiteness is in the body which is by it made white. For when
the body has been changed into another color, that whiteness will not
remain, but will altogether cease to be. But if the Father who begat
wisdom is also made wise by it, and to be is not to Him the same as to
be wise, then the Son is His quality, not His offspring; and there
will no longer be absolute simplicity in the Godhead. But far be it
from being so, since in truth in the Godhead is absolutely simple
essence, and therefore to be is there the same as to be wise. But if
to be is there the same as to be wise, then the Father is not wise by
that wisdom which He begat; otherwise He did not beget it, but it
begat Him. For what else do we say when we say, that to Him to be is
the same as to be wise, unless that He is by that whereby He is wise?
Wherefore, that which is the cause to Him of being wise, is itself
also the cause to Him that He is; and accordingly, if the wisdom which
He begat is the cause to Him of being wise, it is also the cause to
Him that He is; and this cannot be the case, except either by
begetting or by creating Him. But no one ever said in any sense that
wisdom is either the begetter or the creator of the Father; for what
could be more senseless? Therefore both the Father Himself is wisdom,
and the Son is in such way called the wisdom of the Father, as He is
called the light of the Father; that is, that in the same manner as
light from light, and yet both one light, so we are to understand
wisdom of wisdom, and yet both one wisdom; and therefore also one
essence, since, in God, to be, is the same as to be wise. For what to
be wise is to wisdom, and to be able is to power, and to be eternal is
to eternity, and to be just to justice, and to be great to greatness,
that being itself is to essence. And since in the Divine simplicity,
to be wise is nothing else than to be, therefore wisdom there is the
same as essence.
Footnotes
[627] 1 Cor. i. 24
[628] John i. 1, 3
Chapter 2.--The Father and the Son are Together One Wisdom, as One
Essence, Although Not Together One Word.
3. Therefore the Father and the Son together are one essence, and one
greatness, and one truth, and one wisdom. But the Father and Son both
together are not one Word, because both together are not one Son. For
as the Son is referred to the Father, and is not so called in respect
to Himself, so also the Word is referred to him whose Word it is, when
it is called the Word. Since He is the Son in that He is the Word, and
He is the Word in that He is the Son. Inasmuch, therefore, as the
Father and the Son together are certainly not one Son, it follows that
the Father and the Son together are not the one Word of both. And
therefore He is not the Word in that He is wisdom; since He is not
called the Word in respect to Himself, but only relatively to Him
whose Word He is, as He is called the Son in relation to the Father;
but He is wisdom by that whereby He is essence. And therefore, because
one essence, one wisdom. But since the Word is also wisdom, yet is not
thereby the Word because He is wisdom for He is understood to be the
Word relatively, but wisdom essentially: let us understand, that when
He is called the Word, it is meant, wisdom that is born, so as to be
both the Son and the Image; and that when these two words are used,
namely wisdom (is) born, in one of the two, namely born, [629] both
Word, and Image, and Son, are understood, and in all these names
essence is not expressed, since they are spoken relatively; but in the
other word, namely wisdom, since it is spoken also in respect to
substance, for wisdom is wise in itself, essence also is expressed,
and that being of His which is to be wise. Whence the Father and Son
together are one wisdom, because one essence, and singly wisdom of
wisdom, as essence of essence. And hence they are not therefore not
one essence, because the Father is not the Son, and the Son is not the
Father, or because the Father is un-begotten, but the Son is begotten:
since by these names only their relative attributes are expressed. But
both together are one wisdom and one essence; in which to be, is the
same as to be wise. And both together are not the Word or the Son,
since to be is not the same as to be the Word or the Son, as we have
already sufficiently shown that these terms are spoken relatively.
Footnotes
[629] [Augustin sometimes denominates the Son "begotten" (genitus),
and sometimes "born" (natus). Both terms signify that the Son is of
the Father; God of God, Light of Light, Essence of Essence.--W.G.T.S.]
Chapter 3.--Why the Son Chiefly is Intimated in the Scriptures by the
Name of Wisdom, While Both the Father and the Holy Spirit are Wisdom.
That the Holy Spirit, Together with the Father and the Son, is One
Wisdom.
