← Back to Distinction 26

Dist. 26

Book I: On the Mystery of the Trinity · Distinction 26

Textus Latinus
p. 447

DISTINCTIO XXVI.

Cap. I. De hoc nomine hypostasis.

Nunc de proprietatibus personarum, quas frequenter in hoc tractatu commemoravimus, aliquid nos loqui oportet. Sed primum audiamus, quid de hoc nomine hypostasis Hieronymus dicit. Ait enim, sub hoc nomine venenum latere. Sed hoc dicit, secundum quod haeretici eo utebantur, ut simplices seducerent, scilicet pro persona et pro essentia, ut, sive diceretur una tantum hypostasis sive tres, minus peritos ad inconveniens deducerent, cum non erat hoc nomen ita apud catholicos vulgatum, nec ita eius significatio determinata, ut modo. Et ideo Hieronymus dicit, hoc nomine non utendum fore sine distinctione vel expositione, tunc scilicet, quando cum haereticis contendebatur, ita scribens de Fide catholica ad Damasum Papam1: «Ab Arianorum praesule hypostaseon novellum nomen a me homine Romano exigitur. Interrogamus, quid tres hypostases arbitrentur intelligi; tres personas subsistentes, aiunt. Respondemus, nos ita credere. Non sufficit eis sensus; ipsum nomen efflagitant; quia nescio quid veneni in syllabis latet. Clamamus: si quis tres hypostases, id est, tres subsistentes personas non confitetur, anathema sit. Si quis autem, hypostasim usiam intelligens non tribus personis unam hypostasim indicit, alienus a Christo est, qui scilicet, tres hypostases dicens, sub nomine pietatis tres naturas conatur asserere. Sufficiat nobis dicere unam substantiam et tres personas perfectas aequales; taceamus tres hypostases, si placet. Nomen hoc non bonae suspicionis est, cum in eodem verbo sensus dissentiunt. Aut si rectum putatis, tres hypostases cum interpretationibus suis debere nos dicere, non negamus. Sed mihi credite, venenum sub melle latet; transfigurat enim se angelus satanae in Angelum lucis2». His verbis non negat utendum esse nomine hypostasis, sed haereticos eo prave usos ostendit, contra quos cautela opus erat in distinctione significationis; alioquin sibi contradiceret, qui supra tres hypostases confitetur.

Cap. II. De proprietatibus personarum et de nominibus earum relativis.

Iam de proprietatibus personarum videamus, quae etiam notiones sive relationes in Scriptura plerumque dicuntur in illa Trinitate sancta, quae ideo a nobis repetitur3, ut nostro cordi tenacius infigatur. Ait Augustinus in libro de Fide ad Petrum4: «Aliud est genuisse quam natura esse, aliudque est procedere quam genuisse vel natum esse. Unde manifestum est, quod alius est Pater, alius Filius, alius Spiritus sanctus». «Et est proprium solius Patris, non quia non est natus ipse, sed quia genuit; et proprium solius Filii, non quia ipse non genuit, sed quia de Patris essentia natus est; proprium vero Spiritus sancti est, non quia nec natus est ipse nec genuit, sed quia solus de Patre Filioque procedit». Ecce breviter assignavit tres proprietates trium personarum, quarum una non est alia. Hoc enim significavit, cum dixit: Aliud est genuisse quam natum esse aliudque procedere, id est, alia proprietas sive notio est generatio, et alia nativitas, alia processio, quae aliis nominibus dicuntur paternitas, filiatio, spiratio5. Has proprietates designant illa nomina personarum, scilicet Pater, Filius et Spiritus sanctus, quae relativa sunt et ad se invicem dicuntur; quia notant relationes, quae non sunt Deo accidentales, sed in ipsis personis ab aeterno sunt immutabiliter, ut non modo appellationes sint relativae, sed etiam relationes sive notiones in rebus ipsis, scilicet in personis sint.

p. 448

Cap. III. Quod non omnia dicuntur de Deo secundum substantiam; quaedam enim secundum relationem, nihil tamen secundum accidens.

