Bonaventure

DISTINCTIO XXXI.

Cap. I

An Filius dicatur aequalis vel similis Patri secundum substantiam.

The numbered footnotes below correspond to markers in both the Latin body above and the English translation. Each entry gives the Quaracchi critical apparatus (Notae ad Libr. Sententiarum, reflowed from the two-column footnote bands on printed pp. 529–532; per-page distribution 5 / 6 / 7 / 3 = 21 entries total, including the three notes printed at the foot of p. 532 which continue the Hilarius-notulae apparatus deferred from the p1-divisio chunk) in Latin, followed by an English rendering.

Praeterea considerari oportet, cum tres personae coaequales sibi sint, utrum relative hoc dicatur, an secundum substantiam; et si relative, utrum secundum relationem, an secundum essentiam consideranda sit aequalitas; deinde, quid sit ipsa aequalitas. — Ad quod dicimus, quia, sicut simile nihil sibi est; «similitudo enim, ut ait Hilarius¹, sibi ipsi non est»; ita et aequale aliquid sibi non dicitur, ac per hoc, sicut simile, ita et aequale relative dicitur. Dicitur ergo relative Filius aequalis Patri et utrique Spiritus sanctus. — Est tamen aequalis Patri Filius et utrique Spiritus sanctus propter summam simplicitatem essentiae et unitatem. Aequalis est ergo Filius Patri secundum substantiam, non secundum relationem. Unde Augustinus in quinto libro de Trinitate² ait: «Quaerimus, secundum quid aequalis sit Patri Filius. Non secundum hoc, quod ad Patrem dicitur, Filius aequalis est Patri; restat ergo, ut secundum id aequalis sit, quod ad se dicitur. Quidquid autem ad se dicitur, secundum substantiam dicitur. Restat ergo, ut secundum substantiam sit aequalis. Eadem est igitur utriusque substantia». Item in sexto libro³: «Satis est videre, nullo modo Filium aequalem esse Patri, si in aliquo, scilicet quod pertineat ad significandam eius substantiam, inaequalis invenitur. In omnibus ergo aequalis est Patri Filius et est eiusdem substantiae». «Aequalis est etiam Spiritus sanctus Patri et Filio et in omnibus aequalis propter summam simplicitatem illius substantiae». Ex his perspicuum fit, quod secundum substantiam Filius est aequalis Patri et utrique Spiritus sanctus, et appellatio tantum relativa est. — Aequalitas ergo Patris et Filii non est relatio vel notio, sed propter naturae unitatem indisparitas⁴.

Hoc idem etiam dicimus de simili et similitudine. Cum enim dicitur Filius similis Patri, relative quidem dicitur, sed similis est Patri propter unitatem essentiae. Est ergo appellatio tantum relativa, similitudo vero «indifferens essentia⁵». Unde quibusdam non indocte videtur, nomine aequalitatis vel similitudinis non aliquid poni, sed removeri, ut ea ratione dicatur Filius aequalis Patri, quia nec maior est eo nec minor, et hoc propter unitatem essentiae. Ita et similis dicitur, quia nec diversus nec alienus nec in aliquo dissimilis, et hoc propter essentiae simplicitatem. Non ergo secundum quod Filius est genitus a Patre, aequalis vel inaequalis est Patri, nec similis vel dissimilis, sed aequalis et similis secundum substantiam.

Cap. II

Sententia sancti Hilarii, qua in Trinitate personarum propria ostendit.

Non est hic praetermittendum, quod illustris vir Hilarius proprietates personarum assignans dicit⁶ aeternitatem esse in Patre, speciem in Imagine, usum in Munere. Quae tantae difficultatis sunt verba, ut in eorum intelligentia atque explanatione vehementer laboraverit Augustinus, ut ipse ostendit in sexto libro de Trinitate⁷ ita dicens: «Quidam, cum vellet brevissime singularum in Trinitate personarum insinuare propria, aeternitas est, inquit, in Patre, species in Imagine,

