stasis; but they intend to put a difference, I cause of greatness is another, and a great
THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN. [Book V.
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,;%'¢ 1 andimy))FatherVare jones, % Far He has not said, °'zs 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 are not said to be in God properly, but metaphorically and through similitudes. For He is both said to dwell between the cherubims,' which is spoken in respect to position; and to be covered with the deep as with a garment,' which is said in respect to condition; and
Thy. years shall have no end,"3 which is said in respect of time; and, ''If I ascend up into heaven, Thou art there," 4 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:5 "' For of Him are all things, and through Him are all things, and in Him are all things; to whom be glory."'®° 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 viota, and which we call more usually substance. 10. They indeed use also the word hypostasis; but they intend to put a difference, I
persons,'' not that it might be [completely spoken, but that it might not be left holly} unspoken.
CHAP. I10.—-THOSE THINGS WHICH BELONG AB-
SOLUTELY 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 whic it is one thing to de, and another to be grea/, as a great house, and a great mountain, an 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 zs 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
know not what, between vdcfa and hypostasis: 'so that most of ourselves who treat these things in the Greek language, are accus- 'tomed to say, plav odetay, tosis bnootdcets, OF, /in Latin, one essence, three substances.'
CHAP, 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
1 Ps, 1xxx, 1. 2 Ps, civ. 6. 3 Ps. cii. 27. 4 Ps, cxxxix. 8, 5 [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 isa Western one, originating in the school of Augustin.—W. G. T.5S.]
6 Rom. xi. 36. 7 {It is remarkable that Augustin, understanding thoroughly the distinction between essence and person, should not have known the difference between ovgia and undoracts. It wouldseem as if his only moderate acquaintance with the Greek language would have been more than compensated by his profound trinitarian knowledge.
In respect tothe term '' sudstantia''—when it was discriminated from "'essentia,'' as it is here by Augustin—it corresponds to vnootacts, 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 medizval Latin, of the term "' sudsistantia,'' to denote vréctacis.—W., G. T. S.]}
8 John x. 30.