The Structure of the Trinity in Augustine

KOREA PRESBYTERIAN JOURNAL OF THEOLOGY Vol. 52 No. 4

HAN Byung-Soo, Ph.D. Assistant Professor, Department of Dogmatics Jeonju University, South Korea

I. Introduction II. Augustine’s doctrine of the Trinity 1. Augustine, the Crowner of the doctrine of the Trinity 2. Epistemology 3. The Structure of the Trinity III. Conclusion

Korea Presbyterian Journal of Theology Vol. 52 No. 4 (2020. 11), 97-125 DOI: 10.15757/kpjt.2020.52.4.004 98 KOREA PRESBYTERIAN JOURNAL OF THEOLOGY Vol. 52 No. 4

Abstract

This paper explores the structure of the Trinity, a most particular point of Augustine’s thought on the doctrine, in comparison with Calvin and in dialogue with his followers, like Ussher. Augustine’s doctrine of the Trinity has been influential to the medieval ages, Reformation and Orthodox eras, even up to now. His perceptive structure of the Trinity, however, has not been duly highlighted. Even Calvin, con fessing Augustine as his theological wholeness, did not sufficiently pay attention to this structure of the Trinity. Augustine convoyed the faith of all the poius catholic fathers, that is, “the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, as they are indivisible, so work indivisibly.” Augustine understood the Trinity in the tripartite structure; according to God Himself (secundum substantiam, ad se ipsum, secundum essentiam), according to the mutual relation (secundum relativum, ad unvicem atque ad alterutrum), and according to accident or creature (secundum accidens, ad creaturam). This structure is quite condusive to interpreting Scripture, especially, its abstruse texts seemingly contradictive and the unity of the Old and the New Testaments. James Ussher’s work shortly states Augustine’s structure of the Trinity, but this paper goes further by more minute analysis and more detailed explication.

Keywords

Trinity, Augustine, Substance, Relation, Creature, Structure The Structure of the Trinity in Augustine DOI: 10.15757/kpjt.2020.52.4.004 99

I. INTRODUCTION

An essential problem of misunderstanding Augustine’s doctrine of the Trinity is the insufficient attention given to the simultaneous consideration of the substantial unity, the personal uniquenesses of the Trinity, and the indivisibility of the Trinity in the external work. In addition, the recent scholarship on this doctrine of Augustine overlooks this structure of the Triune God as found in Augustine.1 Some insights of Augustine’s doctrine of the Trinity are found in Lombardus,2 Calvin,3 and some theologians of the 17th century.4 Most of them, however,

1 Evan F. Kuehn, “The Johannine Logic of Augustine’s Trinity: A Dogmatic Sketch,” Theological Studies 68-3 (2007), 572-94; Lewis Ayres, Augustine and the Trinity (Cam- bridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010); Goerge Rudebusch, “Aristotelian Predica- tion, Augustine and the Trinity,” Thomis: a Speculative Quarterly Review 53-4 (1989), 587-97; Edward Howells, “Appropriating the Divine Presence: Reading Augustine’s On the Trinity as a Transformative Text,” Spiritus 11-2 (2011), 200-23; C. Pecknold, “How Augustine used the Trinity: Functionalism and the Development of Doctrine,” Anglican Theological Review 85-1 (2003), 127-41; Martin Westerholm, “The Work of the Trinity and the Knowledge of God in Augustine’s De Trinitate,” International Journal of System- atic Theology 15-1 (2013), 5-24; Drayton Benner, “Augustine and Karl Rahner on the Relationship between the Immanent Trinity and the Economic Trinity,” International Journal of Systematic Theology 9-1 (2007), 24-38. 2 The main frame of the doctrine of the Trinity in Petrus Lombardus, a medieval follower of Augustine, depends on Augustine’s doctrine of the Trinity. Concerning the substance of God, Lombardus says that “whatsoever is said of that most eminent and divine loftiness in respect to itself, is said in respect to substance, but that which is said in relation to anything, is not said in respect to substance, but relatively” and, concerning the relations among three persons, that “the Father is called the Father, or the Son the Son, not according to the essence, but according to the relation,” citing Augustine’s De Trinitate, V.v.6. Lombardus argues that, according to the creature, “God as the Lord, the Creator, and the Shield, who are called concerning all persons, are called from time and relatively in respect to the creature.” Petrus Lombardus, Sententiae in IV Libris Distinctae (Roma: Collegii S. Bonaventurae ad Claras Aquas Grottaferrata, 1971), I.xxii.5., I.xxviii.5. 3 Calvin thought that Augustine’s point of view was far safer than any other’s in the Trinity and “our totality”(totus noster). John Calvin, Institutio 1559, Opera quae Supersunt omnia (CO), Vol. II., ed., G. Baun, E. Cunitz, E. Reuss (Brunsvigae: C.A. Schwetschke, 1863), I.xiii.19; idem, De Aeterna Dei Praedestinatione, CO, Vol. VIII, 266. 4 Muller says that “this fundamentally Augustinian model (the essential equality of the divine persons, double procession, and the removal of all subordination except in the order of the procession and operation of the persons), ensconced in the medieval conciliar tradition and refined by the medieval doctors, can be found in short form in the 100 KOREA PRESBYTERIAN JOURNAL OF THEOLOGY Vol. 52 No. 4 neglected to embrace Augustine’s structure of the Trinity, except James Ussher (1581-1656), an Ireland Archbishop.5 This paper is intended to illuminate, a most monumental point of Augustine’ thought on the Triune God, namely, the structure of the Trinity, in comparison with Calvin and in dialogue with some followers of this father like Ussher. To wholly restore Augustine’s whole doctrine of the Trinity by rediscovering his structure of the Trinity is probably condusive to acquiring the best frame for interpreting the Holy Scripture, to preserve the unity of Old and New Testaments, and to recover the Author of the Bible.6

II. AUGUSTINE’S DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY

1. Augustine, the Crowner of the doctrine of the Trinity

The doctrine of the Trinity is the most immense of all the doctrines, the very foundation of theology in the Christian religion7 for Augustine, the crowner of the doctrine of Trinity.8 All the Christian thought of Calvin and his contemporaries.” Richard A. Muller, The Triunity of God, Post- Reformation Reformed Dogmatics vol. IV (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), 84. 5 Augustine’s peculiar structure of the Trinity is rediscovered by James Ussher and Kim Young Kyu. The theme of this paper is inspired by Kim. James Ussher,A Body of Divinity, or the Summe and Substance of Christian Religion (London, 1647), and Kim Young Kyu, Augustine’s Doctrine of the Trinity (Seoul: RIBRT, 2005). 6 These are the ultimate concern of all apologetic church fathers. Tertvllian, Adversvs Marcionem, Corpvs Christianorvm, Series Latina (CCSL), vol. I (Turnhout: Brepols, 1954), I.xix.4-5; Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, The Fathers of the Church, vol. VI (Washington: Catholic Uni., 1965), iii, xxxv, cvi. 7 William G. T. Shedd, “Introductory Essay” in Augustine, On the Trinity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 15-23. Also see Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, Vol.2. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), 288 (hereafter, 2:288). 8 According to Bavinck, “Augustine completed what Tertullian began… All subordinationism is banished” by him. Furthermore, “The West aligned itself with Augustine and, while it developed his trinitarian views on some points, did not introduce any changes in them nor add anything new to them.” Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 2:287-288. Berkhof also insists that “the western conception of the Trinity reached its final statement in the great work of Augustine,De Trinitate.” Louis Berkhof, The Structure of the Trinity in Augustine 101 doctrines are grounded on the doctrine of the Trinity, because Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not separated in the whole external work (opera omnia ad extra) of God. Augustine, thus, mentions that the Triune God is the highest good (summum bonum)9 and at the same time the good of all good(bonum omnis boni).10 In him, the doctrine of the Trinity is the essence of his theology and his faith and life.11 Above all, Augustine applies his thought of the Trinity as the conclusive proof regarding the unity of Old and New Testaments, in interpreting the Holy Scripture.12 For the Triune God Himself is the one and only author of the Holy Scripture as well as its fulfillment and end.13 On account of this, we should not fail to notice in his doctrine of the Trinity that “the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, as they are indivisible, so work indivisibly,”14 and that there is a significant structure or category in Augustine’s Trinity, distinguished according to essence (secundum essentiam, secundum substantiam, ad se ipsum), to the mutual relation (secundum relativum, ad invicem atque ad alterutrum), and to accident (secundum accidens).15

