On the Trinity, Book 7

Let us now investigate more carefully, as far as God allows, the question we postponed earlier: whether each person also in the Trinity can be called, in Himself and apart from the other two, God, or great, or wise, or true, or all-powerful, or just, or anything else that can be said of God, in Himself rather than in relation to another; or whether these things can be said only when the Trinity as a whole is meant. The question arises because it is written, “Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.” Does this mean He is the Father of His own wisdom and power in such a way that He is wise through the wisdom He generated and powerful through the power He generated, and that, since He is always powerful and wise, He eternally generated power and wisdom? If this is so, then, as already mentioned, 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 anything else of this kind? Or if all these things, though given different names, are understood to belong to the same wisdom and power, so that greatness is the same as power, goodness the same as wisdom, and wisdom in turn the same as power, as we have already argued; then remember that when I mention any one of these, I should be understood as mentioning all of them. The question, then, is whether the Father is wise in Himself and is Himself His own wisdom, or whether He is wise in the same way as He speaks. For He speaks through the Word He generated, not through a word that is uttered, 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, through whom He expresses Himself eternally and without change. He is not Himself the Word, just as He is neither the Son nor the Image. When He speaks through that co-eternal Word (setting aside God’s words produced in creation within time, which sound and pass away), He is understood together with that Word rather than alone, without whom certainly He does not speak. Is He wise, then, in the same way that He speaks, so that He is wisdom in the same way that He is the Word, and being the Word means being wisdom and power, so that power and wisdom and the Word may be the same, and are relational descriptions, like Son and Image? Would the Father then be powerful or wise together with the power and wisdom He generated (genuit), rather than alone, just as He speaks through and together with the Word He generated, rather than alone, and likewise be great through and together with the greatness He generated? If His greatness does not come from one thing and His being God from another, but He is great through the same thing through which He is God, because being great and being God are not different for Him, it follows that He would not be God alone, but through and together with the deity (deitas) He generated; 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. Since existing and being God are not different for Him, the Son is also the essence of the Father, as He is His Word and image. It would also follow that, except for being the Father [the Unbegotten], the Father is nothing unless He has the Son; not only the meaning of Father (which clearly describes Him in relation to the Son rather than to Himself, so He is the Father because He has the Son), but even what He is in His own substance would depend on His generating His own essence. Just as He would be great only through the greatness He generated, He would exist only through the essence He generated, because existing and being great are not different for Him. 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? For His greatness is the same as His power, and His essence the same as His greatness. This discussion arose from the statement that “Christ is the power of God, and the wisdom of God.” Our effort to express what cannot be expressed therefore confines the argument to these alternatives: that either we must say that Christ is not the power of God and the wisdom of God, shamelessly and irreverently opposing 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 no less irreverent; for then He would not be Christ’s Father either, because Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God; or we must say that the Father is not powerful through His own power or wise through His own wisdom. Who would dare say this? Another alternative is to understand existing and being wise as different in the Father, so that what makes Him exist is not what makes Him wise: this is how we usually understand the soul, which is sometimes unwise and sometimes wise, because it can change by nature and is not completely and perfectly simple. Or we must say that the Father is nothing in His own substance, and that not only His being Father but His very existence is described in relation to the Son. How then can the Son be of the same essence as the Father, if the Father in Himself is neither His own essence nor exists in Himself at all, but even His essence is in relation to the Son? Yet on the contrary, this would make Him all the more of one and the same essence, since the Father and Son are one and the same essence; since the Father’s very existence would not be in Himself but in relation to the Son, whose essence He generated and through whose essence He is whatever He is. Neither [person] would therefore exist in Himself alone; both would exist in relation to one another. Or is everything said of the Father, not merely the name Father, said in relation to the Son, while the Son is described in Himself? If so, what is said of Him in 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 suppose that the Son is called essence in Himself, while the Father is not essence but the one who generates essence, and does not exist in Himself