Quocirca sciendum est, non omne quod dicitur de Deo, dici secundum substantiam; quia quaedam dicuntur secundum relationem, quae non est accidens, quia non est mutabilis. Ut enim Augustinus in quinto libro de Trinitate6 ait: «Nihil in Deo secundum accidens dicitur, quia nihil ei accidit; nec tamen omne quod dicitur, secundum substantiam de Deo dicitur. In rebus creatis atque mutabilibus quod non secundum substantiam dicitur, restat ut secundum accidens dicatur. In Deo autem nihil quidem secundum accidens dicitur, quia nihil in eo mutabile est aut amissibile; nec tamen omne quod dicitur de Deo, secundum substantiam dicitur. Dicitur enim ad aliquid, sicut Pater ad Filium, et Filius ad Patrem, quod non est accidens; quia et ille semper Pater, et ille semper Filius; et ita semper, quia semper natus est Filius, nec coepit unquam esse Filius. Quod si aliquando esse coepisset, aut aliquando esse desineret7 Filius, secundum accidens diceretur. Et quia Pater non dicitur Pater, nisi ex eo quod est ei Filius, et Filius non dicitur Filius, nisi ex eo quod habet Patrem; non secundum substantiam haec dicuntur, sed ad invicem ista dicuntur, neque tamen secundum accidens, quia et quod dicitur Pater, et quod dicitur Filius aeternum atque incommutabile est eis». Ecce his verbis aperte ostenditur, quaedam dici de Deo secundum substantiam, quaedam secundum relationem, nihil tamen secundum accidens. Ostenditur etiam proprietas Patris esse, quod habet Filium, et proprietas Filii, quod habet Patrem. Ideoque, cum dixit, aeternum et incommutabile esse, quod Pater dicitur, et quod Filius dicitur; ita intelligi voluit, idest: proprietas, qua Pater est Pater, et proprietas, qua Filius est Filius, aeterna est et incommutabilis, quia et Pater semper est Pater, et Filius semper Filius. Unde et Hilarius proprietates personarum assignans in duodecimo libro de Trinitate8 ait: «Si semper Patri proprium est, quod semper est Pater, necesse est semper Filio proprium esse, quod semper est Filius. Ubi enim semper Pater est, semper et Filius est: ergo qui non semper Pater est, non semper genuit». Item in eodem: «Nato Deo manifestum est proprium esse, quod Filius est».

Cap. IV. Quare dicatur proprium esse Unigeniti, Filium Dei esse, cum etiam homines sint filii Dei.

Hic quaeritur, quomodo dicatur esse proprium nato Deo, quod est Dei Filius vel genitus ex Deo, cum etiam homines filii Dei dicantur et sint, secundum illud: Filii Excelsi omnes9. Et ad Moysen de populo Israel Dominus ait10: Filius meus primogenitus Israel. Sed magna est distantia: homines enim filii Dei sunt factura, non nativitatis proprietate; Deus autem Filius originis proprietate Filius est et veritate nativitatis, non factura vel adoptione; et illi quidem ante sunt, quam filii Dei sint; fiunt enim filii Dei11, non nascuntur filii Dei. Unde Hilarius, solum Deum natum originis proprietate Dei filium ostendens, inter ipsum et homines filios Dei evidentissime distinguit in duodecimo libro de Trinitate12, ita dicens: «Vero Patri solus qui ex eo nascitur vere Filius est. Et nos quidem filii Deo sumus, sed per facturam. Fuimus enim aliquando filii iracundiae, sed filii Deo per adoptionem effecti sumus potius, quam nascimur. Et quia omne quod fit, antequam fiat, non fuit, nos, cum filii non fuissemus, efficimur. Ante enim filii non eramus, sed per gratiam facti sumus, non nati neque generati, sed acquisiti. Acquisivit enim nos Deus sibi, et

p. 449

per hoc dicitur nos genuisse. Genuisse enim Deum filios nunquam cum proprietatis significatione cognoscimus dici. Ex adoptione enim homo factus est filius Dei, non ex generatione; neque ei proprietas est, sed nuncupatio, ac per id non vere filius est, quia nec proprie natus dicitur, nec semper filius fuit. Unigenitus autem Deus nec fuit aliquando non filius, nec fuit aliquid antequam filius, nec quidquam ipse nisi filius. Atque ita qui semper est filius, nascibilitatis proprietate ac veritate filius est eius solius, qui genuit; et ille tantum qui genuit, pater ipsius est; quia sicut ille filius origine, ita ille pater generatione».