History of Christian Doctrines (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1975), III.i.4. However, their concern does not reach at the epistemological background or the structure of Trinity, which made Augustine’s doctrine of Trinity suitable for what they said. 9 Augustine, De Trinitate, CCSL, Vol. L., I.ii.4, I.x.20. 10 Augustine, De Trinitate, I.iii.5, VIII.iii.4. Because of this significance of the Trinity, he is not ignore to note that “no other subject is more dangerous (periculosius) in its error, more laborious (laoriosius) in its inquiry, and more profitable fructuosius( ) in its discovery, rather than the unity of Trinity (unitas trinitatis).” 11 Augustine, De Trinitate, I.viii.18; idem, Retractationes,CCSL, Vol. LVII, I.i.4; “The original region of the supreme happiness of a living creature is God Himself.” Calvin also agrees with Augustine, saying that God is the fountain of every good. The more detailed explanation of God as the supreme goodness is found in Polanus. Amandus Polanus, Syntagma Theologiae Christianae(Geneva: Typographia Iacobi Stoër, 1617), I.i.2. 12 Augustine, De Trinitate, I.iv.7. 13 Augustine, De Doctrina Christiana, CCSL, Vol. XXXII, I.v.5; idem, De Civitate Dei, XXII, xxx, 1. 14 Augustine, De Trinitate, I.vi.7: “quamuis pater et filius et spiritus sanctus sicut inseparabiles sunt, ita inseparabiliter operentur… praesertim cum dicitur inseparabiliter operari trinitatem in omni re quam deus operabur.” 15 Augustine, De Trinitate, V.v.6, V.vi.7. 102 KOREA PRESBYTERIAN JOURNAL OF THEOLOGY Vol. 52 No. 4

2. Epistemology

1) Category

The quibblers, such as Arians, allege as below.

The Father indeed is so called in relation to the Son, and the Son in relation to the Father, but that they are said to be unbegotten (ingenitus) and begotten (genitus) in relation to themselves (ad se ipsos), not in relation each to the other(ad alterutrum) … He(the Father) is said to be unbegotten in respect to Himself (ad se ipsum), which the Son cannot be said to be; therefore He is said to be unbegotten according to substance (secundum substantiam); and because the Son cannot be so said to be, therefore He is not of the same substance (eiusem substantiae).16

Augustine demonstrates against them that “this subtlety is to be answered by compelling them to say themselves in what way the Son is equal to the Father; whether according to that which is said in relation to Himself (secundum id quod ad se), or according to that which is said in relation to the Father (secundum id quod ad patrem) .” 17 That is to say, when we say that the Son is not the Father, we do not say it according to substance, but according to their relation to each other in the Trinity. When relationship is denied in the Trinity, it is not denied with regard to substance, because comment on the relative thing itself (ipsum relatiuum) is not mentioned according to substance (secundum substantiam).18 Why does Augustine distinguish ‘secundum id quod ad se’ from ‘secundum id quod ad patrem’ in his answer? Does he follow the reasoning of heresies? According to what criteria can three persons (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) be distinguished? What is the difference between substance and person or subsistence? Is it possible that unity and the Trinity are harmonized in the sense of number? There are a lot of questions in the doctrine of the Trinity.

16 Augustine, De Trinitate, V.vi.7. 17 Ibid. 18 Ibid. The Structure of the Trinity in Augustine 103

It is obvious that the solutions of these problems soak into Augustine’s doctrine of the Trinity, in which his specific epistemology faces against the epistemological limitation of that age. When we see the way of presentation about substance or essence in De Trinitate, we know the epistemological limitation of Augustine’s age, and discover how he overcame those limitations of which he was conscious.

Table 1. Categories

Positive Negative Category He is four feet He is not four feet quantity(quantitatem) He is white He is not white quality(qualitatem) He is near He is not near relation(relativum) He is armed He is not armed condition(habitum) He does lie down He does not lie down state(situm) He is of yesterday He is not of yesterday time(tempum) He is at Rome He is not at Rome place(locum) he does smite He does not smite predicament of action(id quod est facere) he is smitten He is not smitten predicament of passion (qoud pati vocatur)

Augustine gives general categories of perception.19 For example, when we say that someone is four feet, we say that according to quantity. If we deny that he is four feet, it is denied according to quantity, not according to quality. In addition, when we say that he is at Rome, we say that according to place. If we deny that he is at Rome, it is not denied according to himself, but according to place. Thus, if we put the negative particle before a word, we deny the predicaments of that word. These categories of Augustine, which are displayed in Table 1, play an important role in comprehending his structure of the Trinity, though he admits the limitation of human perception in understanding the divine things by the corporeal creatures. All pious church fathers tried to say that “the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, as they are inseparable, so work inseparably… they are not three Gods, but one God.”20 However, there were many

19 Augustine, De Trinitate, V.vii.8. 20 Augustine, De Trinitate, I.iv.7. 104 KOREA PRESBYTERIAN JOURNAL OF THEOLOGY Vol. 52 No. 4 theological debates on the doctrine of the Trinity throughout church history because of perceptual limitation. Even though Augustine has overcome the notional controversy between one(unus) and three(tres) with his structure of the Trinity, he remained fearful(timuit) in his secret heart.21 He could say in fear that “the Trinity, which is inseparable in itself, is manifested separately by the appearance of the visible creature.”22 Verifying this, Augustine takes look at the phenomenon of languagee: namely, we cannot simultaneously call the Persons of the Trinity without intervals of time, occupied by the syllables of each word (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit).23 Proving thoroughly the limitation of human perception on the visible thing, Augustine would prevent any kind of heresy which has occurred since his time. At last, he authorizes faith as the unique epistemological principle to know what is above reason.24

2) Basic rule of modesty and sobriety (regula modestae et sobrietatis)

Augustine interprets John 14:6 by the structure of Rom 11:36 as follows. “Through me men come, to me they come, in me they remain (per me venitur, ad me pervenitur, in me permanetur) .” 25 In other words, whoever sincerely inquires into Holy Scripture, surely comes by God as the Author of the Holy Scripture, comes to God, and remains in God. Whoever would also like to know and love God exactly, who is “the

21 Without the former understanding of his fear, we could not exactly grasp the theological significance of his structure of the Trinity but easily incline to speculation. Concerning the attitude of studying the Holy Scripture, he emphasizes the fear of God (timorem dei) rather than pietas, scientia, fortitudo, consilium, purificatio, sapientia. “Ante omnia igitur opus est dei timore conuerit ad cognoscendam eius uoluntatem, quid nobis appetendum fugiendumque praecipiat.”Augustine, De Doctrina Christiana, II.vii.9. 22 Augustine, De Trinitate, IV.xxi.30: “inseparabiliter in se ipsa trinitatem per uisibilis creaturae speciem separabiliter demonstrari.” 23 Ibid., “sicut per uoces nostras quae utique corporaliter sonant non possunt pater et filius et spiritus sanctus nisi suis et propriis interuallis temporum certa separatione distinctis quae sui cuiusque uocabuli syllabae occupant nominari.” 24 Augustine, De Trinitate, VII.vi.12. 25 Augustine, De doctrina christiana, I.xxxiv.38. The Structure of the Trinity in Augustine 105