usus in Munere. Et quia non mediocris auctoritatis in tractatione Scripturarum et assertione fidei vir extitit — Hilarius enim hoc in libris suis posuit — horum verborum, id est Patris et Imaginis et Muneris, aeternitatis, speciei et usus, abditam scrutatus intelligentiam, quantum valeo, non eum secutum arbitror in aeternitatis vocabulo, nisi quod Pater non habet patrem, de quo sit; Filius autem de Patre est, ut sit atque ut illi coaeternus sit. Imago enim, si perfecte implet illud cuius imago est, ipsa coaequatur ei, non illud imagini suae; in qua imagine Speciem nominavit, credo, propter pulchritudinem, ubi est tanta congruentia et prima aequalitas et prima similitudo, nulla in re dissidens et nullo modo inaequalis et nulla ex parte dissimilis, sed ad identitatem respondens ei cuius imago est; ubi est prima et summa vita, cui non est aliud vivere et aliud esse, sed idem; et primus ac summus intellectus, cui non est aliud vivere et aliud intelligere, sed idem, hoc est unum, tanquam verbum perfectum cui non desit aliquid, et ars quaedam omnipotentis et sapientis Dei plena omnium rationum viventium incommutabilium, et omnes unum in ea, sicut ipsa unum de uno, cum quo unum; ibi novit omnia Deus, quae fecit per ipsam».

Notula. Hilarius in libro de Synodis⁸: «Imago eius, ad quem imaginatur, species indifferens est. Neque enim ipse sibi quisquam imago est; sed eum cuius imago est, necesse est ut imago demonstret. Imago ergo est rei ad rem coaequandam et imaginata et indiscreta similitudo. Est ergo Pater, est etiam Filius, quia imago Patris est Filius; et quia imago est, ut rei imago sit, speciem necesse est et naturam et essentiam, secundum quod imago est, in se habeat auctoris».

«Est autem ineffabilis quidam complexus Patris et Imaginis, qui non est sine perfruitione, sine caritate, sine gaudio. Illa ergo dilectio, delectatio, felicitas vel beatitudo — si tamen aliqua humana voce digne dicitur — usus ab illo appellata est breviter, et est in Trinitate Spiritus sanctus non genitus, sed genitoris genitique suavitas, ingenti largitate atque ubertate perfundens omnes creaturas pro captu earum. Itaque illa tria et a se invicem determinari videntur, et in se infinita sunt. Qui videt hoc vel ex parte vel per speculum et in aenigmate⁹, gaudeat cognoscens Deum et gratias agat. Qui vero non videt, tendat per pietatem ad videndum, non per caecitatem ad calumniandum, quoniam unus est Deus, sed tamen Trinitas¹⁰». — Ecce habes, qualiter verba Hilarii praemissa accipienda sint, licet tantae sint profunditatis, ut etiam adhibita expositione, vix aliquatenus ea intelligere valeat humanus sensus, cum et ipsa eorum explanatio, quam hic Augustinus edidit, plurimum in se habeat difficultatis et ambiguitatis.

Diluuntur tres proprietates a Hilario assignatae. Non enim secundum praemissam expositionem distinguuntur hic tres illae proprietates superius assignatae, sed ipsae hypostases distinctae ab invicem monstrantur. Aeternitatis tamen nomine eadem videtur designata proprietas, quam notat hoc nomen ingenitus. — Sed videamus, quid sit quod ait: «Imago si perfecte implet illud cuius imago est, ipsa coaequatur ei, non illud imagini suae». Videtur enim dicere, quod Filius, qui est imago Patris, coaequatur Patri, non Pater Filio, cum et Filius dicatur aequalis Patri in Scriptura, et Pater Filio; sed Filius hoc habet a Patre, ut sit ei aequalis, Pater autem non habet a Filio, et tamen Filius plene ac perfecte aequalis est Patri, id est imago ei cuius est imago.

Propria ergo personarum in praedictis verbis assignasse dicitur Hilarius, quia relativa nomina personarum posuit, scilicet patris¹¹, imaginis et muneris, quae relative dicuntur de personis et proprietates notant quibus distinguuntur personae. — Ita enim dicitur Spiritus sanctus munus relative, sicut donum. Verumtamen ipsas proprietates aliis tribus nominibus non significavit, iuxta praedictam Augustini expositionem, nisi solo nomine aeternitatis, quo non ipsam paternitatem, sed eam voluit intelligi notionem, qua dicitur ingenitus.