Cap. V. Quod homo dicitur filius Trinitatis, et Trinitas pater.

Homo vero, qui filius Dei est, factura non tantum Patris, sed et Filii et Spiritus sancti filius est, id est totius Trinitatis; et Trinitas ipsa Pater eius dici potest. Unde Augustinus in quinto libro de Trinitate13 ait: «Non potest dici Trinitas pater, nisi forte translative ad creaturam propter adoptionem filiorum. Quod enim scriptum est14: Audi Israel, Dominus Deus tuus, Deus unus est, non utique, excepto Filio aut Spiritu sancto, oportet intelligi; quem unum Dominum Deum nostrum recte dicimus etiam Patrem nostrum per gratiam suam nos regenerantem». De hoc etiam Hilarius in sexto libro de Trinitate15 ait: «Omnibus per fidem Deus est pater, quibus est pater per eam fidem, qua Iesum Christum Dei Filium confitemur». Ecce ostensum est, quare proprium dicatur esse Dei nati, quod filius est, quia scilicet ipse solus natus proprie dicitur. Unde Hilarius in libro tertio de Trinitate16 ait: «Dominus dicens: Clarifica Filium tuum, non solo nomine contestatus est, se esse filium, sed et proprietate. Nos filii Dei sumus, sed non talis hic filius17. Hic enim verus et proprius est filius origine, non adoptione; veritate, non nuncupatione; nativitate, non creatione».

Cap. VI. Quod Spiritus sanctus eadem proprietate donum dicitur, qua Spiritus sanctus, et utroque modo relative ad Patrem et Filium.

Ita etiam de Spiritu sancto dicendum est, qui proprie dicitur donum Dei, cum tamen et alia plura sint dona Dei. Sed Spiritus sanctus ita proprietate immutabili et aeterna donum est, sicut Filius proprietate est filius. Eo enim donum dicitur, quo spiritus sanctus, et utroque utique nomine relative dicitur, eademque relatione dicitur spiritus sanctus et donum; licet ipsa relatio non ita appareat in hoc nomine spiritus sanctus, sicut in hoc nomine donum. Unde Augustinus in quinto libro de Trinitate18 ita ait: «Spiritus sanctus, qui non est Trinitas, sed in Trinitate intelligitur, in eo quod proprie dicitur spiritus sanctus, relative dicitur, cum et ad Patrem et ad Filium refertur, quia Spiritus sanctus et Patris et Filii spiritus est. Sed ipsa relatio non apparet in hoc nomine, apparet autem, cum dicitur donum Dei; donum enim est Patris et Filii, quia et a Patre procedit et a Filio. Ergo Spiritus sanctus ineffabilis est quaedam Patris Filiique communio. Et ideo forlasse sic appellatur, ut iam diximus nec iterare piget, quia19 Patri et Filio potest eadem appellatio convenire. Nam hoc ipse proprie dicitur, quod illi communiter: quia et Pater spiritus et Filius spiritus, et Pater sanctus et Filius sanctus. Ut ergo ex nomine, quod utrique convenit, utriusque communio significetur, vocatur donum amborum spiritus sanctus». Ecce habes, quare Spiritus sanctus proprie dicatur donum, et quod relative dicitur sive donum, sive spiritus sanctus, et quod nomen sibi proprium tenet, quod communiter Patri et Filio convenit, sed divisim. Et est sciendum, quod20 cum Pater vel Filius dicitur spiritus, sive sanctus, neutrum relative dicitur, sed secundum substantiam.

Cap. VII. Utrum Pater vel Filius vel Trinitas ipsa possit dici spiritus sanctus.21

Hic quaeri potest, utrum Pater vel Filius vel etiam ipsa Trinitas possit dici spiritus sanctus, sicut disiunctim dicitur et spiritus et sanctus. De hoc Augustinus in quinto libro de Trinitate22 sic ait: «Trinitas nullo modo potest dici filius, spiritus vero sanctus potest quidem universaliter dici, secundum id quod scriptum est: Quoniam Deus spiritus est. Itaque Pater et Filius et Spiritus sanctus, quoniam unus est Deus, et utique Deus sanctus est, et Deus spiritus est, potest appellari trinitas, et spiritus sanctus. Sed tamen tunc spiritus sanctus relative non dicetur, sed secundum essentiam, quia proprie Spiritus sanctus, qui non est Trinitas, sed in Trinitate, dicitur relative».