Way, the Truth, and the Life,” ought to be led by God Himself, to come to the Holy Scripture, and to remain in the Holy Scripture. Augustine reasserts that all eager people who sincerely study the Holy Scripture with fear certainly find nothing else, except the obvious fact that they should be led to love the unchangeable God as both unity and Trinity (unitatem eandemque trinitatem), and their neighbors for His own sake.26 It is thus clear that God is the only author of the Holy Scripture, on the authority of which the doctrine of God, the Trinity,27 even our faith and love,28 and the truth of thoughts,29 must ultimately depend, because Holy Scripture is far beyond the most outstanding ability of humankind. The wonderful knowledge gathered from all other texts is so trivial as in comparison with the truth shown in the sublimity and simplicity of Holy Scripture.30 Guarding against wisdom beyond our measure, Augustine suggests the rule of modesty and sobriety as below.

Whereas we are wise so as to think soberly (sapimus ad temperantiam), as God has dealt to us the proportion of faith; and we believe, and therefore speak. For the authority is extant of the divine Scriptures, from which our reason ought not to turn aside; nor by leaving the firm support of the holy utterance, to fall headlong over the precipice of its own surmising, in matters wherein neither the perceptions of the body

26 Augustine, De doctrina christiana, II.vii.10, III.ii.3. He mentions here the substantial principle of interpreting the Holy Scripture, the Trinity-oriented interpretation, which is always involved in all things of his interpretation of the Holy Scripture. For example, when we interpret John1:1-2, he notices that the heretics distinguish “In principio erat verbum et verbum erat apud deum et deus erat (God was)” from “Verbum hoc erat in principio apud deum,” while those who are rooted on the rule of faith (regula fidei), the equality of Trinity (trinitatis aequalitate), distinguish “deus erat verbum (God was Word)” from “Hoc erat in principio”. The former denies the unity of God, but the latter does not, in expounding the word. 27 Augustine, De Trinitate, I.ii.4, I.iv.7. Augustine especially emphasizes that the whole traditional expounders of Holy Scripture, both old and new testament, did not intend to teach the Trinity according to anything else, except Holy Scripture(secundum scripturas), and follows their faith. 28 Augustine, De doctrina christiana, I.xxxviii.50. 29 Augustine, De doctrina christiana, II.xxxii.50. 30 Augustine, De doctrina christiana, II.xlii.63. 106 KOREA PRESBYTERIAN JOURNAL OF THEOLOGY Vol. 52 No. 4

rule, nor the clear reason of the truth shines forth.31

3. The Structure of the Trinity

According to Augustine’s explanation, the essence of the traditional doctrine of the Trinity accepted by the faithful expounders of Holy Scripture can be divided into two parts.32 First, the Father, the Son, and the Holy create a divine unity of one and the same essence in an indivisible equality, though they are distinguished in person. Second, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as they are not divisible, so work indivisibly.33 However, Augustine, who is always conscious of the unity of the whole Bible as the Word of God, carefully listens to some questions of those who experience the trouble of interpreting the Bible as below.

The Trinity works indivisibly in everything that God works, and yet that a certain voice of the Father spoke, which is not the voice of the Son; and that none except the Son was born in the flesh, and suffered, and rose again, and ascended into heaven; and that none except the Holy Spirit came in the form of a dove. Does the Trinity not work indivisibly?34

These questions reflect the fact that a more accurate frame of the Trinity is needed to interpret all books of Holy Scripture without any kind of contradiction or an inch of errors. That is why Augustine finely devises the structure of the Trinity. According to Augustine, the structure of the Trinity is divided into two parts: according to God Himself without accident and according to creature or accident. The former is divided again into two parts: according to essence and

31 Augustine, De Trinitate, III.xi.22. 32 Augustine’s doctrine of the Trinity is exactly understood, when we hold both the structure of the Trinity and the indivisibility of the Trinity in the external work. 33 Augustine, De Trinitate, I.iv.7: “pater et filius et spiritus sanctus unius substantiae inseparabili aequalitate divinam insinuent unitatem … pater et filius et spiritus sanctus sicut inseparabiles sunt, ita inseparabiliter operentur.” 34 Augustine, De Trinitate, I.v.8. The Structure of the Trinity in Augustine 107 according to the mutual relation among three Persons.35

Table 2. Structure of the Trinity

In relation and order of three persons In order and manner of working Categories in one essence in the creatures All attributes: common to three persons in According to one essence One indivisible God of work God Himself Three persons: one and the same essence, Several names in time and are one God

First person: the Father, of themselves The Father: manifestation in the Son Second person: the Son, eternally begotten According to The Son: mission from the Father and from the Father, not active, but passive mutual by Himself, always active. Third person: the Holy Spirit, eternally relation The Holy Spirit: proceeding from both proceeding from both the Father and the the Father and the Son, always active. Son, active and passive

The Father, of Himself, in the Son, by the The Father: origin of the work According to Holy Spirit The Son:wisdom and manner of accident or The Son, from the Father, by the Holy Spirit working creature The Holy Spirit, from both the Father and The Holy Spirit: efficacy of operation the Son

In summary, the structure of Augustine’s doctrine of the Trinity is classified by three parts; according to God Himself secundum( substantiam, ad se ipsum, secundum essentiam), according to the mutual relation (secundum relativum, ad unvicem atque ad alterutrum), and according to accident or creature (secundum accidens, ad creaturam). Furthermore, each of the three parts is to be connected with the two other categories, which is not clear in Augustine: relation and order of three persons in one essence, and relation and order of working in creature. This synthetic structure of Augustine’s doctrine of the Trinity is not fully found in Calvin’s Institutio 1559. However, Calvin did know this structure, because he understands Augustine’s structure of the Trinity. Concerning the relations of the three persons he entirely depends on Augusine and exactly quotes the essence of Augustine’s structure as follows: “Christ with respect to himself is called God; with respect to the Father, Son. Again, the Father with respect to himself is call God; with respect to the Son, Father. In so far as he is called Father with respect to the Son, he is not the Son; in so far as he is called the Son

35 Augustine, De Trinitate, V.v.6. 108 KOREA PRESBYTERIAN JOURNAL OF THEOLOGY Vol. 52 No. 4 with respect to the Father, he is not the Father; in so far as he is called both Father with respect to himself, and Son with respect to himself, he is the same God.”36 Table 2, upon which we don’t have to depend for the perfect understanding of the Trinity, is more advanced than the structure of Augustine, but still depends on his structure of the Trinity. In summary, the structure of Augustine’s doctrine of the Trinity in De Trinitate can be divided into three categories and two objects.37 Whatever is said in respect of God Himself is always about His substance or attributes. Whatever is said according to mutual relation is always concerning about the relationship among three persons, but not substance. Whatever is said according to accident or creature is always concerning the temporal. When something new about God is said, it does not mean that God is changed, or something is added to God, because the new thing is not said according to the accident of God, but in respect of the accident of creatures that live in time. This structure is more easily understood when we see how the concept of beginning (principium) was used in Augustine. He says that God the Father is the beginning of the entire divinity.38 However, it does not mean that the Father, begetter, is greater than the Son begotten from Him, or the Holy Spirit proceeding from Him. The word principium“ ”

