|
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,"
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: 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 ret 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.
|
|