Cap. VIII. Quod non omnia, quae relative dicuntur, suis ad se vicissim respondent vocabulis.

Quidam tamen putant, spiritum sanctum vel donum non dici relative ad Patrem vel ad Filium. Si enim, inquiunt, haec relative ad se dicuntur, suis invicem sibi respondent vocabulis: ut, sicut dicitur:

p. 450

Pater Filii pater, et Filius Patris filius, ita dicatur pater Spiritus sancti vel Doni pater, et Spiritus sanctus vel Donum Patris spiritus vel donum. Sed non ita est in omnibus relativis. Non enim omnia, quae relative dicuntur, suis ad se invicem respondent vocabulis. Unde Augustinus huius elidens opinionem, in quinto libro de Trinitate: «Non moveat, inquit, quoniam diximus, Spiritum sanctum non ipsam Trinitatem, sed eum qui est in Trinitate, relative dici, licet non ei vicissim respondeat vocabulum eius, ad quem refertur. Dicimus enim Spiritum sanctum Patris, sed non vicissim dicimus Patrem Spiritus sancti, ne filius eius intelligatur Spiritus sanctus. Item dicimus Spiritum sanctum Filii, sed non dicimus Filium Spiritus sancti, ne pater eius intelligatur Spiritus sanctus. In multis enim relativis hoc contingit, ut non inveniatur vocabulum, quo sibi vicissim respondeant. Cum ergo dicimus donum Patris et Filii, non quidem possumus dicere patrem doni aut filium doni, sed ut haec vicissim respondeant, dicimus donum donatoris, et donatorem doni, quia hic potuit inveniri usitatum vocabulum, illic non potuit». «Donum ergo donatoris, et donator doni cum dicimus, relative utrumque ad invicem dicimus». «Donator tamen non fuit Deus nisi ex tempore, cum Spiritus sanctus sit donum etiam ab aeterno».

---

English Translation

DISTINCTION XXVI.

Cap. I. On this name "hypostasis".

Now we must say something about the properties of the persons, which we have frequently mentioned in this treatise. But first let us hear what Jerome says about this name hypostasis. For he says that under this name a poison lurks. But he says this insofar as the heretics used it to seduce the simple, namely [using it] for person and for essence, so that, whether one only or three hypostases were said, they might lead the less skilled to incongruity, since this name was not so widespread among Catholics, nor its signification so determined, as now. And therefore Jerome says that this name should not be used without distinction or exposition, then namely, when one was contending with heretics, writing thus On the Catholic Faith to Pope Damasus1: "From the Arian prelate the new name of hypostases is demanded of me, a Roman man. We ask, what they think to be understood by the three hypostases; three subsisting persons, they say. We answer, that we so believe. The sense does not suffice them; they demand the name itself; because I know not what poison lurks in the syllables. We cry out: if anyone does not confess three hypostases, that is, three subsisting persons, let him be anathema. But if anyone, understanding hypostasis as usia (essence), does not declare one hypostasis in three persons, he is alien from Christ, who namely, saying three hypostases, under the name of piety attempts to assert three natures. Let it suffice us to say one substance and three perfect equal persons; let us be silent about three hypostases, if it pleases. This name is not of good suspicion, since in the same word the senses dissent. Or if you think it right that we ought to say three hypostases together with their interpretations, we do not deny [it]. But believe me, poison lurks under honey; for the angel of Satan transforms himself into an Angel of light2." By these words he does not deny that the name hypostasis must be used, but he shows that the heretics used it perversely, against whom caution was needed in the distinction of signification; otherwise he would contradict himself, who above confesses three hypostases.

Cap. II. On the properties of the persons and on their relative names.