but through the essence He generated, just as He is great through the greatness He generated. Then the Son is also called greatness in Himself; likewise, He is also called power, wisdom, Word, and Image in Himself. Yet what could be more absurd than calling Him Image in relation to Himself? Or suppose Image and Word are not the same as power and wisdom, the former describing a relation, and the latter what someone is in Himself rather than in relation to another. Then it follows that the Father is not wise through the wisdom He generated, because He cannot be described in relation to it without its being described in relation to Him. All relational descriptions are reciprocal; it follows that even as essence the Son is described in relation to the Father. This produces a highly unexpected meaning: that essence itself is not essence, or at least that, when it is called essence, a relation rather than essence is being indicated. When we speak of a master, for example, we indicate a relation to a slave rather than an essence; when we speak of a human being, or something else described in itself rather than in relation to another, we indicate essence. When a human being is called a master, the human being himself is essence, but master describes a relation; human describes what he is in himself, while master relates him to his slave. Returning to our starting point, if essence itself describes a relation, essence itself is not essence. Furthermore, every essence described relationally remains something even if the relation is removed; consider a human master, a human slave, a horse used as a beast of burden, and money used as a pledge: the human being, horse, and money are described in themselves and are substances or essences; but master, and slave, and beast of burden, and pledge, describe relations to something else. Without a human being, that is, some substance, there would be no one to be called a master in relation to someone else; and if there were no horse having a certain essence, there would be nothing to be called a beast of burden in relation to something else; so if money were not some kind of substance, it could not be called a pledge in relation to something else. Therefore, if the Father is nothing in Himself, no one remains to be described in relation to something else. This is not like the case of color. A thing’s color refers to the colored thing; color is not described in itself at all, but is always the color of something colored; the thing that has the color, although related to color when called colored, is described in its own substance when called a body. We must never similarly suppose that nothing can be said of the Father in His own substance, and everything said of Him relates to the Son, while the Son is described both in His own substance and in relation to the Father, when He is called great greatness, and powerful power, clearly in Himself, and the greatness and power of the great and powerful Father, through which the Father is great and powerful. This is not the case; but both are substance, and both are one substance. And as it is absurd to say that whiteness is not white, it is equally absurd to say that wisdom is not wise; and as whiteness is called white in itself, so also wisdom is called wise in itself. A body’s whiteness, however, is not an essence, since the body itself is the essence, while whiteness is its quality; that quality makes the body white, but existing and being white are not the same for a body. Its shape and color are different things; neither exists in itself, but in a physical mass that is neither shape nor color but has shape and color. True wisdom is both wise, and wise in itself. Whenever a soul becomes wise by sharing in wisdom and then becomes foolish again, wisdom remains in itself; the soul’s change to foolishness does not change wisdom; wisdom is therefore not in someone who becomes wise through it in the same way that whiteness is in a body it makes white. For when the body has been changed into another color, its whiteness does not remain but ceases to exist altogether. But if the Father who generated wisdom is also made wise through it, and existing is not the same for Him as being wise, then the Son is His quality, not His offspring; and the Godhead would no longer be completely simple. This cannot be so, because the Godhead’s essence is in fact completely simple, and therefore existing and being wise are the same there. If existing and being wise are the same there, the Father is not wise through the wisdom He generated; otherwise He did not generate it; it generated Him. What else do we mean by saying that existing and being wise are the same for Him, except that what makes Him wise makes Him exist? Therefore, whatever causes Him to be wise also causes Him to exist; if the wisdom He generated causes Him to be wise, it also causes Him to exist; it could do this only by generating or creating Him. Yet no one has ever said in any sense that wisdom either generated or created the Father; what could be more senseless? The Father Himself is therefore wisdom, and the Son is called the Father’s wisdom in the same way that He is called the Father’s light; just as we understand Light from Light, yet both one light, we should understand wisdom from wisdom, yet both one wisdom; and therefore also one essence, because in God existing is the same as being wise. Existing itself stands to essence as being wise stands to wisdom, being powerful to power, being eternal to eternity, being just to justice, and being great to greatness. Since in divine simplicity being wise is nothing other than existing, wisdom there is the same as essence.