4. Why, then, is scarcely anything ever said in the Scriptures of
wisdom, unless to show that it is begotten or created of
God?--begotten in the case of that Wisdom by which all things are
made; but created or made, as in men, when they are converted to that
Wisdom which is not created and made but begotten, and are so
enlightened; for in these men themselves there comes to be something
which may be called their wisdom: even as the Scriptures foretell or
narrate, that "the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us;" [630] for
in this way Christ was made wisdom, because He was made man. Is it on
this account that wisdom does not speak in these books, nor is
anything spoken of it, except to declare that it is born of God, or
made by Him (although the Father is Himself wisdom), namely, because
wisdom ought to be commended and imitated by us, by the imitation of
which we are fashioned [rightly]? For the Father speaks it, that it
may be His Word: yet not as a word producing a sound proceeds from the
mouth, or is thought before it is pronounced. For this word is
completed in certain spaces of time, but that is eternal, and speaks
to us by enlightening us, what ought to be spoken to men, both of
itself and of the Father. And therefore He says, "No man knoweth the
Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son,
and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him:" [631] since the Father
reveals by the Son, that is, by His Word. For if that word which we
utter, and which is temporal and transitory, declares both itself, and
that of which we speak, how much more the Word of God, by which all
things are made? For this Word so declares the Father as He is the
Father; because both itself so is, and is that which is the Father, in
so far as it is wisdom and essence. For in so far as it is the Word,
it is not what the Father is; because the Word is not the Father, and
Word is spoken relatively, as is also Son, which assuredly is not the
Father. And therefore Christ is the power and wisdom of God, because
He Himself, being also power and wisdom, is from the Father, who is
power and wisdom; as He is light of the Father, who is light, and the
fountain of life with God the Father, who is Himself assuredly the
fountain of life. For "with Thee," He says, "is the fountain of life,
and in Thy light shall we see light." [632] Because, "as the Father
hath life in Himself, so hath He given to the Son to have life in
Himself:" [633] and, "He was the true Light, which lighteth every man
that cometh into the world:" and this light, "the Word," was "with
God;" but "the Word also was God;" [634] and "God is light, and in Him
is no darkness at all:" [635] but a light that is not corporeal, but
spiritual; yet not in such way spiritual, that it was wrought by
illumination, as it was said to the apostles, "Ye are the light of the
world," [636] but "the light which lighteth every man," that very
supreme wisdom itself who is God, of whom we now treat. The Son
therefore is Wisdom of wisdom, namely the Father, as He is Light of
light, and God of God; so that both the Father singly is light, and
the Son singly is light; and the Father singly is God, and the Son
singly is God: therefore the Father also singly is wisdom, and the Son
singly is wisdom. And as both together are one light and one God, so
both are one wisdom. But the Son is "by God made unto us wisdom, and
righteousness, and sanctification;" [637] because we turn ourselves to
Him in time, that is, from some particular time, that we may remain
with Him for ever. And He Himself from a certain time was "the Word
made flesh, and dwelt among us."
5. On this account, then, when anything concerning wisdom is declared
or narrated in the Scriptures, whether as itself speaking, or where
anything is spoken of it, the Son chiefly is intimated to us. And by
the example of Him who is the image, let us also not depart from God,
since we also are the Image of God: not indeed that which is equal to
Him, since we are made so by the Father through the Son, and not born
of the Father, as that is. And we are so, because we are enlightened
with light; but that is so, because it is the light that enlightens;
and which, therefore, being without pattern, is to us a pattern. For
He does not imitate any one going before Him, in respect to the
Father, from whom He is never separable at all, since He is the very
same substance with Him from whom He is. But we by striving imitate
Him who abides, and follow Him who stands still, and walking in Him,
reach out towards Him; because He is made for us a way in time by His
humiliation, which is to us an eternal abiding-place by His divinity.
For since to pure intellectual spirits, who have not fallen through
pride, He gives an example in the form of God and as equal with God
and as God; so, in order that He might also give Himself as an example
of returning to fallen man who on account of the uncleanness of sins
and the punishment of mortality cannot see God, "He emptied Himself;"
not by changing His own divinity, but by assuming our changeableness:
and "taking upon Him the form of a servant" [638] He came to us into
this world," [639] who "was in this world," because "the world was
made by Him;" [640] that He might be an example upwards to those who
see God, an example downwards to those who admire man, an example to
the sound to persevere, an example to the sick to be made whole, an
example to those who are to die that they may not fear, an example to
the dead that they may rise again, "that in all things He might have
the pre-eminence." [641] So that, because man ought not to follow any
except God to blessedness, and yet cannot perceive God; by following
God made man, he might follow at once Him whom he could perceive, and
whom he ought to follow. Let us then love Him and cleave to Him, by
charity spread abroad in our hearts, through the Holy Spirit which is
given unto us. [642] It is not therefore to be wondered at, if, on
account of the example which the Image, which is equal to the Father,
gives to us, in order that we may be refashioned after the image of
God, Scripture, when it speaks of wisdom, speaks of the Son, whom we
follow by living wisely; although the Father also is wisdom, as He is
both light and God.