Now let us see concerning the properties of the persons, which are also said for the most part in Scripture [to be] notions or relations in that holy Trinity, which therefore is repeated by us3, so that it may be more tenaciously fixed in our heart. Augustine says in the book On Faith to Peter4: "It is one thing to have begotten, another to be by nature, and another thing to proceed than to have begotten or been born. Whence it is manifest that the Father is one, the Son another, the Holy Spirit another." "And it is proper to the Father alone, not because He Himself is not born, but because He has begotten; and proper to the Son alone, not because He Himself has not begotten, but because He was born from the essence of the Father; but proper to the Holy Spirit, not because neither was He Himself born nor did He beget, but because He alone proceeds from the Father and the Son." Behold, He briefly has assigned three properties of the three persons, of which one is not the other. For He signified this when He said: It is one thing to have begotten than to have been born, and another to proceed — that is, one property or notion is generation, and another is being-born, another is procession, which by other names are called paternity, filiation, spiration5. Those names of the persons designate these properties, namely Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, which are relative and are said with reference to one another; because they note relations, which are not accidental to God, but in the persons themselves are immutably from eternity, so that not only are the appellations relative, but also the relations or notions are in the things themselves, namely in the persons.

Cap. III. That not all things are said of God according to substance; for some [are said] according to relation, yet none according to accident.

Wherefore it must be known that not everything which is said of God is said according to substance; for some things are said according to relation, which is not an accident, since it is not mutable. For as Augustine says in the fifth book On the Trinity6: "Nothing in God is said according to accident, since nothing happens to Him; yet not everything which is said is said of God according to substance. In created and mutable things what is not said according to substance, it remains [must be the case] that it be said according to accident. But in God indeed nothing is said according to accident, since nothing in Him is mutable or losable; yet not everything which is said of God is said according to substance. For [something] is said in relation to something, just as Father in relation to Son, and Son in relation to Father, which is not an accident; because both He is always Father, and He is always Son; and so always, since the Son is always born, nor did He ever begin to be Son. But if He had at some time begun to be, or at some time would cease7 to be Son, He would be said according to accident. And since the Father is not called Father, except from this that the Son is to Him, and the Son is not called Son, except from this that He has a Father; these things are not said according to substance, but they are said with reference to one another, nor yet according to accident, since both that He is called Father, and that He is called Son, is eternal and incommutable to them." Behold by these words it is openly shown that some things are said of God according to substance, some according to relation, yet none according to accident. It is also shown that it is the property of the Father, that He has a Son, and the property of the Son, that He has a Father. And therefore, when he said that it is eternal and incommutable that He is called Father, and that He is called Son; he wished it to be understood thus, that is: the property by which the Father is Father, and the property by which the Son is Son, is eternal and incommutable, since both the Father is always Father, and the Son is always Son. Whence Hilary, assigning the properties of the persons in the twelfth book On the Trinity8 says: "If it is always proper to the Father, that He is always Father, it is necessary that it always be proper to the Son, that He is always Son. For where the Father always is, there always is also the Son: therefore he who is not always Father, has not always begotten." Likewise in the same place: "When God is born, it is manifest that it is proper that He is Son."

Cap. IV. Why it is said to be proper to the Only-begotten to be Son of God, although men too are sons of God.

Here it is asked how it can be said to be proper to the One born of God that He is Son of God or begotten from God, since men too are called sons of God and are [such], according to that [text]: All sons of the Most High9. And to Moses concerning the people of Israel the Lord says10: My son the firstborn, Israel. But there is a great distance: for men are sons of God by being made [such], not by the property of being-born; but God the Son is Son by the property of origin and by the truth of [His] being-born, not by being-made or by adoption; and they indeed exist before they are sons of God; for they are made sons of God11, not born sons of God. Whence Hilary, showing that God alone, born by the property of origin, is Son of God, most clearly distinguishes between Him and the men [who are] sons of God in the twelfth book On the Trinity12, saying thus: "To the true Father, only He who is born of Him is truly Son. And we indeed are sons to God, but through being-made. For we were once sons of wrath, but we have been made sons to God through adoption rather than [as those who] are born. And since everything which is made, before it is made, was not, we, since we had not been sons, are made [sons]. For before we were not sons, but through grace we were made [such], not born nor begotten, but acquired. For God acquired us for Himself, and

through this it is said that we have begotten. For we never recognize that God is said to have begotten sons with the signification of [proper] property. For man is made a son of God by adoption, not by generation; nor is it for him a property, but a designation, and on that account he is not truly a son, since he is neither properly said to be born, nor was he always a son. But the Only-begotten God neither was at any time not a son, nor was He anything before [being] son, nor [is] He Himself anything except son. And so He who is always Son, by the property and truth of His being-born is the Son of Him alone who begot [Him]; and only He who begot is His Father; because just as that one is Son by origin, so this one is Father by generation."