36 Calvin, Institutio 1559, I.xiii.19. He continues to say that “the distinction among the Trinity is signified by their mutual relation significatur( quod ad se invicem), but not the very substance by which they are one, and accordingly three Persons subsist relatively (relative subsistere).” Moreover, debating against P. Caroli, he holds Augustine’s answer to Arian sophistry above all, that is, “whatsoever God is said of in respect to itself, is said in respect to substance, but that which is said in relation to anything, is not said in respect to anything, is not said in substance, but relatively; and that the power of the same substance in Father and Son and Holy Spirit is, that whatsoever is said of each in respect to themselves, is to be taken of them, not in the plural in sum, but in the singular.” 37 Table 2 is constituted by the partial aid of James Ussher. James Ussher, A Body of Divinity, 88. We should remember that Table 2 does not depend on the Table 1, which searches for in creature just a vague vestige (vestigium) of the structure of the Trinity, because Augustine thinks that any created things such as materials(in corporibus), even spiritual things(in spiritalibus), the human imagination of thought (imaginatione cogitationis) can never explain who God is. Rather, his structure is obviously the exegetical result of Holy Scripture. Augustine, De Trinitate, VIII.ii.3. 38 Augustine, De Trinitate, IV.xx.29. The Structure of the Trinity in Augustine 109 is not mentioned according to the substance, or God Himself, but according to the mutual relations among three persons. Moreover, the Father is the beginning of all creatures.39 Although such expression is available, it does not mean that the Father as a person in the Trinity is the only beginning of all creatures, because this word ‘beginning’ is said here not according to mutual relation in Themselves, but according to the accident of creature in time. In relation to the creature, therefore, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are simultaneously one beginning, just as one Creator and Lord, but not three beginnings,40 because “the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are of one and the same substance (unius eiusdemque substantiae), one God, and one Creator, and work inseparably (isseparabiliter operant).”

1) According to God Himself (Secundum substantiam, ad se ipsum)

Augustine thinks it is most important that “whatever is said of that most excellent and divine sublimity according to Himself is substantially said, but whatever is said according to something else is not said substantially, but relatively.”41 In terms of greatness and goodness though the Father is great and good, the Son is great and good, and the Holy Spirit is great and good, we should not say that three Ones are great and good, but that One is great and good, because according to the substance, the Holy Scripture says that “Thou art God only great” and that “Nobody is good except God alone.”42 The same can be said of all His divine attributes which are predicated of God: eternal, immortal, incorruptable, immutable, living, wise, spiritual, might, splendid, happy, and righteous.43 Augustine summaries that His

39 Augustine, De Trinitate, V.xiii.14. 40 In accordance with Augustine, we should not say that there are three beginnings of all creatures, but one beginning. cf. Augustine, De Trinitate, V.xiii.14, V.xiv.15. 41 Augustine, De Trinitate, V.xiii.14: “Quapropter illud praecique teneamus, quidquid ad se dicitur praestantissima illa et divina sublimitas substantialiter divi; quod autem ad aliquid non substantialiter sed relative.” 42 Augustine, De Trinitate, V.viii.9. 43 He does not distinguish substance (substantiam) from the nature of substance (substantiae qualitates). For an unspeakable and simplest Being, he thinks that the words about the nature are said of the substance and substantial Being. Augustine, De Trinitate, 110 KOREA PRESBYTERIAN JOURNAL OF THEOLOGY Vol. 52 No. 4 substance is signified by “the simple multiplicity or multiple simplicity (simplici multiplicitate uel multiplici simplicitate).” However, the things, which are situational, conditional, spatial, and temporal, are not said about God properly, but metaphorically and through similarity (Situs vero et habitus et loca et tempora non proprie sed translate ac per similitudines dicuntur in deo). Indeed, these are said of accidental things (accidens), which can be commonly lost by change into another thing. As there is nothing changeable in God, so there is also nothing accidental in God.

(1) Unity and Equality in the Trinity. The unity and equality cannot be separately considered, because one cannot be accepted to the refusal of the other. For this reason, Augustine asserts that the Son is equal with the Father in all and is of one and the same substance,44 and also the same can be said of the Holy Spirit. Just as the Holy Spirit is simultaneously (simul) equal and of one and the same substance with the Father and the Son, so He is simultaneously equal with the Father and the Son in greatness, goodness, holiness, and whatever else is said of the substance.45 Augustine explains this unity and equality in the Trinity with the compact expression as follows: “the unity is in the Father (in patre unitas), the equality is in the Son (in filio aequalitas), and the highest love (summa caritas)46 or concordance of the unity and the equality is in the Holy Spirit (in spiritu sancto unitatis aequalitatisque concordia),” so that “all these three are one because of the Father, equal because of the Son, and linked together because of the Holy Spirit.”47 So as to the unity and equality of the Father and the Son, Augustine

XV.v.8. 44 Augustine, De Trinitate, VI.iv.6: “In omnibus ergo aequalis est patri filius et est unius eiusdemque substantiae.” 45 Augustine, De Trinitate, VI.v.7. 46 Augustine, De Trinitate, VII.iii.6: “Spiritus quoque sanctus siue sit summa caritas utrumque coniungens nosque subiungens.” 47 Augustine, De Doctrina Christiana, I.v.5: “tria haec unum omnia propter patrem, aequalia omnia propter filium, conexa omnia propter spiritum sanctum.” The Structure of the Trinity in Augustine 111 quotes from John 1:1-2, 10:30,48 17:11, 1 John 5:20, and 1 Tim 6:14-16. On account of the truthfulness of John 1:2, “the Word was God”, he points out that 1 Tim 6:16, “who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honor and power everlasting,” should not be understood of the Father alone, excluding the Son.49 Even when Jesus says that “Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is, God”, He Himself is not omitted, because in any place of the Holy Scripture it cannot be a lie that “the Word was God.” Therefore, in 1 Tim 6:16 the one, only and true God, the Trinity itself is not called the Father properly, nor the Son properly, nor the Holy Spirit properly.50 In order to explain the unity and equality of the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son, Augustine employs Ps 82:6, Rom 1:25, Deu 6:13, Phil 3:3, and 1 Cor 6:19. Synthesizing these words: the Holy Spirit is not a creature, we should fear and serve our God alone, and we should serve the Spirit of God, so the Holy Spirit is God Himself, who is entirely equal with the Father and the Son, and con-substantial and co-eternal in the unity of the Trinity.51 Opposing the sophistries or deceptions of heretics who allege that “the Father is greater than the Son (John 14:28),” because the Father is said to be greater than the Son in Scripture, Augustine debates that the Father, with Whom the Son is equal according to the form of God, is greater than the Son as the form of a servant.52 That is, John 14:28 should not be understood in respect to substance (secundum substantiam), but in respect to accident in time (secundum accidens in tempora).53

48 He notes that “Ego et pater unum sumus” is said in accordance with the essence (secundum essentiam), but not according to relativity(secundum relatiuum). Augustine, De Trinitate, VI.ii.3. 49 Augustine, De Trinitate, I.vi.10. 50 Ibid. “quod est unus et solus et uerus deus, ipsa trinitas.” 51 Augustine, De Trinitate, I.vi.13: “patri et filio prorsus aequalis et in trinitatis unitate consubstantialis et coaeternus” 52 Augustine, De Trinitate, I.viii.15: “forma serui maior est pater, cui in forma dei aequalis est filius.” 53 It is possible to say in time that the Father is greater than the Son due to the structure of the Trinity that whatever is properly said of one person in the same Trinity 112 KOREA PRESBYTERIAN JOURNAL OF THEOLOGY Vol. 52 No. 4

Even when we find in Scripture that the Father begot the Son, and both the Father and the Son proceed the Holy Spirit, we should not think of inequality, or imparity, or unlikeness of substance.54 Those words should be understood in regard to the visible creature, or rather in regard to notifying of the beginning (princium) of the Godhead to our carnal senses. Augustine adds that the Son is not less than the Father, though the Father sent and the Son was sent, and the Holy Spirit is also not less than the Father and the Son together, even though the latter sent and the former was sent.55 Moreover, even in a case where one person in the Trinity is specifically emphasized in Scripture, Augustine clearly states that “the Holy Spirit alone is sufficient, because He cannot be separated from the Father and the Son, just as the Father is sufficient, because He cannot be separated from the Son and the Holy Spirit, and the Son alone is sufficient, because He cannot be separated from the Father and the Holy Spirit.”56 The emphasis on one person in the Trinity does not mean the exception of the other persons, but proves that each Person has one and the same substance and Godhead.57 With such high unity and purity in that substance as above,58 Augustine can come to the conclusion as follows.

