The Essential Augustine
these three, either three 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"? [Deut. 6:4] Why then is it not alss 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 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 Greek usage; > for they say three substances, one essence, in the same way as we say three persons, one essence or substance, What therefore remains, except that we confess that 9. 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, 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 eye of the mind with undoubting perception, that there is both Father and Son and APPROACHING GOD THROUGH UNDERSTANDING 143
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 as to subsist, 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,
GOD IS THE SELFSAME*
Let the remainder of the text remove all doubt, for 3.5. we should not take a carnal meaning of: "Jerusalem which is built as a city; of which His participation is in the selfsame." So now, brethren, whoever lifts up the gaze of his mind, whoever puts aside the obscurity of the flesh, whoever cleanses the eye of his heart, let him rise up and see the selfsame. What is the selfsame? How may I express it, except as the selfsame? Brethren, if you are able, understand the selfsame. For, whatever other exprese sion I use, I do not express the selfsame. Let us attempt, however, by means of some approximations of words and meanings, to extend the weakness of our minds so as to think upon the selfsame.
What is the selfsame? That which always exists in the same way; that which is not now one thing and again a different thing. What is that which is? That which is eternal. For, that which is always in one way and then in another is not, for it does not endure; it is not altogether nonexistent, but it does not exist in the highest sense. And what is that which is, except He Who when He sent Moses forth said to him, "I am Who am"? What is this, except He Who when His servant said, "Behold, Thou sendest me; if the people say to me, Who sent you?, what shall I reply?" would give no other name than, "I am Who am." He added this statement, "Say then to the sons of Israel, He Who is hath sent me to you." [Exod. 3:13-15] You cannot grasp it; it is a great deal to understand, a great deal to take in.
* On Psalm 121, 3.5; trans. V.J.B.
Ll Ie et