Therefore the Father and the Son together are one essence, and one greatness, and one truth, and one wisdom. The Father and Son together, however, are not one Word, because both together are not one Son. Just as Son refers to the Father and does not describe what the Son is in Himself, Word refers to Him whose Word He is. He is the Son in being the Word, and the Word in being the Son. Since the Father and Son together are certainly not one Son, it follows that the Father and the Son together are not the one Word of both. He is therefore not the Word simply because He is wisdom; Word describes Him only in relation to Him whose Word He is, rather than in Himself, as He is called the Son in relation to the Father; whereas being wisdom is the same for Him as being essence. Since they are one essence, they are therefore one wisdom. The Word is also wisdom, yet is not the Word simply because He is wisdom: Word describes a relation, whereas wisdom describes essence. Let us understand Word to mean wisdom that is born, and is therefore both Son and Image. When the two words wisdom (is) born are used, born implies Word, Image, and Son, and none of these names expresses essence, since all describe relations. The other word, wisdom, describes substance in itself, since wisdom is wise in itself; it therefore expresses essence and His existence, which is the same as being wise. The Father and Son together are therefore one wisdom because they are one essence, while individually there is wisdom from wisdom, just as essence from essence. Their being one essence is not prevented by the fact that the Father is not the Son, and the Son is not the Father, or that the Father is not generated, whereas the Son is generated, since these names express only their relations. But both together are one wisdom and one essence, in which existing is the same as being wise. And both together are not the Word or the Son, since existing is not the same as being Word or Son, as we have already shown sufficiently that these terms describe relations.

Why, then, does Scripture almost always speak of wisdom as generated or created by God? It is generated in the case of the Wisdom through which everything is made, but created or made in human beings when they turn to that Wisdom which is generated rather than created or made, and are enlightened by it; something then comes into existence in these people themselves that can be called their wisdom. Likewise, Scripture foretells or describes how “the Word was made flesh, and lived among us;” in this way Christ became wisdom because He became human. Is this why, whenever wisdom speaks or is spoken of in these books, it is presented as born from God or made by Him (although the Father is Himself wisdom), because this wisdom should be presented for us to imitate, so that imitating it shapes us [rightly]? The Father expresses this wisdom as His Word, but not like a spoken sound coming from the mouth, or a word thought before it is spoken. Our word is completed over a period of time, but that Word is eternal, and by enlightening us tells us what people need to hear about both Himself and the Father. That is why He says, “No one knows the Son except the Father; no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal Him:” since the Father reveals by the Son, that is, by His Word. If our spoken word, which exists in time and passes away, reveals both itself and what we speak about, how much more does God’s Word, through which everything is made? This Word reveals the Father as the Father is, because the Word Himself exists in the same way and is what the Father is as wisdom and essence. As Word, however, He is not what the Father is, because the Word is not the Father; Word describes a relation, as does Son, who certainly is not the Father. Christ is therefore God’s power and wisdom because He is Himself power and wisdom from the Father, who is power and wisdom, just as He is light from the Father, who is light, and the fountain of life with God the Father, who is certainly Himself the fountain of life. For “with You,” He says, “is the fountain of life, and in Your light shall we see light.” For Scripture says, “as the Father has life in Himself, so has He given to the Son to have life in Himself:” and, “He was the true Light, which enlightens everyone who comes into the world:” and this light, “the Word,” was “with God;” but “the Word also was God;” and “God is light, and there is no darkness in Him at all.” This light is spiritual rather than physical, but not spiritual in the sense of being produced through enlightenment, as it was said to the apostles, “You are the light of the world”; rather, it is “the light which enlightens everyone,” the supreme Wisdom itself, who is God and the subject of our discussion. The Son is therefore Wisdom from wisdom, namely the Father, just as He is Light from light and God from God; the Father individually is light, and the Son individually is light; the Father individually is God, and the Son individually is God; the Father individually is therefore wisdom, and the Son individually is wisdom. And as both together are one light and one God, so both are one wisdom. The Son, however, has been “made wisdom, righteousness, and sanctification for us by God,” because we turn ourselves to Him in time, that is, beginning at a particular time, so that we may remain with Him forever. He Himself, beginning at a particular time, was “the Word made flesh, and lived among us.” Therefore, when Scripture declares or describes anything about wisdom, whether wisdom speaks or is spoken of, the Son is chiefly being indicated. Following the example of Him who is the Image, let us too remain with God, since we also are the Image of God: although not an image equal to Him, since we are made so by the Father through the Son, rather than born from the Father as that Image is. We are images because the light enlightens us; He is the Image because He is the light that enlightens; He therefore follows no model but is our model. He does not imitate anyone going before Him toward the Father, from whom He can never