6. The Holy Spirit also, whether we are to call Him that absolute love
which joins together Father and Son, and joins us also from beneath,
that so that is not unfitly said which is written, "God is love;"
[643] how is He not also Himself wisdom, since He is light, because
"God is light"? or whether after any other way the essence of the Holy
Spirit is to be singly and properly named; then, too, since He is God,
He is certainly light; and since He is light, He is certainly wisdom.
But that the Holy Spirit is God, Scripture proclaims by the apostle,
who says, "Know ye not that ye are the temple of God?" and immediately
subjoins, "And the Spirit of God dwelleth in you;" [644] for God
dwelleth in His own temple. For the Spirit of God does not dwell in
the temple of God as a servant, since he says more plainly in another
place, "Know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost
which is in you, and which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
For ye are bought with a great price: therefore glorify God in your
body." [645] But what is wisdom, except spiritual and unchangeable
light? For yonder sun also is light, but it is corporeal; and the
spiritual creature also is light, but it is not unchangeable.
Therefore the Father is light, the Son is light, and the Holy Spirit
is light; but together not three lights, but one light. And so the
Father is wisdom, the Son is wisdom, and the Holy Spirit is wisdom,
and together not three wisdoms, but one wisdom: and because in the
Trinity to be is the same as to be wise, the Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit, are one essence. Neither in the Trinity is it one thing to be
and another to be God; therefore the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are
one God.
Footnotes
[630] John i. 14
[631] Matt. xi. 27
[632] Ps. xxxvi. 9
[633] John v. 2
[634] John i. 9, 1
[635] 1 John i. 5
[636] Matt. v. 14
[637] 1 Cor. i. 30
[638] Phil. ii. 7
[639] 1 Tim. i. 15
[640] John i. 10
[641] Col. i. 18
[642] Rom. v. 5
[643] 1 John iv. 8
[644] 1 Cor. iii. 16
[645] 1 Cor. vi. 19, 20
Chapter 4.--How It Was Brought About that the Greeks Speak of Three
Hypostases, the Latins of Three Persons. Scripture Nowhere Speaks of
Three Persons in One God.
7. For the sake, then, of speaking of things that cannot be uttered,
that we may be able in some way to utter what we are able in no way to
utter fully, our Greek friends have spoken of one essence, three
substances; but the Latins of one essence or substance, three persons;
because, as we have already said, [646] essence usually means nothing
else than substance in our language, that is, in Latin. And provided
that what is said is understood only in a mystery, such a way of
speaking was sufficient, in order that there might be something to say
when it was asked what the three are, which the true faith pronounces
to be three, when it both declares that the Father is not the Son, and
that the Holy Spirit, which is the gift of God, is neither the Father
nor the Son. When, then, it is asked what the three are, or who the
three are, we betake ourselves to the finding out of some special or
general name under which we may embrace these three; and no such name
occurs to the mind, because the super-eminence of the Godhead
surpasses the power of customary speech. For God is more truly thought
than He is altered, and exists more truly than He is thought. For when
we say that Jacob was not the same as Abraham, but that Isaac was
neither Abraham nor Jacob, certainly we confess that they are three,
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. But when it is asked what three, we reply
three men, calling them in the plural by a specific name; but if we
were to say three animals, then by a generic name; for man, as the
ancients have defined him, is a rational, mortal animal: or again, as
our Scriptures usually speak, three souls, since it is fitting to
denominate the whole from the better part, that is, to denominate both
body and soul, which is the whole man, from the soul; for so it is
said that seventy-five souls went down into Egypt with Jacob, instead
of saying so many men. [647] Again, when we say that your horse is not
mine, and that a third belonging to some one else is neither mine nor
yours, then we confess that there are three; and if any one ask what
three, we answer three horses by a specific name, but three animals by
a generic one. And yet again, when we say that an ox is not a horse,
but that a dog is neither an ox nor a horse, we speak of a three; and
if any one questions us what three, we do not speak now by a specific
name of three horses, or three oxen, or three dogs, because the three
are not contained under the same species, but by a generic name, three
animals; or if under a higher genus, three substances, or three
creatures, or three natures. But whatsoever things are expressed in
the plural number specifically by one name, can also be expressed
generically by one name. But all things which are generically called
by one name cannot also be called specifically by one name. For three
horses, which is a specific name, we also call three animals; but, a
horse, and an ox, and a dog, we call only three animals or substances,
which are generic names, or anything else that can be spoken
generically concerning them; but we cannot speak of them as three
horses, or oxen, or dogs, which are specific names; for we express
those things by one name, although in the plural number, which have
that in common that is signified by the name. For Abraham, and Isaac,
and Jacob, have in common that which is man; therefore they are called
three men: a horse also, and an ox, and a dog, have in common that
which is animal; therefore they are called three animals. So three
several laurels we also call three trees; but a laurel, and a myrtle,
and an olive, we call only three trees, or three substances, or three
natures: and so three stones we call also three bodies; but stone, and
wood, and iron, we call only three bodies, or by any other higher
generic name by which they can be called. Of the Father, therefore,
the Son, and the Holy Spirit, seeing that they are three, let us ask
what three they are, and what they have in common. For the being the
Father is not common to them, so that they should be interchangeably
fathers to one another: as friends, since they are so called
relatively to each other, can be called three friends, because they
are so mutually to each other. But this is not the case in the
Trinity, since the Father only is there father; and not Father of two,
but of the Son only. Neither are they three Sons, since the Father
there is not the Son, nor is the Holy Spirit. Neither three Holy
Spirits, because the Holy Spirit also, in that proper meaning by which
He is also called the gift of God, is neither the Father nor the Son.