Cap. V. That a man is called son of the Trinity, and the Trinity father.

But man, who is a son of God, since he is made [so], is a son not only of the Father, but also of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, that is, of the whole Trinity; and the Trinity itself can be called his Father. Whence Augustine in the fifth book On the Trinity13 says: "The Trinity cannot be called father, except perhaps transferred to the creature on account of the adoption of sons. For what is written14: Hear, O Israel, the Lord thy God, [the Lord thy] God is one, must by no means be understood with the exception of the Son or the Holy Spirit; whom we rightly call our one Lord and God, also our Father, regenerating us by His grace." Concerning this also Hilary in the sixth book On the Trinity15 says: "God is father to all by faith, to whom He is father by that faith by which we confess Jesus Christ to be the Son of God." Behold it has been shown why it is called proper to the One born of God that He is Son, namely because He alone is properly said to be born. Whence Hilary in the third book On the Trinity16 says: "The Lord, in saying: Glorify Thy Son, attested that He was the Son not only by name but also by property. We are sons of God, but not such a son [is He] here17. For He is the true and proper Son by origin, not by adoption; by truth, not by designation; by birth, not by creation."

Cap. VI. That the Holy Spirit is called Gift by the same property by which He is [called] Holy Spirit, and in both ways relatively to the Father and the Son.

So also it must be said of the Holy Spirit, who is properly called the Gift of God, although there are also many other gifts of God. But the Holy Spirit is Gift by such an immutable and eternal property, just as the Son is Son by [His] property. For He is called Gift by that [property] by which [He is called] Holy Spirit, and assuredly by both names He is said relatively, and by the same relation He is called Holy Spirit and Gift; although that very relation does not so appear in this name Holy Spirit, as in this name Gift. Whence Augustine in the fifth book On the Trinity18 thus says: "The Holy Spirit, who is not the Trinity, but is understood in the Trinity, in that He is properly called Holy Spirit, is said relatively, when He is referred both to the Father and to the Son, since the Holy Spirit is the Spirit both of the Father and of the Son. But the relation itself does not appear in this name, but it appears, when He is called the Gift of God; for He is the Gift of the Father and of the Son, since He proceeds both from the Father and from the Son. Therefore the Holy Spirit is an ineffable certain communion of the Father and the Son. And therefore perhaps He is so called, as we have already said, nor does it weary [us] to repeat, since19 the same appellation can befit the Father and the Son. For He Himself is properly called that, which they [are] in common: for both the Father is spirit and the Son is spirit, and the Father is holy and the Son is holy. Therefore that the communion of both might be signified out of a name which befits both, the Holy Spirit is called the gift of both." Behold you have why the Holy Spirit is properly called Gift, and that He is said relatively whether [as] Gift or [as] Holy Spirit, and that He holds as proper to Himself a name which befits the Father and the Son in common, but separately. And it must be known that20 when the Father or the Son is called spirit, or holy, neither is said relatively, but according to substance.

Cap. VII. Whether the Father or the Son or the Trinity itself can be called Holy Spirit.21

Here it can be asked whether the Father or the Son or even the Trinity itself can be called Holy Spirit, just as disjunctively He is called both spirit and holy. Concerning this Augustine in the fifth book On the Trinity22 thus says: "The Trinity in no way can be called Son, but the Holy Spirit can indeed be said universally, according to that which is written: For God is Spirit. Therefore the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, since God is one, and surely God is holy, and God is spirit, can be called both trinity and holy spirit. Yet then holy spirit will not be said relatively, but according to essence, since properly the Holy Spirit, who is not the Trinity, but [is] in the Trinity, is said relatively."

Cap. VIII. That not all things, which are said relatively, correspond to one another by their own [reciprocal] vocabulary.