be separated, because He has the very same substance as Him from whom He has His being. We, however, strive to imitate Him who remains, follow Him who does not move, and walk in Him as we reach toward Him, because through His humility He became our path in time, while through His divinity He is our eternal home. For pure, intelligent spirits who have not fallen through pride, He provides an example in the form of God, as equal with God and as God; and to offer Himself also as an example of return for fallen humanity which cannot see God because of the impurity of sins and the punishment of mortality, “He emptied Himself;” not by changing His divinity, but by taking on our capacity for change; and “taking the form of a servant” He came to us into this world, who “was in this world,” because “the world was made by Him;” He would be an example above for those who see God, and below for those who look with wonder at humanity, an example for the healthy to persevere and the sick to recover, an example for the dying not to fear and the dead to rise again, “so that He might have first place in everything.” Human beings should follow no one but God toward blessedness, yet cannot perceive God; by following God made human, they could therefore follow someone they could perceive and whom they ought to follow. Let us love Him and hold fast to Him through the love poured into our hearts by the Holy Spirit given to us. It is therefore unsurprising that, because the Image equal to the Father gives us an example to reshape us according to God’s image, Scripture, when it speaks of wisdom, speaks of the Son, whom we follow by living wisely; although the Father too is wisdom, just as He is light and God. Consider also the Holy Spirit: if we call Him the supreme love that joins Father and Son and joins us to them in our lower place, as is fitting in light of the statement, “God is love;” how could He not also be wisdom Himself, since He is light, because “God is light”? Or if another term properly describes the Holy Spirit’s essence individually, even then, since He is God, He is certainly light; and since He is light, He is certainly wisdom. Scripture proclaims through the apostle that the Holy Spirit is God: the apostle says, “Do you not know that you are the temple of God?” and immediately adds, “And the Spirit of God dwells in you;” for God dwells 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, “Do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit which is in you, and which you have of God, and you are not your own? For you were bought at a great price: therefore glorify God in your body.” But what is wisdom, except spiritual and unchangeable light? The sun too is light, but physical light; a created spirit too is light, but can change. Therefore the Father is light, the Son is light, and the Holy Spirit is light; but together not three lights, but one light. Thus 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 existing is the same as being wise, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are one essence. In the Trinity, existing and being God are not different either; therefore the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are one God.

To speak of things beyond expression, and somehow express what we can never express fully, our Greek colleagues have spoken of one essence, three substances, while Latin speakers say one essence or substance, three persons, because, as already mentioned, essence and substance usually mean the same in our language, Latin. Provided the words are understood at least as a riddle, this language was satisfactory, so that something could be said when asked what the three are, whom the true faith declares to be three when it says 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 we are asked what the three are, or who they are, we try to find a name for a species or a genus that could include all three; no such name comes to mind, because the Godhead’s surpassing greatness exceeds the capacity of ordinary speech. God is more truly conceived than spoken of, and exists more truly than He is conceived. For when we say that Jacob was not the same as Abraham, but that Isaac was neither Abraham nor Jacob, we certainly acknowledge that there are three: Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. When asked “three what?”, we answer “three human beings,” using a species name in the plural; if we said “three animals,” we would use a genus name; for the ancient definition of a human being is a rational, mortal animal. Or, following the usual language of our Scriptures, we could say “three souls,” because we can name a whole after its better part, calling body and soul together, the whole human being, a soul; thus Scripture says that seventy-five souls went down into Egypt with Jacob, meaning that many people. Again, when we say that your horse is not mine, and that a third belonging to someone else is neither mine nor yours, we acknowledge that there are three; and if someone asks “three what?”, we answer “three horses” with a species name, or “three animals” with a genus name. 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 three things; and if someone asks what three things, we cannot now use a species name and say three horses, three oxen, or three dogs, because the three are not contained under the same species, but use the genus name “three animals,” or a broader genus: three substances, three created things, or three natures. Things described in the plural by one species name can also be described by one genus name. Not everything described by one genus name, however, can also be described by one species name. For we also call three horses, a species description, three animals; but we call a horse, ox, and dog only three animals or substances, which are genus names, or use another genus name that applies to them; but we cannot speak of them as three horses, or oxen, or dogs, which are species names; we use one name in the plural for things that share what the name signifies. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob share what it means to be human and are therefore called three human beings; a horse, ox, and dog also share what it means to be an animal; therefore they are called three animals. Likewise, we also call three individual laurels three trees; but we call a laurel, myrtle, and olive only three trees, three substances, or three natures; we also call three stones three bodies; but we call stone, wood, and iron only three bodies, or use any broader genus name that applies to them. Since Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three, let us therefore ask what three they are and what they share. Being Father is not shared by them, as if they were fathers to one another: friends can be called three friends because the name describes their mutual relationship. This does not apply to the Trinity, where only the Father is Father, and Father of the Son alone rather than of two. They are not three Sons either, since the Father there is not the Son, nor is the Holy Spirit. Nor are they three Holy Spirits, because the Holy Spirit also, in the particular sense in which He is also called God’s gift, is neither the Father nor the Son. Three what, then? If three persons, then they share what person signifies; according to ordinary usage, person must therefore name either their species or their genus. Where things do not differ in nature, however, several things described by a genus name can also be described by a species name. Difference in nature is why a laurel, and a myrtle, and an olive, or a horse, and an ox, and a dog, cannot be called by the species names “three laurels” or “three oxen,” respectively, but are called by the genus names “three trees” and “three animals.” Here, where there is no difference of essence, the three must have a species name, yet none can be found. Person is a genus name, since a human being can also be called a person, despite the great difference between humanity and God. Consider also that very genus (generalis) word: if we say three persons because they share what person signifies (otherwise they cannot be called this at all, just as they are not called three sons, because they do not share what Son signifies), why do we not also say three Gods? Certainly, since the Father is a person, and the Son a person, and the Holy Spirit a person, therefore there are three persons: why, then, do we not say three Gods, since the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God? Or, since their indescribable union makes these three together one God, why not also one person, so that we could not say three persons, although each individually is called a person, just as we cannot say three Gods, although each individually is called 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 the simple need to speak and reason permitted us to say three persons, because Scripture does not contradict it, even though Scripture does not say it? If we said three Gods, however, Scripture would contradict us by saying, “Listen, Israel; the Lord your God is one God.” Why, then, may we not also say three essences, which Scripture likewise neither says nor contradicts? If essence is a species (specialis) name shared by the three, why not call them three essences, just as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are called three human beings because human is the species name shared by all human beings? If essence instead names a genus rather than a species, since a human being, animal, tree, constellation, and angel are all called essences, why are these not 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 does that same unity not require us to say one substance and one person instead of three substances or three persons? Just as they share the name essence, so that each individually is called essence, they also share the names substance and person. What we understand by persons in our usage must be understood by substances in Greek usage; for they say three substances, one essence, in the same way as we say three persons, one essence or substance. What remains, then, except to acknowledge that these terms arose from the need to speak, when extensive argument was needed against heretics’ schemes or errors? Human weakness tried to put into audible speech what it inwardly grasps of the Lord God its Creator, to the extent of its understanding, whether through devout faith or whatever insight it possesses; it feared to say three essences in case any difference should be imagined within that complete equality. Yet it could not deny that there were three realities of some kind (tria quædam), because Sabellius fell into heresy by denying this. We must devoutly believe what Scripture makes completely certain, and grasp it with the mind’s eye without doubt: there is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; the Son is not the Father, and the Holy Spirit is neither the Father nor the Son. Human weakness therefore sought a name for the three and answered substances or persons; these names were meant to deny that there is just one, rather than assert a difference of nature; one essence would express their unity, while three substances or persons would also express their Trinity. If for God existing (esse) is the same as subsisting (subsistere), they should not be called three substances, just as they are not called three essences; just as, because existing and being wise are the same for God, we say neither three essences nor three wisdoms. Likewise, because being God and existing are the same for Him, it is not right to say three essences, as it is not right to say three Gods. If existing and subsisting are different for God, just as existing differs from being Father or Lord (for what He is describes Him in Himself, but He is called Father in relation to the Son, and Lord in relation to the created being that serves Him), then He subsists relationally, just as He generates and rules relationally; substance would no longer be substance, because it would be a relation. Just as essence comes from existing, substance comes from subsisting. Yet it is absurd to describe substance relationally, because everything subsists in itself; how much more God?