What three therefore? For if three persons, then that which is meant
by person is common to them; therefore this name is either specific or
generic to them, according to the manner of speaking. But where there
is no difference of nature, there things that are several in number
are so expressed generically, that they can also be expressed
specifically. For the difference of nature causes, that a laurel, and
a myrtle, and an olive, or a horse, and an ox, and a dog, are not
called by the specific name, the former of three laurels, or the
latter of three oxen, but by the generic name, the former of three
trees, and the latter of three animals. But here, where there is no
difference of essence, it is necessary that these three should have a
specific name, which yet is not to be found. For person is a generic
name, insomuch that man also can be so called, although there is so
great a difference between man and God.
8. Further, in regard to that very generic (generalis) word, if on
this account we say three persons, because that which person means is
common to them (otherwise they can in no way be so called, just as
they are not called three sons, because that which son means is not
common to them); why do we not also say three Gods? For certainly,
since the Father is a person, and the Son a person, and the Holy
Spirit a person, therefore there are three persons: since then the
Father is God, and the Son God, and the Holy Spirit God, why not three
Gods? Or else, since on account of their ineffable union these three
are together one God, why not also one person; so that we could not
say three persons, although we call each a person singly, just as we
cannot say three Gods, although we call each singly God, whether the
Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit? Is it because Scripture does
not say three Gods? But neither do we find that Scripture anywhere
mentions three persons. Or is it because Scripture does not call these
three, either three persons or one person (for we read of the person
of the Lord, but not of the Lord as a person), that therefore it was
lawful through the mere necessity of speaking and reasoning to say
three persons, not because Scripture says it, but because Scripture
does not contradict it: whereas, if we were to say three Gods,
Scripture would contradict it, which says, "Hear, O Israel; the Lord
thy God is one God?" [648] Why then is it not also lawful to say three
essences; which, in like manner, as Scripture does not say, so neither
does it contradict? For if essence is a specific (specialis) name
common to three, why are They not to be called three essences, as
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are called three men, because man is the
specific name common to all men? But if essence is not a specific
name, but a generic one, since man, and cattle, and tree, and
constellation, and angel, are called essences; why are not these
called three essences, as three horses are called three animals, and
three laurels are called three trees, and three stones three bodies?
Or if they are not called three essences, but one essence, on account
of the unity of the Trinity, why is it not the case, that on account
of the same unity of the Trinity they are not to be called three
substances or three persons, but one substance and one person? For as
the name of essence is common to them, so that each singly is called
essence, so the name of either substance or person is common to them.
For that which must be understood of persons according to our usage,
this is to be understood of substances according to the Greek usage;
for they say three substances, one essence, in the same way as we say
three persons, one essence or substance.