Similiter Augustinus tres in Trinitate personas distinguit per tria nomina. Illud etiam sciri oportet, quod earundem trium personarum distinctionem Augustinus ostendere volens sine expressione illarum trium proprietatum superius commemoratarum, in primo libro de Doctrina christiana¹² sic ait: «In Patre est unitas, in Filio aequalitas, in Spiritu sancto unitatis aequalitatisque concordia: et tria haec unum omnia propter Patrem, aequalia omnia propter Filium, connexa omnia propter Spiritum sanctum. Itaque Pater et Filius et Spiritus sanctus et singulus quisque horum Deus est, et simul omnes unus Deus, et singulus quisque horum plena substantia est, et simul omnes una substantia. Pater nec Filius est nec Spiritus sanctus; Filius nec Pater est nec Spiritus sanctus; Spiritus sanctus nec Pater est nec Filius, sed Pater tantum pater, et Filius tantum filius, et Spiritus sanctus tantum spiritus sanctus. Eadem tribus aeternitas, eadem incommutabilitas, eadem maiestas, eadem potestas». — In his verbis aperte insinuatur personarum trium distinctio.

Cap. III

Quare Patri attribuitur unitas.

Sed plurimos movet, quod Patri attribuit unitatem, Filio aequalitatem. Cum enim unitas dicatur secundum substantiam, non tantum in Patre est, sed etiam in Filio et in Spiritu sancto; et aequalitas una

Pars II.

est Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti. Cur ergo Patri attribuitur unitas et Filio aequalitas? Forte eadem ratione attribuitur Patri unitas secundum Augustinum, qua supra eidem aeternitas secundum Hilarium: quia videlicet Pater ita est, ut ab alio non sit, et quia Filium genuit unum secum Deum, et Spiritus sanctus ab eo procedit unus cum eo Deus. Unitas ergo in Patre esse dicitur, quia nec est aliquid aliud, a quo sit — non enim ab alio est — nec ab eo aliquid vel aliquis est ab aeterno, quod unum cum eo non sit; Filius enim et Spiritus sanctus unum sunt cum Patre. Unde Veritas ait: Ego et Pater unum sumus¹³.

Notula ad textum. Hilarius in libro de Synodis¹⁴: «Si quis innascibilem et sine initio dicat Filium, quasi duo sine principio et duo innascibilia et duo innata dicens duos faciat deos: anathema sit. Caput enim, quod est principium omnium, Filius; caput autem, quod est principium Christi, Deus. Sic enim ad unum inintiabile omnium initium per Filium universa referimus. Filium innascibilem confiteri, impiissimum est. Iam enim non erit Deus unus, quia Deum unum praedicari, natura unius innascibilis Dei exigit. Cum ergo Deus unus sit, duo innascibiles esse non possunt; cum idcirco Deus unus sit — cum Pater Deus sit, et Filius Dei Deus sit — quia innascibilitas sola penes unum sit. Filius autem idcirco Deus, quia ex innascibili essentia natus existat. Respuit ergo innascibilem Filium praedicari fides sancta, ut per unum innascibilem Deum unum Deum praedicet, naturam ut unigenitam, ex innascibili genitam essentia, in uno innascibilis Dei nomine complectatur. Caput enim omnium Filius est, sed caput Filii Deus est, et ad unum Deum omnia hoc gradu et hac confessione referuntur, cum ab eo sumant universa principium, cui ipse principium sit». Idem in eodem: «Omnibus creaturis substantiam voluntas Dei attulit, sed naturam dedit Filio ex innascibili ac non nata substantia perfecta nativitas. Talia enim cuncta creata sunt, qualia Deus esse voluit. Filius autem natus ex Deo subsistit talis, qualis Deus est, nec dissimilem sui edidit natura naturam; sed ex substantia Dei genitus naturae secundum originem attulit essentiam, non secundum creaturam voluntatis essentiam».

Cap. IV

Quare Pater et Filius dicantur esse unum vel unus Deus, sed non unus.