Is it even fitting, however, to say that God subsists? (The word properly applies to things that serve as subjects in which other things are present, as color or shape is present in a body. A body subsists and is therefore a substance; color and shape are in the body, which subsists as their subject; they are not substances but are present in a substance. If its color or shape ceases to exist, the body does not cease to be a body, because its existence as a body does not depend on retaining a particular shape or color; therefore changeable, nonsimple things are properly called substances.) If, then, God subsists in a way that properly makes Him a substance, something is present in Him as in a subject, and He is not simple in the sense that His existence is identical to anything else said of Him in Himself, such as great, all-powerful, good, and anything else of this kind fittingly said of God. It is irreverent, however, to say that God subsists as a subject bearing His own goodness, and that this goodness is not a substance or rather essence, and that God Himself is not His goodness, but goodness is present in Him as in a subject. It is therefore clear that substance is an imprecise description of God, using a more familiar name for what should truly and properly be called essence; perhaps only God should properly be called essence. He alone truly exists, because He cannot change; He declared this as His own name to His servant Moses when He said, “I am that I am;” and, “Say this to the Israelites: He who is has sent me to you.” Whether He is called essence, which is proper, or substance, which is imprecise, both describe Him in Himself rather than in relation to anything else; therefore, for God, existing and subsisting are the same; and so the Trinity, if one essence, is also one substance. Perhaps, then, three persons is a more suitable expression than three substances.

To avoid seeming to favor our own side [the Latins], let us investigate further. They [the Greeks] too could, if they wished, call three persons three “prosopa,” just as they call three substances three hypostases, but preferred the word that perhaps better suited their language’s usage. The same reasoning applies to the word persons; for God, existing and being a person are completely the same. If existing describes Him in Himself, but person describes a relation, we should say three persons, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; just as we speak of three friends, or three relations, or three neighbors, because these describe their mutual relations rather than what each is in himself. Each of these people is therefore the friend, relative, or neighbor of the other two, because these names signify relations. What follows, 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? Yet person is never ordinarily used in this way. In this Trinity, when we speak of the person of the Father, we mean nothing other than the Father’s substance. Just as the Father’s substance is the Father Himself, considered in His existence rather than His fatherhood, the Father’s person is nothing other than the Father Himself; person describes Him in Himself, rather than in relation to the Son or Holy Spirit, just as God, great, good, just, and similar descriptions apply to Him in Himself; just as existing is the same for Him as being God, great, or good, existing is also the same as being a person. Why, then, 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 we want some single word to express what we understand by the Trinity, so that we need not be completely silent when, having acknowledged three, we are asked “three what?” Suppose, as some think, that essence is the genus and substance or person the species. I will set aside my earlier point that they should be called three essences, as they are called three substances or persons; just as the same three horses are called both three horses and three animals, since horse is the species, animal the genus. Here the species name is not plural while the genus name is singular, as if we were to say that three horses were one animal; they are three horses under the species name and three animals under the genus name. Suppose, instead, they say that substance or person signifies something single and individual rather than a species, so that someone is called a substance or person not as he is called human, which is shared by all human beings, but as he is called this particular human being, as Abraham, as Isaac, as Jacob, or anyone else who could be pointed to if present. The same reasoning would apply to them too. Just as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are called three individuals, they are also called three human beings, and three souls. Why, then, are Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, if we are to reason about them also according to genus and species and individual, not called three essences just as they are called three substances or persons? As I said, I am setting that aside; I do maintain that if essence is a genus, then one individual essence has no species within it; just as, because animal is a genus, one individual animal has no species within it. Therefore the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not three species of one essence. But if essence is a species, as human is a species, and the three are what we call substances or persons, they share the same species just as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob have in common the species called human; but although humanity is divided into Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, an individual human being cannot likewise be divided into several individual human beings; that is completely impossible, since one human being is already an individual. Why then is one essence subdivided into three substances or persons? If essence names a species, as human does, one essence is like one human being. Or, just as we say that three human beings of the same sex, bodily constitution, and mind are one nature, since there are three human beings but one nature, do we also say in the Trinity three substances one essence, or three persons one substance or essence? This is a somewhat similar case, since ancient Latin speakers used nature before they had the comparatively recent terms essence and substance. We do not therefore use these terms according to genus or species, but as if describing the same shared material. If three statues were made from the same gold, we would say three