|
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 m common the
species which is called man; not as man is subdivided into Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob, so can one man also be subdivided rate 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 aspecific 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 ant 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 legs 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." He has both
said "one," and "we are 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 mention ed in
the plural number: "My Father and I will come unto him, and make
our abode with him." 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." 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." 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; 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;" to whom he likewise says, "Be ye
therefore imitators of God as dear children." For it is said to the
new man, "which is renewed to the knowledge of God, after the image
of Him that created him." 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."
|
|