Hic dici oportet, quod Pater et Filius et Spiritus sanctus recte dicuntur esse unum et unus Deus, sed non unus. Res enim duae vel plures recte possunt dici unum esse, si sint unius essentiae, et earum una sit natura. Unus autem vel una non potest dici de diversis rebus, nisi addatur, quid unus vel una; quo addito, recte potest dici de rebus et unius et diversae substantiae. Unde Augustinus in sexto libro de Trinitate capitulo tertio¹⁵ ait sic: «Nescio, utrum inveniatur in Scripturis Aliqua unum sunt, quorum est diversa natura. Si autem et aliqua plura sint eiusdem naturae et diversa sentiant, non sunt unum, in quantum diversa sentiunt. Cum ergo sic dicitur unum, ut non addatur, quid unum, et plura unum dicuntur; eadem natura atque essentia, non dissidens neque dissentiens significatur». «Unde Paulus et Apollo, qui et ambo homines erant et idem sentiebant, unum esse dicuntur, cum dicitur: Qui plantat et qui rigat unum sunt¹⁶. Cum vero additur, quid unum, potest significari aliquid ex pluribus unum factum, quamvis diversa natura: sicut anima et corpus non possunt utique dici unum — quid enim tam diversum? — nisi addatur vel subintelligatur, quid unum, id est unus homo. Unde Apostolus: Qui adhaeret, inquit, Domino, unus spiritus est. Non dixit: unus est, vel unum sunt, sed addidit spiritus. Diversi sunt enim natura spiritus hominis et spiritus Dei, sed inhaerendo fit spiritus hominis unus spiritus cum Deo», quia particeps fit veritatis et beatitudinis illius. Si ergo de his quae diversae substantiae sunt, recte dicitur, quod sint unus spiritus, quanto magis qui unius substantiae sunt recte dicuntur unus Deus esse? «Pater ergo et Filius unum sunt, utique secundum unitatem substantiae et unus Deus». In quo et Ariana haeresis damnatur, quae Patrem et Filium et Spiritum sanctum, ut ait Augustinus in libro de Haeresibus¹⁷, non vult esse unius eiusdemque substantiae atque naturae vel, ut expressius dicatur, essentiae, quae Graece dicitur usia, sed Filium esse creaturam. Nec non et Sabelliana, quae, ut ait Augustinus in eodem libro, dicebat, Christum eundem ipsum et Patrem et Spiritum sanctum esse, ut esset trinitas nominum sine subsistentia personarum. «Utramque pestem, ut ait Augustinus super Ioannem¹⁸, elidit Veritas dicens: Ego et Pater unum sumus. Utrumque audi et adverte et unum, et sumus, et a Charybdi et a Scylla liberaberis. Quod enim dixit unum, liberat te ab Ario; quod dixit sumus, liberat te a Sabellio. Si unum: ergo non diversum; si sumus: ergo Pater et Filius. Sumus enim non diceret de uno, nec unum de diverso. Erubescant ergo Sabelliani, qui dicunt, ipsum esse Patrem, qui¹⁹ est Filius, confundentes personas, qui et dicti sunt Patripassiani, qui dicunt, Patrem fuisse passum. Ariani vero dicunt, aliud Patrem esse, aliud Filium, non unam substantiam, sed duas; Patrem maiorem, Filium minorem. Noli hoc dicere, tu catholice! In medio ergo naviga, utrumque periculosum latus devita, et dic: Pater pater est, et Filius filius est: alius Pater, alius Filius, sed non aliud, immo hoc ipsum, quia unus Deus». — Ecce ostensum est, quare unitas in Patre esse dicatur, cum tres illi unum sint.

Notula. Hilarius in libro de Synodis²⁰: «Melius forte expresse videtur de innascente similitudine Patris et Filii fides locuta esse, cum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu sancto ita senserit significatam in nominibus propriam uniuscuiusque nominatorum substantiam et ordinem et gloriam, ut sint quidem per substantiam tria, per consonantiam vero unum. Volens igitur congregata sanctorum Synodus impietatem eam perimere, quae unitatem Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti nominum numero eluderet, ut, non subsistente causa uniuscuiusque nominis, triplex nuncupatio obtineret sub falsitate nominum unionem, et Pater solus atque unus idem et ipse haberet et Spiritus sancti nomen et Filii. Idcirco tres substantias esse dixerunt, subsistentium personas per substantias edocentes, non substantiam Patris et Filii diversitate dissimilis essentiae separantes. Quod autem dictum est, ut sint quidem per substantiam tria, per consonantiam vero unum, non habet calumniam; quia connominato Spiritu, id est Paracleto, consonantiae potius quam essentiae per similitudinem substantiae praedicari convenit unitatem». Item in eodem: «Cum Deum Patrem confitemur, et Christum Dei Filium praedicamus, et inter haec duum deorum sit irreligiosa confessio; non possunt secundum naturae indifferentiam et nomen indifferens non unum esse in essentiae genere, quorum essentiae nomen non licet esse nisi unum». «Non enim religiosa unitas nominis ex indifferentis naturae essentia constituta personam genitae ademit essentiae, ut unica ac singularis Dei substantia per unionem nominis intelligatur, cum utriusque essentiae nomen unum, id est unus Deus, ob indiscretae in utroque naturae indissimilem substantiam praedicetur».