statues, one gold, without treating gold as a genus and statues as a species, or gold as a species and statues as individuals. No species extends beyond its own individuals to include anything outside them. When I define human, a species name, every individual human being comes under that same definition, and nothing nonhuman belongs to it. When I define gold, however, golden rings and anything else made of gold belong to it alongside golden statues; it would still be gold even if nothing were made from it; and even if statues were not golden, that would not mean there were no statues. Likewise no species goes beyond the definition of its genus. When I define animal, since horse is a species within this genus, every horse is an animal; but not every statue is gold. So, although in the case of three golden statues we should rightly say three statues, one gold; we do not mean that gold is their genus and statues their species. Likewise, calling the Trinity three persons or substances, one essence and one God, does not mean that three realities subsist from one material [leaving a remainder, i. e.]; even if all of that material, whatever it is, were contained 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 if essence and person were different things within it, as we can say three statues out of the same gold; because being gold and being statues are different things. When we say three human beings, one nature, or three human beings of the same nature, we can also say three human beings from the same nature, because three other such human beings could arise from that same nature. In the Trinity’s essence, however, no other person at all can arise from that same essence. Furthermore, in such cases one human being is not as great as three together, and two human beings are more than one; with equal statues, three together have more gold than each individually, and one has less gold than two. God is not like this; the Father and Son together are 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 individually; the merely natural human being cannot understand this. He can think only in terms of physical size and space, large or small, because mental appearances, like images of bodies, move through his mind. Until cleansed of this impurity, he should believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, one God, the only God, great, all-powerful, good, just, merciful, Creator of all things visible and invisible, and whatever else human ability permits us to say of Him worthily and truly. When told that the Father alone is God, he should not separate the Son or Holy Spirit from Him; He is the only God together with those with whom He is also one God; because, when we are told that the Son also is the only God, we must understand this without separating the Father or Holy Spirit. He should say one essence without imagining that one is greater, better, or different in any respect from another. This does not mean that the Father Himself is also Son and Holy Spirit, or anything else each individually is called in relation to another; for example, Word applies only to the Son, and Gift only to the Holy Spirit. This is also why these names allow the plural, as it is written in the Gospel, “I and my Father are one.” He said both “one” and “we are”: “one” describes essence, because they are the same God; “we are” describes relation, because one is Father and the other Son. Sometimes also the unity of the essence is left unexpressed, and only the relations are mentioned in the plural: “My Father and I will come to him, and make our home with him.” “We will come” and “we will make our home” are plural, since it was said before, “I and my Father,” that is, the Son and the Father, terms that describe their relation to one another. Sometimes the meaning is entirely implicit, as in Genesis: “Let us make humanity according to our image and likeness.” Both let us make and our are plural and must be understood in terms of relations. The intention was not for gods to make humanity, or to make it according to the image and likeness of gods, but for Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to make humanity according to the image of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, so that humanity might exist as God’s image. And God is the Trinity. That image of God, however, was not made completely equal to Him, because it was created by Him rather than born from Him. To express this, the human being is the image in the sense of being “according to the image,” not made equal to God, but approaching Him through a kind of likeness. We approach God through likeness rather than spatial distance, and move away through unlikeness. Some distinguish the Son as the image from humanity as not the image but “according to the image.” But the apostle refutes them, saying, “A man should not cover his head, because he is God’s image and glory.” He said the image, rather than according to the image. When this image is elsewhere described as according to the image, this does not refer to the Son, who is the image equal to the Father; otherwise Scripture would not say according to our image. How could it say our when the Son is the image of the Father alone? As already mentioned, humanity is described as “according to the image” because its likeness is unequal; it is therefore according to our image, so that humanity is the Trinity’s image, not equal to the Trinity as the Son is equal to the Father, but approaching it through a certain likeness, as already explained, just as things distant from one another can be called near in a sense through a kind of imitation rather than location. It is also said, “Be transformed by the renewing of your mind;” and he tells the same people, “Therefore imitate God as dearly loved children.” For it is said of the new person, “who is renewed in the knowledge of God according to the image of his Creator.” Or if the argument’s needs lead us to allow the plural even apart from relational terms, so that we may answer “three what?” with one term, saying three substances or three persons, no one should imagine physical size, space, or any separation through even the slightest unlikeness, as if any in the Trinity were even slightly less than another in any possible way; there must be neither confusion of persons nor a distinction that introduces inequality. If understanding cannot grasp this, faith should hold it until He dawns in the heart who says by the prophet, “Unless you believe, you will not understand.”