In that highest Trinity one is as much as the three simultaneously (tres simul), and two are not anything more than one, and They are infinite is not said in reference to Themselves (ad se ipsa), but mutually or in regard to creature (ad inuicem aut ad creaturam), that is, not substantially but relatively (relatiue non substantialiter). Augustine, De Trinitate, V.xi.12. However, Torrance writes that John 14:28 “is to be interpreted not ontologically but soteriologically- or ‘economically,’ as Gregory Nazianzen, Cyril of Alexandria and Augustine understood it,” regardless of Augustine’s structure of the Trinity. Thomas F. Torrance, “Calvin’s Doctrine of the Trinity”,Calvin Theological Journal, 25-2 (1990), 165-93. 54 Augustine, De Trinitate, IV.xxi.32: “inaequalitatem, imparilitatem, dissimilitudinem substantiae.” 55 Augustine, De Trinitate, III.ii.3. 56 Augustine, De Trinitate, I.viii.18. Augustine quotes Joh. 14:15-17, 16:6-7, 13, and 1Cor. 2:11, 14 to prove the sufficiency of each person in the Trinity. 57 Augustine, De Trinitate, I.x.19: “non tamen aliis separatis intelleguntur propter eiusdem trinitatis unitatem unamque substantiam at que deitatem patris et filii et spiritus sancti.” 58 Augustine, De Trinitate, VI.v.7. The Structure of the Trinity in Augustine 113

in Themselves. So both each are in each, and all in each, and each in all, and all in all, and all are one.59

(2) Indivisibility in the outward work of one God In regard to the indivisibility of the Trinity in the outward work, James Ussher, an Ireland bishop who seems to be a faithful successor of Augustine, explains in detail that “all outward actions, as to decree, to create, to order, govern and direct, to redeem, to sanctify, are equally common to the three Persons of the Trinity; for as they are all one in nature and will, so must they be also one in operation, all of them working one and the same thing together.”60 This argument must be based on Augustine’s statement, that as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one and the same, not divisible, so they work indivisibly. Let us call it “the unificative economy (simul opera ad extra vel unum in dispensatio) ,” 61 which is the real catholic faith that Augustine proclaims from the Holy Scripture and through His whole book, De Trinitate.62

59 Augustine, De Trinitate, VI.x.12: “in summa trinitate tantum est una quantum tres simul, nec plus aliquid sunt duae quam una, et in se infinita sunt. Ita et singula sunt in singulis et omnia in singulis et singula in omnibus et omnia in omnibus et unum omnia.” This conclusion is repeated in the Ussher’s particular statement that “there is neither first nor last, going afore or coming after, in the essence of God, but all these as they are everlasting, so they are all at once and at one instant, even as in a glasse the face and the image of the face, when they smile, they smile together, and not noe before, nor after another.” James Ussher. A Body of Divinity, 84. 60 James Ussher. A Body of Divinity, 88. 61 This essence of Augustine’s doctrine of the Trinity is defined as the unificative economy of God the Trinity (Die einheitlische ökonomie des trinitarischen Gottes). This definition is to distinguish the economic unity Die( ökonomische Einheit des trinitarischen Gottes), which has been asserted from the church fathers before Augustine. Ch. Kim Young Kyu. Calvin und das Alte Testament (Seoul, 1994), 103. 62 On the contrary to the unificative economy, the economic unity emphasizes personal work by each period. Even in Calvin, there is a little vestige of the economic unity influenced by Tertullian. However, this is due to Calvin’s tendency of holding to the Pauline ordo seen in Paul’s Epistle to Romans as Muller observed. Calvin, Institutio 1559, I, xiii, 28. Concerning the ordering of the Institutio 1559 in detail, see Richard A. Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin: Studies in the Foundation of a Theological Tradition (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), ch.6. His conclusion is that “certainly, the placement of the final resurrection in1559 disobliges the creed entirely in favor of the Pauline model-and the continuing relationship of sin to law, followed by the problem of the two testaments and the work of redemption; placement of predestination prior 114 KOREA PRESBYTERIAN JOURNAL OF THEOLOGY Vol. 52 No. 4

Thus, we should not say that God, the Trinity is divided in his outward work such as the creation pertains to the Father, the redemption to the Son, and the sanctification to the Holy Spirit. On the other hand, Augustine more obviously says that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one(unum) and the same essence from eternity to eternity and are eternity itself, without any interval of time or place (interuallis temporum uel locorum), and without any temporal motion (temporali motu), above the whole creation.63 In his sermon on Matt 3:13, he insists that if we consider places, offices, and works, the Trinity is in a manner separable.64 For example, when Jesus is baptized in the River, the voice of the Father sounds from heaven, the Dove descends from heaven, and Jesus is in the water. Thus, Augustine accepts the fact that three persons can be manifested separately according to the limitation of human perception. Nevertheless, the operation of the Trinity is to be understood inseparable: so that when the operation of Father is discussed, it is not understood that Father works without Son and Holy Spirit; and when Son’s operation is talked of, it is not without the other Persons of the Trinity; and when the operation of Holy Spirit is mentioned, it is not without any of the two other Persons.65 Thus, “the Trinity operates simultaneously (ita trinitas simul operata est) ,” 66

to the last things, the church, and the civil magistrate all stands as reflections of the Pauline ordo,” according to the mid-sixteen-century context of Institutio 1550. Though it is entirely true, we should not fail to recognize that his doctrine of the Trinity, though occasionally seen, is at the bottom of all chapters of Institutio 1559. 63 Augustine, De Trinitate, IV.xxi.30. 64 Augustine, Sermons, ed., Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (NPNF), Vol. VI (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1995), ii.2. Let us remember Augustine’s mention on the divisibility in the manifestation of the Trinity by the appearance of the visible creature. Augustine, De Trinitate, IV.xxi.30. 65 Augustine, NPNF VI, sermon xxi.26. In both sermon and exegesis, Augustine is always conscious of both the personal distinction and the substantial unity in regard to the outward work of the Trinity. When we read even a few sermons of Augustine, we can find that the doctrine of Trinity in Augustine is the essential key and ultimate goal of interpreting the Holy Scripture. Namely, it is not an exaggeration that Augustine’s book, De Trinitate, is a biblical, exegetical accomplishment of De Doctrina Christiana. See Augustine, De Trinitate, I.iii.5, I.viii.18, VIII.iii.4; idem, De Doctrina Christiana, I.v.5, I.xxxv.39. 66 Augustine, De Trinitate, V.xxi.30. The Structure of the Trinity in Augustine 115 though the voice of the Father, the body of the Son, and the Dove of the Holy Spirit are separately referred to each person. From this point of view, Augustine argues that the birth, passion, and resurrection of the Son are not done without the Father and the Holy Spirit.67 The same is to be said about the day of Pentecost in Acts 2.