Cap. V

Quare dicatur esse aequalitas in Filio.

Nunc videamus, quare aequalitas dicatur esse in Filio, cum una et summa aequalitas sit trium. Hoc ideo forte dictum est, quia Filius genitus est a Patre aequalis Gignenti et Dono, quod ab utroque procedit, et ideo illa tria dicuntur esse aequalia propter Filium. Filius enim habet a Patre, ut sit ei aequalis et Spiritui sancto; et Spiritus sanctus ab utroque habet, ut sit aequalis utrique. Hoc autem sine assertionis supercilio et maioris intelligentiae praeiudicio dicimus, malentes in apertione tam clausorum sermonum peritiores audire quam aliquid aliis influere.

Cap. VI

Quare in Spiritu sancto dicitur esse concordia vel connexio.

Quod autem in Spiritu sancto dicitur esse utriusque concordia et per eum omnia connexa, facilior est intelligentia nobis praemissa ad mentem revocantibus. Supra enim secundum auctoritates Sanctorum dictum est, quod Spiritus sanctus amor est, quo Pater diligit Filium, et Filius Patrem. Recte igitur Spiritus sanctus dicitur connexio vel concordia Patris et Filii, et per eum omnia connexa. Unde Augustinus in sexto libro de Trinitate²¹: «Communio quaedam consubstantialis Patris et Filii est amborum Spiritus sanctus». Idem in septimo libro de Trinitate: «Spiritus sanctus est summa caritas, utrumque coniungens nosque subiungens».

---

DISTINCTION XXXI.

Chapter I

Whether the Son is said to be equal or like the Father according to substance.

It must furthermore be considered, since the three persons are co-equal to one another, whether this is said relatively or according to substance; and if relatively, whether equality is to be considered according to relation or according to essence; and finally, what equality itself is. — To which we say that, just as nothing is like itself — "for likeness," as Hilary says¹, "is not to itself" — so neither is anything called equal to itself; and accordingly, just like like, so also equal is said relatively. Therefore the Son is said relatively to be equal to the Father, and the Holy Spirit equal to both. — Yet the Son is equal to the Father, and the Holy Spirit equal to both, on account of the supreme simplicity and unity of the essence. The Son is therefore equal to the Father according to substance, not according to relation. Whence Augustine in the fifth book On the Trinity² says: "We ask, according to what the Son is equal to the Father. Not according to that which is said in relation to the Father is the Son equal to the Father; it remains, therefore, that He is equal according to that which is said in relation to Himself. But whatever is said in relation to itself is said according to substance. It remains therefore that He is equal according to substance. The substance of both is therefore the same." Likewise in the sixth book³: "It is enough to see that the Son is in no way equal to the Father, if in any respect — namely in what pertains to signifying His substance — He be found unequal. In all things therefore the Son is equal to the Father and is of the same substance." "The Holy Spirit also is equal to the Father and to the Son, and equal in all things on account of the supreme simplicity of that substance." From these things it is clear that according to substance the Son is equal to the Father, and the Holy Spirit equal to both, and the appellation only is relative. — The equality therefore of Father and Son is not a relation or notion, but on account of the unity of nature is non-disparity⁴.

We say the same thing also of like and likeness. For when the Son is said to be like the Father, it is indeed said relatively, but He is like the Father on account of the unity of essence. There is therefore an appellation that is only relative, but the likeness is "an essence not differing⁵." Whence to certain men it seems, not unlearnedly, that by the name of equality or likeness nothing is posited but [something] is removed, so that for this reason the Son is called equal to the Father — because He is neither greater than He nor less, and this on account of the unity of essence. So also He is called like, because He is neither different nor alien nor in anything dissimilar, and this on account of the simplicity of essence. Therefore not according to that the Son is begotten by the Father is He equal or unequal to the Father, nor like or unlike, but equal and like according to substance.