Some however think that the Holy Spirit or Gift is not said relatively to the Father or to the Son. For if, they say, these things are said relatively to themselves, they correspond to one another by their own [reciprocal] terms: so that, just as it is said:

Father [is] father of the Son, and Son [is] son of the Father, so let it be said: father of the Holy Spirit or father of the Gift, and the Holy Spirit or Gift [is] spirit or gift of the Father. But it is not so in all relatives. For not all things which are said relatively correspond to one another by their own reciprocal vocabulary. Whence Augustine, refuting their opinion, in the fifth book On the Trinity: "Let it not move you, he says, that we have said the Holy Spirit is not the Trinity itself, but Him who is in the Trinity, to be said relatively, although a vocabulary corresponding to the one to whom He is referred does not in turn correspond to Him. For we say Holy Spirit of the Father, but we do not in turn say Father of the Holy Spirit, lest the Holy Spirit be understood as His son. Likewise we say Holy Spirit of the Son, but we do not say Son of the Holy Spirit, lest the Holy Spirit be understood as His father. For in many relatives this happens, that no vocabulary be found by which they correspond to one another. When therefore we say Gift of the Father and of the Son, we cannot indeed call [Him] father of the Gift or son of the Gift, but in order that these may correspond to one another, we say gift of the giver, and giver of the gift, since here a customary vocabulary could be found, there it could not". "Therefore gift of the giver, and giver of the gift, when we say [these], we say both relatively to one another". "But God was not Giver except from time, although the Holy Spirit is Gift even from eternity."