2) According to mutual relation (Secundum relavitum, as invicem atque ad alterutrum)

Augustine emphasizes the property of each person according to mutual relation no less than the unity, equality, and simultaneity of the Trinity in respect to substance: “Although the Father hath begotten the Son, and so He who is the Father is not the Son; and the Son is begotten by the Father, and so He who is the Son is not the Father; and the Holy Spirit is neither the Father nor the Son, but only the Spirit of the Father and of the Son, Himself also co-equal with the Father and the Son, and pertaining to the unity of the Trinity.”68 Augustine argues here that the eternal generation (aeterna generatio) of the Son and the eternal procession (aeterna processio) of the Holy Spirit are said neither in respect to substance (secundum substantia) nor in respect to creature or accident, but in respect to mutual relation (secundum relavitum) among three Persons.69 We here should not ignore the distinction between the generation of the Son and the procession of the Holy Spirit,70 considered according to Themselves. In this way, there

67 See Augustine’s sermon on selected lessons of the New Testament (NPNF Vol. VI), iii.2. 68 Augustine, De Trinitate, I.iv.7. 69 Sarah Lancaster does not distinguish the procession (processio) from the generation (generatio), but employs “the eternal processions”, though he exactly understood the structure of the Trinity as follows: ‘things that are said of God’s relations constitute a third class of terms, neither substantial nor accidental but relational.’ Sarah Heaner Lancaster, “Divine Relations of the Trinty: Augustine’s Answer to Arianism,” Calvin Theological Journal 34 (1999), 327-46. 70 Sonius, who might conceive Augustine’s word that “adequate utterance (sufficiens elocutio) entirely failed me (Trinitate, XV, xxiv, 45),” says that “what the property is and, as it were, the formal distinction between generation and procession, on account of which the second person only is and is called the Son and the third only the Spirit, the doctors 116 KOREA PRESBYTERIAN JOURNAL OF THEOLOGY Vol. 52 No. 4 will be no accident (accidens) in the generation and the procession, but the mission (missio) of the Son and the Holy Spirit is to be considered according to creature.71 That the first Person is called the Father; the second, the Son; and the third, the Holy Spirit, is in accordance with the mutual relationship of three Persons. That is, according to the mutual relation, we can say as follows: ‘The Father is the begetter, and the Son is begotten, and the Father and the Son are one processor and the Holy Spirit is proceeded.’ However, the reverse is not allowed. Therefore, Father is not Son and Holy Spirit, and Son is not Holy Spirit and Father, and the Holy Spirit is not Father and Son. Since such terms as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not said according to substance, the substance should not be said to be different among three persons.72 The advanced definition of the Person in Augustine as well as the structural understanding of the three persons is found in Calvin, who defines Person persona( ) as a subsistence in God’s essence (subsistantia in Dei essentia), which is related to other persons and distinguished by an incommunicable propriety (proprietate incommunicabili), according to which he explains each Person in the Trinity.73 Calvin is also conscious of the fact that of the Early Church Augustine and the Damascene and others admit their ignorance, since it has not been expressly defined in God’s Word.” Heinlich Heppe, Die Dogmatik der evangelisch-reformierten Kirche (abbr., Die Dogmatik) (Neukirchen: Kreis Moers, 1935), 105. However, Sonius is not cautious of Augustine’s rule of modesty and sobriety, that is, “the Spirit came forth, not as born, but as given (exit enim non quomodo natus sed quomodo datus).” Augustine, De Trinitate, V.xiv.15. Augustine’s failure is concerning the explanation of the distinction between the generation of the Son and the procession of the Spirit through the creaturely image, but not by the Scripture itself. 71 While Augustine, though referring the matter of time, mainly distinguishes the procession from the mission according to themselves or creature, Heppe distinguishes the procession from the mission according to eternity in the substance of God and temporal activity in the world. Heppe, Die Dogmatik, 91. “Die processio ist nur eine interna (im Wesen Gottes vorgehende und nur auf dasselbe bezügliche) und eine aeterna, und ist night mit der missio Spiritus sancti zu verwechseln, durch welche der Vater und der Sohn in der Welt wirksam sind.” 72 Augustine, De Trinitate, V.v.6. 73 Calvin, Institutio 1559, I.xiii.6; idem., Institutio 1536, II.62. The same definition as Cavin’s is found in the post-Genevan theology. Theodore Beza, Propositions and Principles of Divinitie (Edinburge: Robert Waldegrau, 1591), 4. Moreover, most reformed theologians of the 17th century follow Calvin’s definition of the Person. And L. Daneau The Structure of the Trinity in Augustine 117 three persons imply a real distinction (distinctionem), but not a division (divisionem) as Augustine noticed.74 Augustine asserts that the main fault of Arians, who wrongly consider the relative things as the substantial things, is being ignorant of distinction between secundum substantium and secundum relavitum. Arians naively allege that the begetter is different from the begotten and Christ has a beginning to his existence, because, according to Augustine, they think whatever is spoken of God Himself is spoken according to substance(quidquid ad se ipsum dicitur secundum substantiam dicitur).75 It surely means that the essential problem of Arius concerns the structure of the Trinity. This analysis cannot be found in Calvin. This is evidence, by which we infer that Calvin does not contain the whole structure of Augustine’s doctrine of the Trinity in Institutio 1559. After introducing several categories of expression, Augustine consequently proposes against this casuistry of Arians the structural answer that whatever is said of God is not according to accident, but according to mutual relation or according to substance. What is not an accident is outside of time. That is, as the Son is unchangeable forever, so there is no time for Him not to be the Son. Moreover, that the Son is begotten is said according to the mutual relation, but not the substance, so the Father and the Son are one and equal in substance. The Son, who is always born(semper natus), is always the Son without time(semper filius sine tempore), and the Father is always the Father without time. Moreover, the names such as Son and Father are not mentioned according to substance, but according to relation with each to the other(ad inuicem atque ad alterutrum), because the Son cannot be called to be the Son without the Father, and the Father cannot be called to be the Father without the Son.76 However, Augustine says that the name, which bears the mutual relation of Father and Son, is not

74 Calvin, Institutio 1559, I.xiii.17. 75 Augustine, De Trinitate, V.vi.7. From such analysis of Augustine, we can say that the essential cause of Arius’ error, that is, ‘Christ is God, but He was made and had a beginning.’ is the lack of the distinction between secundum substantiam and secundum relavitum. 76 Augustine, De Trinitate, V.v.6. 118 KOREA PRESBYTERIAN JOURNAL OF THEOLOGY Vol. 52 No. 4 found in regard to the Holy Spirit.77

3) According to accident or creature (Secundum accidens, Secundum ad creaturam)

Even though the Trinity is surely one and the same God without division in substance and He works indivisibly in every creation taks, we know of another understanding of Augustine that the Trinity can be separately manifested in time and space by the form of the visible creature,78 which does not show God properly as He is, but “by intimations such as suited the causes and times of the several circumstances.”79 Calvin also recognizes that “He is shown to us not as He is Himself, but as He is toward us (erga nos) ,” 80 which in Augustine means God’s back (Ex 33:23). However, it is particular in Augustine that God’s back is related to the flesh of Jesus Christ posteriora( Iesu Christi),81 in which sense he asserts that Christ revealed Himself by the visible form and the audible voice in the Old Testament.