Chapter II

Hilary's statement, in which he sets forth the proper attributes of the persons in the Trinity.

It must not here be passed over that the illustrious man Hilary, assigning the proper attributes of the persons, says⁶ that eternity is in the Father, species in the Image, use in the Gift. These are words of such great difficulty that Augustine labored mightily over their understanding and explanation, as he himself shows in the sixth book On the Trinity⁷, speaking thus: "When a certain man wished most briefly to suggest the proper attributes of the individual persons in the Trinity, eternity, he says, is in the Father, species in the Image,

use in the Gift. And since he was a man of no mediocre authority in the treatment of the Scriptures and the assertion of the faith — for Hilary set this down in his books — having scrutinized as best I can the hidden meaning of these words — that is, of Father and Image and Gift, of eternity, species and use — I do not think he meant by the term eternity anything other than that the Father has no father from whom He should come; whereas the Son is from the Father, that He may be and that He may be co-eternal to Him. For an Image, if it perfectly fills out that of which it is the image, is itself made equal to it, and not the other to its image; and in this image he named Species, I believe, on account of beauty, where there is so great a congruence and the first equality and the first likeness, in nothing dissenting and in no way unequal and in no part dissimilar, but answering to identity with that of which it is the image; where there is the first and supreme life, in which to live and to be are not different but the same; and the first and supreme intellect, in which to live and to understand are not different but the same — that is, one — as it were a perfect Word in which nothing is lacking, and a certain art of the omnipotent and wise God, full of all the unchangeable living rationes, and all things one in it, just as it itself is one from one with whom it is one; there God knows all things which He has made through it."

Notula. Hilary in the book On the Synods⁸: "An image of that of which it is imaged is a species not differing. For no one is an image to himself; but the image must show forth Him whose image it is. An image therefore is the imaged and undivided likeness of one thing made equal to another. There is therefore the Father, there is also the Son, because the Son is the image of the Father; and because He is image — that He may be the image of the thing — He must necessarily have in Himself the species and the nature and the essence of His author, in respect of which He is image."

"There is, moreover, a certain ineffable embrace of the Father and the Image, which is not without enjoyment, without charity, without joy. That love, then, that delight, that felicity or beatitude — if it can worthily be expressed by any human voice — was briefly called use by him, and is in the Trinity the Holy Spirit, not begotten, but the sweetness of begetter and begotten, with vast bounty and richness pouring Himself upon all creatures according to their capacity. Therefore those three both seem to be limited in regard to one another, and are in themselves infinite. He who sees this either in part or through a glass and in a riddle⁹, let him rejoice that he knows God and give thanks. But he who does not see, let him strive through piety to see, not through blindness to slander, since God is one, yet is the Trinity¹⁰." — Behold, you have how Hilary's words quoted above are to be taken, although they are of such depth that, even with the explanation applied, the human sense can scarcely understand them at all, since the very explanation of them which Augustine here published has in itself much of difficulty and ambiguity.

The three properties assigned by Hilary are explained. For according to the foregoing exposition the three properties assigned above are not here distinguished, but the hypostases themselves are shown to be distinguished from one another. By the name of eternity, however, the same property seems to be designated which is noted by this name unbegotten. — But let us see what he means when he says: "An Image, if it perfectly fills out that of which it is the image, is itself made equal to it, and not the other to its image." For he seems to say that the Son, who is the image of the Father, is made equal to the Father, but not the Father to the Son, although the Son is said in Scripture to be equal to the Father, and the Father to the Son; but the Son has from the Father that He should be equal to Him, while the Father does not have it from the Son, and yet the Son is fully and perfectly equal to the Father, that is, an image to Him whose image He is.

Hilary therefore is said to have assigned the proper attributes of the persons in the aforesaid words, since he placed the relative names of the persons, namely father¹¹, image and gift, which are said relatively of the persons and note the properties by which the persons are distinguished. — For thus the Holy Spirit is called gift relatively, just as donation. Yet he did not signify the properties themselves by those other three names, according to the aforesaid exposition of Augustine, except by the single name of eternity — by which he wished to be understood not paternity itself, but that notion by which He is called unbegotten.