9. What therefore remains, except that we confess that these terms
sprang from the necessity of speaking, when copious reasoning was
required against the devices or errors of the heretics? For when human
weakness endeavored to utter in speech to the senses of man what it
grasps in the secret places of the mind in proportion to its
comprehension respecting the Lord God its creator, whether by devout
faith, or by any discernment whatsoever; it feared to say three
essences, lest any difference should be understood to exist in that
absolute equality. Again, it could not say that there were not three
somewhats (tria quædam), for it was because Sabellius said this that
he fell into heresy. For it must be devoutly believed, as most
certainly known from the Scriptures, and must be grasped by the mental
eye with undoubting perception, that there is both Father, and Son,
and Holy Spirit; and that the Son is not the same with the Father, nor
the Holy Spirit the same with the Father or the Son. It sought then
what three it should call them, and answered substances or persons; by
which names it did not intend diversity to be meant, but singleness to
be denied: that not only unity might be understood therein from the
being called one essence, but also Trinity from the being called three
substances or persons. For if it is the same thing with God to be
(esse) as to subsist (subsistere), they were not to be called three
substances, in such sense as they are not called three essences; just
as, because it is the same thing with God to be as to be wise, as we
do not say three essences, so neither three wisdoms. For so, because
it is the same thing to Him to be God as to be, it is not right to say
three essences, as it is not right to say three Gods. But if it is one
thing to God to be, another to subsist, as it is one thing to God to
be, another to be the Father or the Lord (for that which He is, is
spoken in respect to Himself, but He is called Father in relation to
the Son, and Lord in relation to the creature which serves Him);
therefore He subsists relatively, as He begets relatively, and bears
rule relatively: so then substance will be no longer substance,
because it will be relative. For as from being, He is called essence,
so from subsisting, we speak of substance. But it is absurd that
substance should be spoken relatively, for everything subsists in
respect to itself; how much more God? [649]
Footnotes
[646] Bk. v. c. 28.
[647] Gen. xlvi. 27, and Deut. x. 22
[648] Deut. vi. 4
[649] [Augustin's meaning is, that the term "substance" is not an
adequate one whereby to denote a trinitarian distinction, because in
order to denote such a distinction it must be employed relatively,
while in itself it has an absolute signification. In the next chapter
he proceeds to show this.--W.G.T.S.]
Chapter 5.--In God, Substance is Spoken Improperly, Essence Properly.
10. If, however, it is fitting that God should be said to
subsist--(For this word is rightly applied to those things, in which
as subjects those things are, which are said to be in a subject, as
color or shape in body. For body subsists, and so is substance; but
those things are in the body, which subsists and is their subject, and
they are not substances, but are in a substance: and so, if either
that color or that shape ceases to be, it does not deprive the body of
being a body, because it is not of the being of body, that it should
retain this or that shape or color; therefore neither changeable nor
simple things are properly called substances.)--If, I say, God
subsists so that He can be properly called a substance, then there is
something in Him as it were in a subject, and He is not simple, i.e.
such that to Him to be is the same as is anything else that is said
concerning Him in respect to Himself; as, for instance, great,
omnipotent, good, and whatever of this kind is not unfitly said of
God. But it is an impiety to say that God subsists, and is a subject
in relation to His own goodness, and that this goodness is not a
substance or rather essence, and that God Himself is not His own
goodness, but that it is in Him as in a subject. And hence it is clear
that God is improperly called substance, in order that He may be
understood to be, by the more usual name essence, which He is truly
and properly called; so that perhaps it is right that God alone should
be called essence. For He is truly alone, because He is unchangeable;
and declared this to be His own name to His servant Moses, when He
says, "I am that I am;" and, "Thus shalt thou say unto the children of
Israel: He who is hath sent me unto you." [650] However, whether He be
called essence, which He is properly called, or substance, which He is
called improperly, He is called both in respect to Himself, not
relatively to anything; whence to God to be is the same thing as to
subsist; and so the Trinity, if one essence, is also one substance.
Perhaps therefore they are more conveniently called three persons than
three substances.
Footnotes
[650] Ex. iii. 14
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 are [653] 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] 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]
Footnotes
[651] John x. 30
[652] Unum
[653] Sumus
[654] John xiv. 23
[655] Gen. i. 26
[656] 1 Cor. xi. 7
[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.]
[658] Rom. xii. 2
[659] Eph. v. 1
[660] Col. iii. 10
[661] Isa. vii. 9
Also, see links to 600+ other Augustine Manuscripts:
/believe/txv/earlyche.htm
/believe/txv/earlychf.htm
/believe/txv/earlychg.htm
/believe/txv/earlychh.htm
/believe/txv/earlychi.htm
/believe/txv/earlychj.htm
/believe/txv/earlychk.htm
/believe/txv/earlychl.htm
/believe/txv/earlychm.htm
/believe/txv/earlychn.htm
E-mail to: BELIEVE
The main BELIEVE web-page (and the index to subjects) is at:
BELIEVE Religious Information Source - By Alphabet
http://mb-soft.com/believe/indexaz.html