defines that the relations of the divine persons are unchageable and yet incommunicable in Themselves (relationes D. personarum, quas video esse incommutabiles, & inter sese tamen incommunicabiles) and the proper attribute of each person is incommunicable with the other persons (unius personae propria attributa, que personalia vocantur, sint alteri personae incommunicabilia).” L. Daneau, Compendium Sacrae Theologiae (Montpellier: Jean Gillet, 1595), I.vii. Following Calvin, Thomas Cartwright also defines a Person as “a distinct subsistence, hauing the whole God-head in it.” Thomas Cartwright,A Treatise of Christian Religion (London: Felix Kyngston, 1616), iv. William Perkins says that the persons, are they, which subsisting in one Godhead, are distinguished by incommunicable properties. William Perkins, A Golden Chaine (London: Robert Walde-grave, 1592), v. 77 Augustine, De Trinitate, V.xii.13. 78 Augustine, De Trinitate, IV.xxi.30. 79 Augustine, De Trinitate, II.xvii.32. 80 Calvin, Institutio 1559, I.x.2, III.ii.6. Moreover, he says that “Scripture, having regard for men’s rude and stupid wit, customarily speaks in the manner of the common folk.” I, xi, 1. These expressions in Calvin are deeply related to Hilary, who says that “we ought to recognise first of all that God has spoken not for himself but for us, and that He has so far tempered the language of his utterance as to enable the weakness of our nature to grasp and understand it.” Cf. Allan M. Harman. “Speech about the Trinity: with special reference to Novatian, Hilary and Calvin,” Scottish Journal of Theology 26-4 (1973), 385-400. 81 Augustine, De Trinitate, II.xvii.28. The Structure of the Trinity in Augustine 119

In addition, Augustine states that position (situs), condition (habitus), places (loca), and times (tempora) are not properly said to be in God, but “metaphorically and also through similarities.”82 For example, God is said to dwell between the cherubims (Psalm 80:1), according to position (ad situm); and to be covered with the deep like a garment (Psalm 104:6, LXX), according to condition (ad habitum); and “Thy years shall have no end (Psalm 102:27),” according to time ad( tempus); and “If I ascend up into heaven, Thou art there”(Psalm 139:8), according to place (ad locum). We are, therefore, to be cautious of superficial interpretation stating that something new has happened to God, who is unchangeable and eternal, and that, according to temporal economy, the plan of salvation belongs to the Father alone; salvation, the Son alone; its application, the Holy Spirit alone. Whenever one person alone in the Trinity is acting in the Scripture, it ought not be interpreted without consideration of the other two persons in the Trinity.83 For the insinuation of the Trinity, certain things are separately said of persons, also being singularly called; nevertheless, the other persons are not seen to be excluded, becaused of the unity in the same Trinity and the One substance and Godhead of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.84 To explain this statement, Augustine employs several words from John 14:16-17, 28, 16:6-7, 13, 20:17; 1 Cor 2:11.85

(1) The order of the outward work of the Trinity The order of the outward work of the Trinity is defined as follows: the Father works in Christ through the Holy Spirit, the Son from the Father through the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit from both the Father and the Son. Concerning this order, Calvin says that the Father

82 Augustine, De Trinitate, V.viii.9. 83 Augustine explains that Holy Spirit alone is said in Scripture to be sufficient for our blessedness, is because Holy Spirit cannot be divided from Father and Son; just as Father alone is sufficient because He cannot be seperated from Son and Holy Spirit; and Son alone is sufficient because He is not divisible from Father and Holy Spirit. Augustine, De Trinitate, I.viii.18. 84 Augustine, De Trinitate, I.ix.19. 85 Augustine, De Trinitate, I.viii.18-ix.19. 120 KOREA PRESBYTERIAN JOURNAL OF THEOLOGY Vol. 52 No. 4 as the origin or beginning of action, works through (per) the Son, as the Word, and his own wisdom in (in) the Holy Spirit, as his Power.86 These orders are found in many reformed theologians of the 17th century. For example, Ussher satisfactorily says that “the Father worketh all things of himself in the Son by the Holy Ghost, the Son worketh from the Father by the Holy Spirit, he Holy Spirit worketh from the Father and the S on .” 87 Heidegger notes according to the Trinitarian order of being that “the Father is to be of Himself and works through the Son and the Holy Spirit, the Son is to be from the Father and works through the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is to be and works from the Father and the S on .” 88 Polanus remarks that “as the Son is of the Father, and the holy Spirite of the Father and the Sonne: so the Father worketh immediately by the Sonne, by the holy Spirite, in performing the same worke.”89 Regarding this Trinitarian order of the outward work, which is hardly found in Augustine, he also holds that the Father is not sent by the Son who was begotten by Him, or by the Holy Spirit proceeding from Him.90 In addition, he mentions that our blessedness is from Him (ex ipso), through Him (per ipsum), and in Him (in ipsom), and the Trinity is one God, from whom all things are, through whom all things are, and in whom all things are.91 Moreover, remarking that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one origin (unum principium) of creature,92 he adds that the Father made all things by (per) the Son. In addition, when we see that the Father and the Holy Spirit send the Son,93 and the Holy Spirit is sent by the Father and the Son, in regard to the mission, it is possible to infer in Augustine’s doctrine of the Trinity that there is the trinitarian frame in the external work. This is not obvious, because he is conscious of the liberal use of the proposition and the unity and

86 Calvin, Institutio 1536, II.64. 87 James Ussher, A body of Divinity, 88. 88 Heppe, Die Dogmatik, vi. 89 Amandus Polanus, The Substance of Christian Religion(London: R.F., 1597), 16. 90 Augustine, De Trinitate, IV.xxi.32. 91 Augustine, De Trinitate, VI.v.7. 92 Augustine, De Trinitate, V.xiv.15; idem, Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel according to St. John, NPNF, vol. VII, V.xix.10.; De Doctrina Christiana, I.vi.5. 93 In his sermons, the phrase “by the power of the Holy Spirit” is sometimes used. Augustine, The Harmony of the Gospels, NPNF Vol. VI, II.xi.28. The Structure of the Trinity in Augustine 121 equality in the external work of the Trinity. Thus, in Augustine we can find an exhaustive effort to overcome subordinationism within the Trinity, where most fathers before Augustine remain as Bavinck exactly said.94

III. CONCLUSION

According to Augustine, the totality of Christianity, or the ultimate goal and the absolute criterion of interpreting the Holy Scripture is embraced in the doctrine of the Trinity. Therefore, Augustine becomes assured that most heresies are finally related to error in understanding the doctrine of the Trinity.95 In order to protect against these heresies, he establishes the structure of the Trinity, based on the Holy Scripture, which is divided into “according to substance or Himself, according to mutual relation among Themselves, and according to accident or creature.” This structure is the result of Augustine’s fidelity to the knowledge of God the Trinity, that is, he would not ignore nor add even one iota to the Holy Scripture, leading us to throw away the inferior things and search for the superior thing (quaerenda superiora et inferiora desernda),96 which is obviously God Himself, who accor ding to the mutual relation in Themselves is distinguished into the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and who is one and the same according to substance. The Trinity is inseparable in the outward work on account of the inseparability of substance, even though the Trinity can be manifested several ways by the form of the corporeal creature, and the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit are sometimes properly manifested. According to Ussher, the outward works of the Trinity are decree, predestination, creation, calling, justification, sactification, and

94 Herman Bavinck, Dogmatic Theology, 2:387-388. 95 In his book De Haeresibus, Augustine displays 88 heresies in his time as follows, which are rooted on the misunderstanding in the doctrine of God. 96 Augustine, De Trinitate, I.i.2. Just as Augustine’s stance on the Scripture, Calvin also says that the totality of the earthly blessings and curses uttered by Moses is given to lead God’s people to the hope of heavenly things. Calvin, Institutio 1559, II.xi.1. 122 KOREA PRESBYTERIAN JOURNAL OF THEOLOGY Vol. 52 No. 4 glorification, which doctrines are to be considered with the specific reference to the indivisibility of the Trinity in all external works. Unfortunately, the commentaries or dogmatics, where these outward works are considered according to Augustine’s structure of the Trinity, are rarely found these days. Even though most theologians agree that the doctrine of the Trinity is the sum of all doctrines, it seems considered just dogma without regard of scriptural interpretation practice. In this way, the grammatical, contextual, historical, and critical analysis of human thought, which might be involved with the knowledge of God the Trinity becomes the direction and goal of interpreting the whole Scripture, evidencing the superiority of human wisdom. This is because such attitudes as Augustine’s fearfulness (timor)97 and Calvin’s rule of sobriety (sobrietas) and modesty (modestia)98 on the Trinity might be not fully engaged as they comment on the Holy Scripture, or the synthetic structure of Augustine’s doctrine of the Trinity is removed by malice and ignorance (inscitia et malitia) as Calvin indicated. It is an important task to recover, in all doctrines and in the interpretation of the Holy Scripture, to show us the Triune God Himself as He is and in His glory.