Likewise Augustine distinguishes the three persons in the Trinity by three names. This too must be known, that Augustine, wishing to show the distinction of the same three persons without expressing those three properties mentioned above, in the first book On Christian Doctrine¹² speaks thus: "In the Father is unity, in the Son equality, in the Holy Spirit the concord of unity and equality: and these three are all one on account of the Father, all equal on account of the Son, all connected on account of the Holy Spirit. So therefore the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit and each one of them is God, and at the same time all are one God; and each one of them is full substance, and at the same time all are one substance. The Father is neither the Son nor the Holy Spirit; the Son is neither the Father nor the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit is neither the Father nor the Son; but the Father is only father, and the Son is only son, and the Holy Spirit is only holy spirit. The same eternity belongs to the three, the same unchangeableness, the same majesty, the same power." — In these words the distinction of the three persons is plainly suggested.

Chapter III

Why unity is attributed to the Father.

But it troubles many that he attributes unity to the Father, equality to the Son. For since unity is said according to substance, it is not only in the Father but also in the Son and in the Holy Spirit; and there is one equality

Pars II.

of Father and of Son and of Holy Spirit. Why then is unity attributed to the Father and equality to the Son? Perhaps for the same reason that, according to Augustine, unity is attributed to the Father by which, according to Hilary, eternity was attributed to Him above: namely, because the Father is such that He is from no other, and because He has begotten the Son as one God with Himself, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from Him as one God with Him. Therefore unity is said to be in the Father, because there is nothing else from which He is — for He is not from another — nor anything or anyone from Him from eternity which is not one with Him; for the Son and the Holy Spirit are one with the Father. Whence Truth says: I and the Father are one¹³.

A note on the text. Hilary in the book On the Synods¹⁴: "If anyone should say the Son is unbegotten and without beginning, as though saying that there were two without principle and two unbegottens and two unborn ones, he would make two gods: let him be anathema. For the head, which is the principle of all things, is the Son; but the head, which is the principle of Christ, is God. For thus to one un-initiate principle of all we refer all things through the Son. To confess the Son unbegotten is most impious. For God will no longer be one, since to declare one God demands the nature of one unbegotten God. Since therefore God is one, there cannot be two unbegottens; since for this reason God is one — since the Father is God, and the Son of God is God — because unbegottenness alone resides in one. The Son, however, [is] God for this reason, because He exists begotten from unbegotten essence. The holy faith therefore rejects that the Son be declared unbegotten, that through one unbegotten God it may declare one God, that it may embrace the only-begotten nature, begotten from unbegotten essence, in the one name of unbegotten God. For the head of all is the Son, but the head of the Son is God; and to one God all things are referred by this gradation and confession, since from Him all things derive their principle, to whom He Himself is principle." The same in the same: "To all creatures the will of God brought substance, but to the Son a perfect nativity gave nature from unbegotten and unborn substance. For all things have been created such as God willed them to be. But the Son, born of God, subsists such as God is, and did not bring forth a nature dissimilar to His own; but, begotten from the substance of God, brought essence according to nature by origin, not essence according to a creature of will."

Chapter IV

Why the Father and the Son are said to be one [thing] or one God, but not one [person].