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. Epist. 15. n. 3; in quo textu pro indicit ed. 2 inducit, originale dicit, sed adiicit particulam in ante tribus personis. Deinde codd. A C D E et ed. 1 cum originali omittunt Nomen hoc post si placet, quae lectio, licet minus clara, fortasse genuina est. Immediate post in originali legitur in eodem sensu verba dissentiunt pro in eodem verbo sensus dissentiunt; haec tamen lectio Magistri omnino praeferenda est.
    Epistle 15, n. 3; in which text edition 2 [reads] inducit in place of indicit, the original [reads] dicit, but adds the particle in before tribus personis ("three persons"). Then codices A, C, D, E and edition 1 with the original omit Nomen hoc ("this name") after si placet ("if it pleases"); this reading, although less clear, is perhaps the genuine one. Immediately after, the original reads in the same sense the words dissentiunt in place of in eodem verbo sensus dissentiunt ("the senses dissent in the same word"); nevertheless the Master's reading is altogether to be preferred.
  2. Respicitur ad II. Cor. 11, 14.
    Reference is made to II Corinthians 11:14.
  3. Solummodo ed. 2 repetuntur, ut cordi nostro tenacius infigantur, scilicet proprietates personarum; in nostro textu haec propositio refertur ad Trinitate sancta.
    Edition 2 alone repeats them, "so that they may be more tenaciously fixed in our heart", namely the properties of the persons; in our text this clause is referred to the holy Trinity.
  4. Cap. 1. n. 6. Sequens locus ibid. c. 2. n. 7.
    Chapter 1, n. 6. The following passage [is] in the same place, c. 2, n. 7.
  5. Excepta ed. 8, aliae edd. et codd. minus b spiratio. Cod. A (in margine ab alia manu) repetit processio. Immediate postea ante nomina adiecimus illa fide omnium codd. et ed. 1.
    Excepting edition 8, the other editions and codices [read with the exception of] b spiratio. Codex A (in the margin, by another hand) repeats processio. Immediately after, before nomina ("names") we have added illa ("those") on the authority of all the codices and edition 1.
  6. Cap. 5. n. 6. — Paulo superius Vat. cum pluribus edd. et codd. DE Unde Augustinus pro Ut enim Augustinus. Post medium textum et post ille semper Vat. cum aliis edd., excepto 1, bis addit est, refragantibus codd. et originali.
    Chapter 5, n. 6. — A little above, the Vatican edition with several other editions and codices D, E [reads] Unde Augustinus ("Whence Augustine") in place of Ut enim Augustinus ("For as Augustine"). After the middle of the text and after ille semper ("he always"), the Vatican with other editions, edition 1 excepted, twice adds est ("is"), against the codices and the original.
  7. Solummodo Vat. cum edd. 4, 6 dixerit.
    The Vatican alone with editions 4, 6 [reads] dixerit.
  8. Num. 23; Magister tamen ordinem propositionum transmutat. — Sequens locus est ibid. n. 15.
    n. 23; the Master however transposes the order of the propositions. — The following passage is in the same place, n. 15.
  9. Psalm. 81, 6. — Paulo superius post dicatur fide omnium codd. et edd. 1, 2, 5 adiecimus esse, et ante secundum illud posuimus contra solam Vat. sint pro fiant.
    Psalm 81:6. — A little above, after dicatur we have added esse on the authority of all codices and editions 1, 2, 5; and before secundum illud we have set, against the Vatican alone, sint in place of fiant.
  10. Exod. 1, 22.
    Exodus 1:22.
  11. A sola Vat. omittitur filii Dei, non inepte legendo fiunt enim, non nascuntur filii Dei. Omnes codd. et aliae edd. addunt saltem filii, codd. DE et ed. 1 filii Dei, quae lectio accuratius sensum exprimit; paulo superius pro sint cod. C et plurimae edd. sunt.
    The Vatican alone omits filii Dei ("sons of God"), not inaptly reading fiunt enim, non nascuntur filii Dei ("for they are made, sons of God are not born"). All the codices and other editions add at least filii, codices D, E and edition 1 [read] filii Dei, which reading more accurately expresses the sense; a little above, in place of sint codex C and most editions [read] sunt.
  12. Num. 12 et 13; in quo textu solummodo edd. 2, 3, 7, 8 post Vero addunt Deo; eaedem et nonnullae aliae edd. qui ex Deo pro qui ex eo. Textus Hilarii omittit vere ante Filius. Fide eiusdem originalis et codd. A B C posuimus meliorem lectionem filii Deo sumus, licet omnes edd. et codd. D E habeant filii Dei sumus. Item correximus paulo inferius filii Deo per pro filii Dei per. Verba aliquando filii iracundiae respiciunt ad Ephes. 2, 3: Et eramus natura filii irae.
    n. 12 and 13; in which text only editions 2, 3, 7, 8 add Deo after Vero; the same and some other editions [read] qui ex Deo in place of qui ex eo. The text of Hilary omits vere ("truly") before Filius. On the authority of the same original and of codices A, B, C we have set the better reading filii Deo sumus ("we are sons to God"), although all editions and codices D, E have filii Dei sumus ("we are sons of God"). Likewise we have corrected a little below filii Deo per in place of filii Dei per. The words aliquando filii iracundiae ("once sons of wrath") refer to Ephesians 2:3: And we were by nature children of wrath.
  13. Haec leguntur ibid. n. 13, sed multis a Magistro omissis vel mutatis.
    These [words] are read at the same place, n. 13, but with many things omitted or changed by the Master.
  14. Cap. VI. n. 12. — Supra Vat. et edd. 1, 4, 6 omittunt et post Patris, sed.
    Chapter VI, n. 12. — Above, the Vatican edition and editions 1, 4, 6 omit et ("and") after Patris, sed ("of the Father, but").
  15. Deut. 6, 4. Vulgata: Audi Israel, Dominus Deus noster Dominus unus est.
    Deuteronomy 6:4. The Vulgate reads: Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord.
  16. Num. 30.
    n. 30.
  17. Num. 11. Locus citatus s. Scripturae est Ioan. 17, 1.
    n. 11. The cited passage of Sacred Scripture is John 17:1.
  18. Solummodo codd. A D addunt Dei; deinde codd. et ed. 1 omittunt est ante filius.
    Codices A, D alone add Dei ("of God"); then the codices and edition 1 omit est ("is") before filius ("son").
  19. Cap. II. n. 12.
    Chapter II, n. 12.
  20. Codd. ABDE et edd. 1, 2, 3, 7 quia. Etiam alibi Magister particula quia utitur pro quod.
    Codices ABDE and editions 1, 2, 3, 7 [read] quia. Elsewhere too the Master uses the particle quia in place of quod.
  21. Codd. D E hic incipiunt d. XXVII.
    Codices D, E here begin distinction XXVII.
  22. Cap. II. n. 12, nonnullis a Magistro mutatis et omissis. — Locus s. Scripturae est Ioan. 4, 24. — Circa finem textus Augustini solummodo Vat. et ed. 4, 5 non dicitur pro non dicetur.
    Chapter II, n. 12, with several things changed and omitted by the Master. — The passage of Sacred Scripture is John 4:24. — Near the end of the Augustine text, the Vatican edition and editions 4, 5 alone [read] non dicitur in place of non dicetur.
Dist. 26, Divisio Textus→