97 Augustine, De Trinitate, VII.iv.9. 98 Calvin, Institutio 1559, I.xiii.2: “Cuius temeritatis infelicissimo successu admoneri nos decet, ut docilitate magis quam acumine in istam quaestionem incumbere curae sit; nec in animum inducamus aut Deum usquam investigare nisi in sacro eius verbo, aut de ipso quidquam cogitare nisi praeeunte eius verbo, aut loqui nisi ex eodem verbo sumptum.” The Structure of the Trinity in Augustine 123

Bibliography

Augustine. De Civitate Dei. Corpvs Christianorvm Series Latina (CCSL). Vol. XLVII. Turn- hout: Brepols, 1954. . De Doctrina Christiana. CCSL, Vol. XXXII. . Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel according to St. John. NPNF. vol. VII. . Retractationes. CCSL, Vol. LVII. . Sermons. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fa- thers (NPNF). Vol. VI. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1995. Ayres, Lewis. Augustine and the Trinity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Bavinck, Herman. Reformed Dogmatics. Vol. II. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003. Benner, Drayton. “Augustine and Karl Rahner on the Relationship between the Immanent Trinity and the Economic Trinity.” International Journal of Systematic Theology 9-1 (2007), 24-38. Berkhof, Louis. History of Christian Doctrines. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1975. Beza, Theodore.Propositions and Principles of Divinitie. Edinburge: Robert Waldegrau, 1591. Calvin, John. De Aeterna Dei Praedestinatione. Edited by G. Baun, E. Cunitz, and E. Reuss. Opera quae Supersunt omnia (CO). Vol. VIII. . Institutio 1559. CO. Vol. II. Cartwright, Thomas.A Treatise of Christian Religion. London: Felix Kyngston, 1616. Daneau, L. Compendium Sacrae Theologiae. Montpellier: Jean Gillet, 1595. Harman, Allan M. “Speech about the Trinity: with special reference to Novatian, Hilary and Calvin.” Scottish Journal of Theology 26-4 (1973), 385-400. Heppe, Heinlich. Die Dogmatik der evangelisch-reformierten Kirche. Neukirchen: Kreis Mo- ers, 1935. Howells, Edward. “Appropriating the Divine Presence: Reading Augustine’s On the Trinity as a Transformative Text.” Spiritus 11-2 (2011), 200-23. Kim, Young Kyu. Augustine’s Doctrine of the Trinity. Seoul: RIBRT, 2005. . Calvin und das Alte Testament. Seoul, 1994. Kuehn, Evan F. “The Johannine Logic of Augustine’s Trinity: A Dogmatic Sketch.”Theologi - cal Studies 68-3 (2007), 572-94. Lancaster, Sarah Heaner. “Divine Relations of the Trinty: Augustine’s Answer to Arianism.” Calvin Theological Journal 34 (1999), 327-46. Lombardus, Petrus. Sententiae in IV Libris Distinctae. Roma: Collegii S. Bonaventurae ad Claras Aquas Grottaferrata, 1971. Martyr, Justin. Dialogue with Trypho. The Fathers of the Church. Vol. VI. Washington: Catho- lic Uni., 1965. Muller, Richard A. The Unaccommodated Calvin: Studies in the Foundation of a Theological Tradition. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. 124 KOREA PRESBYTERIAN JOURNAL OF THEOLOGY Vol. 52 No. 4

. The Triunity of God. Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics. Vol. IV. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003. Pecknold, C. “How Augustine used the Trinity: Functionalism and the Development of Doc- trine.” Anglican Theological Review 85-1 (2003), 127-41. Perkins, William. A Golden Chaine. London: Robert Walde-grave, 1592. Polanus, Amandus. Syntagma Theologiae Christianae. Geneva: Typographia Iacobi Stoër, 1617. . The Substance of Christian Religion. London: R.F., 1597. Rudebusch, Goerge. “Aristotelian Predication, Augustine and the Trinity.” Thomis: a Specula- tive Quarterly Review 53-4 (1989), 587-97. Shedd, William G. T. “Introductory Essay.” In Augustine, On the Trinity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980, 15-23. Tertvllian. Adversvs Marcionem. Corpvs Christianorvm Series Latina. Vol. I. Turnhout: Brepols, 1954. Torrance, Thomas F. “Calvin’s Doctrine of the Trinity.”Calvin Theological Journal 25-2 (1990), 165-193. Ussher, James. A Body of Divinity, or the Summe and Substance of Christian Religion. London, 1647. Westerholm, Martin. “The Work of the Trinity and the Knowledge of God in Augustine’s De Trinitate.” International Journal of Systematic Theology 15-1 (2013), 5-24. The Structure of the Trinity in Augustine 125

한글 초록

아우구스티누스의 삼위일체 구조

한병수 전주대학교 조교수, 교의학

본 논문은 아우구스티누스의 삼위일체 교리가 가진 독특성 즉 삼위일체 하나님의 구 조에 대해 칼빈처럼 그의 교리를 따르는 인물들의 입장을 살피면서 논구한다. 이 교부의 삼위일체 교리는 중세, 종교개혁, 정통주의, 근세와 현대에 이르도록 지대한 영향을 주었 으나 그가 확립한 구조는 오랫동안 간과되어 왔다. 심지어 아우구스티누스를 자신의 신 학적인 전부라고 고백하며 이 교부의 삼위일체 교리를 계승한 칼빈의 삼위일체 교리 안 에서도 교부의 독특성인 삼위일체 하나님의 구조에 대한 이해는 다소 미약하다. 교부는 삼위일체 하나님은 존재에 있어서 분리됨이 없이 그의 사역에 있어서도 분리됨이 없다 는 이전 교부들의 전통을 계승한다. 그가 그런 전통 안에서 확립한 삼위일체 하나님의 구 조는 실체에 따른 이해와 위격적 관계에 따른 이해와 피조물에 대한 이해로 구성되어 있 다. 교부의 이러한 삼중적인 구조를 따라 삼위일체 하나님을 이해할 때에 하나님과 관련 된 성경의 다양한 표현들을 구조적인 모순 없이 이해하고 설명하게 된다. 이런 아우구스 티누스의 삼위일체 구조는 제임스 어셔의 문헌에서 발견된다. 본 논문은 그가 정리한 교 부의 구조를 참조하여 보다 면밀한 분석과 상세한 설명을 시도한다.

주제어

삼위일체, 아우구스티누스, 실체, 관계, 피조물, 구조

Date submitted: July 29, 2020; date evaluated: October 4, 2020; date confirmed: October 6, 2020.