Here it must be said that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are rightly said to be one and one God, but not one [masculine, sc. one person]. For two or more things can rightly be said to be one, if they are of one essence, and there is one nature of them. But one (masculine or feminine) cannot be said of diverse things unless there be added what they are one [as]; once that is added, it can rightly be said of things both of one and of diverse substance. Whence Augustine in the sixth book On the Trinity chapter three¹⁵ speaks thus: "I do not know whether it is found in the Scriptures, Some are one, when their nature is diverse. But if any several things are of the same nature and have diverse opinions, they are not one in so far as they have diverse opinions. When therefore one is said in such a way that it is not added, one as what, then several things are also called one; the same nature and essence, not dissenting nor disagreeing, is signified." "Whence Paul and Apollos, who were both men and held the same opinion, are said to be one, when it is said: He who plants and he who waters are one¹⁶. But when it is added what they are one [as], something can be signified that is made one out of many, although of diverse nature: as soul and body certainly cannot be called one — for what is so diverse? — unless it be added or understood, one as what, that is, one man. Whence the Apostle: He who clings, he says, to the Lord, is one spirit. He did not say: he is one [masculine], or they are one [thing], but he added spirit. For diverse in nature are the spirit of man and the spirit of God, but by clinging the spirit of man becomes one spirit with God," because he becomes a partaker of His truth and beatitude. If then of those things which are of diverse substance it is rightly said that they are one spirit, how much more are those who are of one substance rightly said to be one God? "The Father therefore and the Son are one, namely according to the unity of substance and one God." In which also the Arian heresy is condemned, which holds that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, as Augustine says in the book On Heresies¹⁷, are not of one and the same substance and nature — or, to speak more expressly, essence, which in Greek is called ousia — but [holds] that the Son is a creature. So too the Sabellian, which, as Augustine says in the same book, said that Christ Himself was both the Father and the Holy Spirit, so that there was a trinity of names without subsistence of persons. "Both pestilences, as Augustine says On John¹⁸, the Truth crushes when He says: I and the Father are one. Hear both, attend, both one and we are, and you will be freed from both Charybdis and Scylla. For what He said, one, frees you from Arius; what He said, we are, frees you from Sabellius. If one: therefore not diverse; if we are: therefore Father and Son. For He would not say we are of one, nor one of diverse [things]. Let the Sabellians therefore be ashamed, who say that He is the Father who¹⁹ is the Son, confounding the persons — who are also called Patripassians, who say that the Father suffered. The Arians, on the other hand, say that the Father is one thing, the Son another, [that they are] not one substance but two; the Father greater, the Son lesser. Do not say this, you Catholic! Sail therefore in the middle, avoid each dangerous side, and say: The Father is father, and the Son is son: another [is] the Father, another the Son, but not another [thing], rather the same very thing, because [there is] one God." — Behold, it has been shown why unity is said to be in the Father, since those three are one.

Notula. Hilary in the book On the Synods²⁰: "Better, perhaps, the faith seems to have spoken expressly of the inhering likeness of the Father and the Son, when concerning the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit it so understood that there was signified in the names the proper substance and order and glory of each one of those named, so that they are indeed three by substance, but one by consonance. The assembled synod of the saints therefore, willing to destroy that impiety which would dissolve the unity of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit by the number of names — so that, with no cause for each name subsisting, a triple appellation might obtain a union of names under the falsity of the names, and the Father alone, being one and the same, would have both the name of the Holy Spirit and of the Son — therefore declared that there are three substances, teaching the persons of the subsisting [ones] through substances, not separating the substance of the Father and the Son by the diversity of a dissimilar essence. But what was said, that they are indeed three by substance, but one by consonance, has nothing to be slandered; because, the Spirit, that is the Paraclete, being co-named, it is fitting that unity be predicated rather by consonance than by essence through likeness of substance." Likewise in the same: "When we confess God the Father, and proclaim Christ the Son of God, and yet between these the confession of two gods would be irreligious; they cannot, according to the indifference of nature and the indifferent name, not be one in the genus of essence, of which the name of essence cannot be other than one." "For the religious unity of the name, established from the essence of an undifferentiated nature, did not take away the person of the begotten essence, so that the unique and singular substance of God might be understood through the union of the name, since the name of the essence of both — that is, one God — is predicated on account of the un-dissimilar substance of the un-discernible nature in each."

Chapter V

Why equality is said to be in the Son.

Now let us see why equality is said to be in the Son, although there is one and supreme equality of the three. Perhaps this was said because the Son is begotten by the Father equal to the Begetter and to the Gift, who proceeds from both, and therefore those three are said to be equal on account of the Son. For the Son has from the Father that He should be equal to Him and to the Holy Spirit; and the Holy Spirit has from both that He should be equal to both. We say this without the haughtiness of assertion and without prejudice to a greater understanding, preferring in the opening of such hidden discourses to hear those more skilled rather than to pour anything upon others.

Chapter VI

Why concord or connection is said to be in the Holy Spirit.

That in the Holy Spirit there is said to be the concord of both, and through Him all things are connected, is easier of understanding for us when we recall to mind what has been said before. For above, according to the authorities of the Saints, it has been said that the Holy Spirit is the love by which the Father loves the Son, and the Son the Father. Rightly therefore the Holy Spirit is called the connection or concord of the Father and the Son, and through Him all things are connected. Whence Augustine in the sixth book On the Trinity²¹: "A certain consubstantial communion of the Father and the Son is the Holy Spirit of both." The same in the seventh book On the Trinity: "The Holy Spirit is the supreme charity, joining each [of the two] together and joining us to them."

---